Jesse Helms died

[Alecto]

Among the folks who bring out my most not-so-nonviolent attributes, I don't suppose I have much else to say about him. Here's a link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/ap_on_re_us/obit_helms.

[Matt Algren]

Among the folks who bring out my most not-so-nonviolent attributes, I don't suppose I have much else to say about him. Here's a link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/ap_on_re_us/obit_helms.
So did Bozo the Clown. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/ap_on_en_tv/obit_harmon_19)

Out of respect for Bozo the Clown, I shall not make the obvious comparison.

[Daniel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/politics/00helms.html?hp



Jesse Helms Dies at 86; Conservative Force in the Senate

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: July 5, 2008
Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator with the courtly manner and mossy drawl who turned his hard-edged conservatism against civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday. He was 86.

Maybe it is because there is sad and beautiful American music on the classical radio station as I write on this 4th of July, but I can only find sadness in the story of Helms death.

There is a line in the film The Lord of the Rings where one character says that even the smallest person can make a difference.

Helm's bigotry seems small to me: smallness of heart, smallness of vision, smallness of life-giving warmth. His life seemed to be about what he stood against, not what he stood for.

He opposed civil rights for African Americans, Gay persons and many other Americans.

That someone who lived in such mind-numbingly ignorance could wield such power and harm so many....well...that says everything that I think needs to be said.

It's a sad day. Some may dance with joy that one of the chief obstacles gay liberation is dead, but I will not be joining them in their dance. Instead, I will be thinking of those who have been harmed by his actions and inaction, as well as observing that any of us can make a huge difference- the only thing stopping us is the certainty of our convictions. And Helms certainly had strong convictions.

Believe it or not, I think that is something to learn from.

I also read from the Times obit that Helms and his wife adopted a child who yearned for a home. What does that tell me? That he wasn't totally blind, his Christ-like or Buddha-nature could peek out from time to time.

As the Buddhist's would say- we all have it- that inner luminous nature. Even Helms.

Fancy that.

[Rick336]

Jesse Helms wanted America to be like Mayberry; the sleepy little town between Raleigh and Mt. Pilot.

For Jesse, Mayberry was the perfect American town where problems were no worse than a batch of bad pickles or the antics of a scatterbrain deputy.

But if one looks at a map of North Carolina they will never locate Mayberry. It only exists in the black and white re-runs created forty years ago by actors on a television back lot in California. Mayberry is a delusion in the minds of millions of Americans like Jesse Helms. To them it's the perfect dream because it excludes all the cultures and people who are different from them. There's no Jews, no African Americans, no Mexican Americans, no feminists, no gays, no one to upset the happy lives of white, straight, God-fearing Christian Americans going about their daily lives. There's no worry about diversity because everybody is the same.

But America will never be like Mayberry or Little House on the Prairie or even Will and Grace because those are only TV shows created for our entertainment and have little to do with reality.

Besides, what Jesse and his supporters never understood was that if America was like Mayberry, Jesse would be tossed out like a batch of bad pickles, because that old boy was the sourest pickle of them all.

Rick

[Emproph]

Among the folks who bring out my most not-so-nonviolent attributes, I don't suppose I have much else to say about him.

Believe it or not, I think that is something to learn from.

[...]

As the Buddhist's would say- we all have it- that inner luminous nature. Even Helms..

As much as I’d love to dance on his grave right now (or anyone else’s like his, for that matter), Pam Spaulding had some words worth noting (http://pamshouseblend.com/showComment.do?commentId=68051). Not necessarily gracious toward him, but insightful of the situation - in a way that was satisfying for both perspective-parties.

Helms's death provides an opportunity, if the MSM chose to do so, to show how far this country (and of course NC) has come since his reign of legislative terror when it comes to race relations and gay rights.
Essentially, because he was so overtly biased, any MSM accolades in regard to his career are up for dispute.

ie; opportunity for interaction -- with the Main Stream Media (MSM), and with those who cite them.
--
So, since James Dobson is still a living fan of Jesse Helms (http://www.policycounsel.org/18856/37801.html)...
The man who has probably fought more for the things we believe in than anybody in Congress is Jesse Helms…
...I think we should also take this opportunity to recognize that our non-violent “fight” is truly with the media. (as cliché as I know that sounds)
--
And further, what Daniel said reminds me of the adage that all the old people have to die off in order for change to take place.

For what it's worth, I can see myself becoming more habituated, and routined, and often times bitter for the increasing need to acclimate to changes / make increasingly more decisions. So sometimes it’s possible for me to view Helms and Dobson (and ilk) in that same light.
--
MSM. That’s our real nemesis. They still consider the fans of Helms to be legitimate sources. Known intentional-liar Tony Perkins of the FRC (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,017.htm) is a regular on MSNBC and CNN for the conservative Christian perspective.

It needs to be made known that having a proven liar on your show is JUST as unacceptable as having a known racist on.

[Daniel]

As I was talking about this with my husband, who observered that, yeah, it was great that Helms adopted a child. But did he teach that child to be a bigot like him?

As is said in the musical, Into the Woods, Children will Listen.

God bless that child.

saOVUX6iiRM


Pratrick- Thanks for Pam. Point well taken. The talking heads do seem to keep matters obscured, don't they? Again, please will listen, but the times it's not children, who don't question what they hear.

I think you are exactly right. The upshot of which is that we need more eloquent speakers on our behalf appearing on the shows you mention. Wonder if theyd be invited. Perhaps not. That's part of it too: keeping the real news out of the picture.

[keltic63]

i was not aware of this (speaking of how the media sometimes hides stories) but I find it funny and symbolic.....

bngtgTwvKcE&hl

[inca nitta]

i was not aware of this (speaking of how the media sometimes hides stories) but I find it funny and symbolic.....

bngtgTwvKcE&hl

So, you find it funny that these activists have vandalized the private property of Jesse Helms? So, I guess it means it's all right to commit vandalism, and even destruction of other people's properties, just because their politcal opinion is different from ours? Is that right?

[keltic63]

So, you find it funny that these activists have vandalized the private property of Jesse Helms? So, I guess it means it's all right to commit vandalism, and even destruction of other people's properties, just because their politcal opinion is different from ours? Is that right?

What property was destroyed here? What was vandalized? They put a condom over the man's house.

Helms opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he clearly associated the presence of blacks and gays with immoral and criminal behaviors. He blocked the funding of Aids research, blamed the spread of Aids on gay people.

Here are some memorable quotes:


"The New York Times and Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves. Just about every person down there is a homosexual or lesbian."
-- 1995

"The University of Negroes and Communists"
-- Reference to the University of North Carolina devised by Mr. Helms when he worked for Willis Smith's 1950 U.S. Senate campaign.

"Your tax dollars are being used to pay for grade-school classes that teach our children that CANNIBALISM, WIFE-SWAPPING and MURDER of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior."
-- Fund raising mailer, 1996

"All Latins are volatile people. Hence, I was not surprised at the volatile reaction."
-- After Mexicans protested his visit in 1986

"Homosexuals are weak, morally sick wretches."
-- 1995 radio broadcast



So yes, in the light of the many people that he offended, that he degraded, and that he allowed to die because of his refusal to legislate responsibly, I do indeed find this one particular act of protest to be "funny." It was creative, not destructive, and made a strong statement.

You can defend him if you want.

[nmwolfboy]

No, i for one don't find vandalism funny. However, i recall this particular TAG and i've never heard that Helms' home was damaged in any way. So i don't think this qualifies as vandalism.

What i find most interesting is that the lady in the vid who speaks out in anger is concerned about "obstructing the neighborhood." She says that Senator Helms hadn't gone into any of the activists' neighborhoods to obstruct it.

No, he just made it a passion to obstruct any legislation that benefitted AIDS research or treatment. Obstruction that had a direct impact on the very lives of his fellow living, breathing, Americans.

But then, he respected the traffic flow in their neighborhoods. i guess that excuses his mission to excoriate gay people, and the lives lost to AIDS as he tied up funding with filibusters?

Condoming his house was a media grabbing action of people who were tired of watching their friends die, who had already called and written and lobbied to no effect thanks to the cruel obstruction of bigots like Helms, and who believed that research and treatment were more important when people were dying than offending some people's sensibilities.

If Helm's property wasn't damaged, as i believe it wasn't, then to call it vandalism is inaccurate.

i remember laughing hysterically at the time of the condoming of his VA house. Yes, i thought it was funny then. Looking back, we did whatever we could think of to save ourselves and our friends. And despite our anger and grief, we usually were able make our points creatively, like is shown in the video.

Pax et bonum,
scott

[inca nitta]

Yes, Jesse Helms was being an insensitive and offensive bigot, but by law, what these people did was an act of vandalism. They could have made a video, hold up signs, set up press conferences expressing everything about Helms to the public, but them putting a condom over his house have given them a low credibility, in my opinion.

I'm also pretty much sure that hoodlums who spray paint swastikas over the homes of Jewish residents think it's funny. To them, swastika is just a sign.

Speaking of destruction of property, since Emproph mentioned James Dobson of Focus on the Family in this thread, I read that 10 years ago, somebody threw rocks into the windows of its campus in Colorado Springs, which broke them.

[keltic63]

Yes, Jesse Helms was being an insensitive and offensive bigot, but by law, what these people did was an act of vandalism. They could have made a video, hold up signs, set up press conferences expressing everything about Helms to the public, but them putting a condom over his house have given them a low credibility, in my opinion.

perhaps it did decrease their credibility, but it got someone's attention and in a comical, symbolic way. As nmwolfboy has pointed out, other tactics had been used before.

I'm also pretty much sure that hoodlums who spray paint swastikas over the homes of Jewish residents think it's funny. To them, swastika is just a sign.

spray painting a home is destructive and vandalism. a swastika is definitely a sign that is meant to intimidate. NOT EVEN THE SAME THING.

Speaking of destruction of property, since somebody mentioned Focus on the Family, I read that 10 years ago, somebody threw rocks into the windows of its campus in Colorado Springs, which broke them.

Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)



Once again, when I make a statement that is a strong opinion, I'm strung up for it. :mad:

[nmwolfboy]

Yes, Jesse Helms was being an insensitive and offensive bigot, but by law, what these people did was an act of vandalism.

Yet they weren't arrested by the police on the scene, nor were they ever charged with a crime. So for you to say that "by law, what these people did was an act of vandalism" is disingenuous. It's not a matter of law, it's your opinion.

I'm also pretty much sure that hoodlums who spray paint swastikas over the homes of Jewish residents think it's funny. To them, swastika is just a sign.

And thank you for playing "Really Bad Analogy!" Although it is a semi-clever way for you to demonstrate Godwin's law without actually saying the word "Nazi."

Speaking of destruction of property, since somebody mentioned Focus on the Family, I read that 10 years ago, somebody threw rocks into the windows of its campus in Colorado Springs, which broke them.

Perhaps people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (Sorry, i couldn't resist!)

[inca nitta]

Keltic and Scott,

I hear your points, but I am the one who supports non-violence, and this is the reason why I didn't like what these guys did in the video. Personally, I find their actions to be violent, and I am surprised that they didn't get arrested on the spot. But, we don't know what happened to them afterwards.

Just because there is a written justice, it is not always being enforced accordingly, but that's not the real issue. My point is that we must bring about the message nonviolently, and always strive to be the best in doing this.

[Matt Algren]

Keltic and Scott,

I hear your points, but I am the one who supports non-violence, and this is the reason why I didn't like what these guys did in the video. Personally, I find their actions to be violent, and I am surprised that they didn't get arrested on the spot. But, we don't know what happened to them afterwards.

Just because there is a written justice, it is not always being enforced accordingly, but that's not the real issue. My point is that we must bring about the message nonviolently, and always strive to be the best in doing this.Sometimes the message needs to be presented in multiple ways.

The video of the house condom is 17 years old. It was made pretty soon after Helms helped vote down a massive AIDS relief bill because he thought The Gays deserved to get sick. It was made when the epidemic was less than 10 years old, and people were just starting to get a handle on it. Helms made sure that homeless people with AIDS couldn't get the AZT they needed.

Does it really surprise you that some people found a non-violent (he wasn't even in town) way to make a statement? It surprises me. I'm almost surprised there wasn't more violence, given the times and the attitude toward us.
Yes, Jesse Helms was being an insensitive and offensive bigot, but by law, what these people did was an act of vandalism. They could have made a video, hold up signs, set up press conferences expressing everything about Helms to the public, but them putting a condom over his house have given them a low credibility, in my opinion.
It was 1991. They didn't have credibility at all, as far as the mainstream press was concerned. Low credibility is better than none. A press conference would have been ignored.
I'm also pretty much sure that hoodlums who spray paint swastikas over the homes of Jewish residents think it's funny. To them, swastika is just a sign.Since we're making bad analogies, how about comparing this video to someone helping slaves get out of the South on the underground railroad. The person is damaging property (the slaves) and causing hardship for the property owner. Why couldn't they just hold a press conference to tell people that slavery is bad?

[nmwolfboy]

I hear your points, but I am the one who supports non-violence, and this is the reason why I didn't like what these guys did in the video. Personally, I find their actions to be violent, and I am surprised that they didn't get arrested on the spot. But, we don't know what happened to them afterwards.


And i support non-violence, too. i just don't see this historical action as violent. Certainly not in comparison to Helms' vitriolic actions at the time which were directly linked to the illness and death of so many. His obstructionism in such a health crisis, THAT was violence.

Actually, i do know what happened to the activists. And a quick google search turned up eye-witness reports as well as reports from the activists themselves. When the cops arrived, the activists were told to remove the 'condom'. The cops stood by while the activists climbed up again and removed the 'condom'. They did. No one was arrested. No charges were filed or pursued.

Pax et bonum,
scott

[Alecto]

Yes, Jesse Helms was being an insensitive and offensive bigot, but by law, what these people did was an act of vandalism. They could have made a video, hold up signs, set up press conferences expressing everything about Helms to the public, but them putting a condom over his house have given them a low credibility, in my opinion.

I'm also pretty much sure that hoodlums who spray paint swastikas over the homes of Jewish residents think it's funny. To them, swastika is just a sign.

Speaking of destruction of property, since somebody mentioned Focus on the Family, I read that 10 years ago, somebody threw rocks into the windows of its campus in Colorado Springs, which broke them.

The fact that it might be deemed vandalism legally speaking is not the question here, and in fact has NO impact (you should know by now from this site) on the moral implications.

As for the swastika: did we really just compare a symbol of hatred and an implicit threat of violence with what effectively is a simple message banner that decided to accessorize? So you're one of those people for whom the word "faggot" is totally the same thing as the word "breeder", right? It's been addressed elsewhere, but NOWHERE CLOSE.

[andrewlittle]

So, you find it funny that these activists have vandalized the private property of Jesse Helms? So, I guess it means it's all right to commit vandalism, and even destruction of other people's properties, just because their politcal opinion is different from ours? Is that right?
... and even better to destroy the whole damn world - world? Nay, the universe, just because of different political opinions. You saw, I presume, the same video that I did. What vandalism? What damage? What did you see in your imagination that escalated this to "destruction of other people's property"?

This has all the earmarks of someone working themselves up into a lather - and over what? A story that is, as has been pointed out, 17 years old. What is really the problem here, Inca? If this reaction is truly about this story, it appears you may just be a wad looking for a pair of knickers - any pair of knickers.

Yes, Jesse Helms was being an insensitive and offensive bigot, but by law, what these people did was an act of vandalism. They could have made a video, hold up signs, set up press conferences expressing everything about Helms to the public, but them putting a condom over his house have given them a low credibility, in my opinion.

I'm also pretty much sure that hoodlums who spray paint swastikas over the homes of Jewish residents think it's funny. To them, swastika is just a sign.

Speaking of destruction of property, since somebody mentioned Focus on the Family, I read that 10 years ago, somebody threw rocks into the windows of its campus in Colorado Springs, which broke them.

As has been pointed out, the leap to the swastika is equally as irrational and disengenuous. At least you didn't say anything about these queers humping Helm's dog, too, or having some mass polyamorous marriage ceremony on his lawn. Shit, man, get a grip - the whole point was to wreck all the hetero marriages on the block and recruit the divorcees, and their teenage children, to ho-mo-secks-you-al-ity.

Tell you what, answer me this. Do you think anyone who puts a giant condom on someone's house is concerned about their credibility? Don't you think they are looking to make one big statement - get media attention - and even possibly get arrested? And, you know, I'm just guessing, but I'd bet they didn't do this because they thought it was funny. I figure they did it because it would send chills of ickiness streaming down peoples' backs.

Keltic and Scott,

I hear your points, but I am the one who supports non-violence ...
OMG - FINALLY. Now I know who is THE ONE supporting non-violence. I have been wondering who it is - and now, after all this time I find out it is you. I had at times thought it might have been a national figure like MLK Jr, or maybe Keltic or Scott, or even Daniel - actually, one time I even worried it could be me acting on my subconscious inclinations - but now I can rest easy. It is you who is THE ONE that supports non-violence. I am off the hook.

Btw, is your ego in the Guinness Book of World Recortds, too?

... and this is the reason why I didn't like what these guys did in the video. Personally, I find their actions to be violent, and I am surprised that they didn't get arrested on the spot. But, we don't know what happened to them afterwards.
In what way where they violent? Who got hurt? Where is the injury - other than your sensibilities, of course? What property was damaged? What the hell is your definition of "violent"?

If what you have communicated is non-violence - bringing up Nazism into this discussion, using "red herrings", and drawing conclusions using increasingly irrational and absurb hyperbole - I'll eat your shorts. You have done violence to the meaning of non-violence itself.

Just because there is a written justice, it is not always being enforced accordingly, but that's not the real issue. My point is that we must bring about the message nonviolently, and always strive to be the best in doing this.
Actually, there is a written law - not a written justice. Justice is an outcome that may or may not occur with the application of a law. Then again, if it's not the real issue, why the hell did you bring it up? What you are advocating is bringing up messages that don't make anyone uncomfortable, don't anger or offend anyone, and don't make any difference whatsoever. Jesus was non-violent, but he pissed off a lot of people and offended their sensibilities.

There's something about your post that is - well, unnerving. You use language that is more extreme than the sitruation warrants, you escalate the offenses in your mind as you get yourself worked up, you bring up old hurts (although, for the life of me. I don't know what a few broken windows at FOF has to do with you or this subject) as if they just happened and are actually pertinent to the conversation. I don't know - I'm trying to put my finger on it.

I know, you sound like someone someone else who ued to post here a long time ago. You couldn't be him, though - he was an out and out nutjob.

[inca nitta]

And i support non-violence, too. i just don't see this historical action as violent. Certainly not in comparison to Helms' vitriolic actions at the time which were directly linked to the illness and death of so many. His obstructionism in such a health crisis, THAT was violence.

Actually, i do know what happened to the activists. And a quick google search turned up eye-witness reports as well as reports from the activists themselves. When the cops arrived, the activists were told to remove the 'condom'. The cops stood by while the activists climbed up again and removed the 'condom'. They did. No one was arrested. No charges were filed or pursued.

Pax et bonum,
scott

Thanks Scott for bringing this up. I was not aware of it. I am glad that they have complied with the police. I believe it was a right thing to do.

Sometimes the message needs to be presented in multiple ways.

The video of the house condom is 17 years old. It was made pretty soon after Helms helped vote down a massive AIDS relief bill because he thought The Gays deserved to get sick. It was made when the epidemic was less than 10 years old, and people were just starting to get a handle on it. Helms made sure that homeless people with AIDS couldn't get the AZT they needed.

Does it really surprise you that some people found a non-violent (he wasn't even in town) way to make a statement? It surprises me. I'm almost surprised there wasn't more violence, given the times and the attitude toward us.

It was 1991. They didn't have credibility at all, as far as the mainstream press was concerned. Low credibility is better than none. A press conference would have been ignored.
Since we're making bad analogies, how about comparing this video to someone helping slaves get out of the South on the underground railroad. The person is damaging property (the slaves) and causing hardship for the property owner. Why couldn't they just hold a press conference to tell people that slavery is bad?

I'm sorry but I don't see any similarity, here. Slaves were living human beings, while houses are objects. Perhaps, throwing dirt at the mansions of the plantation owners would be a better example. The point I was trying to make, was that when people do certain things, they don't think that their actions could offend somebody. It is also common that people who either throw objects, spray paint, or cover up with something at other people's houses, they think that it's just a little prank, some fun, what have you.
For me, it was personal connection; my grandparents are Jewish and one day, they saw a swastika painted on their mailbox. When they caught the perpetrators, they discovered that the kids who did it, had no hate towards them whatsoever, but did it just for joking, to get their attention. Eventually, it was also discovered that the kids who did it, were my grandparents' neighbors, who lived in the same apartment building. A couple of days before the incident, my grandpa has come to their apartment and complained that they were playing their music too loud. He even threatened to call the superintendant. Certainly, those kids were highly displeased with this.

When I saw this video, I noticed that Jesse Helms' family were offended by that big piece of condom on their home. Right then and there, I remembered that personal story, mentioned above and this is what I discovered: whenever somebody does or says something offensive to somebody else, the offended party tends to respond to the offender in some crude, prankful way, which would also offend the party back, and I believe that such actions will not stop hostility. Jesse Helms had said and done gruesome, horrible things that have offended many people, but putting condom on his house where he lived, therefore it offended him and his family, has not brought about any positive changes, definitely it did not reach his heart, as far as I know.

My grandpa was being pretty grumpy when he complained to those kids about their music. BTW, they were Afro-American and he expressed himself in a way that they found to be offensive, thus it elicited them to spray paint swastika on their mailbox. However, that action has influenced my grandparents to have a pretty close minded opinion of Blacks.

My point is this; when somebody intentionally or not intentionally offends us, please, don't do something to that somebody that would offend him or her. I don't believe that it would be productive.

I guess my definition of violence is any action that has a high potential to offend somebody.

PS: If what I've said so far, has offended anybody, then I apologize.

PPS: Yes, Alecto. I personally find the word "breeder" to be dirty. Almost as dirty as the one you mentioned before.

[Matt Algren]

Thanks Scott for bringing this up. I was not aware of it. I am glad that they have complied with the police. I believe it was a right thing to do.



I'm sorry but I don't see any similarity, here. Slaves were living human beings, while houses are objects. Perhaps, throwing dirt at the mansions of the plantation owners would be a better example. The point I was trying to make, was that when people do certain things, they don't think that their actions could offend somebody. It is also common that people who either throw objects, spray paint, or cover up with something at other people's houses, they think that it's just a little prank, some fun, what have you.
For me, it was personal connection; my grandparents are Jewish and one day, they saw a swastika painted on their mailbox. When they caught the perpetrators, they discovered that the kids who did it, had no hate towards them whatsoever, but did it just for joking, to get their attention. Eventually, it was also discovered that the kids who did it, were my grandparents' neighbors, who lived in the same apartment building. A couple of days before the incident, my grandpa has come to their apartment and complained that they were playing their music too loud. He even threatened to call the superintendant. Certainly, those kids were highly displeased with this.

When I saw this video, I noticed that Jesse Helms' family were offended by that big piece of condom on their home. Right then and there, I remembered that personal story, mentioned above and this is what I discovered: whenever somebody does or says something offensive to somebody else, the offended party tends to respond to the offender in some crude, prankful way, which would also offend the party back, and I believe that such actions will not stop hostility. Jesse Helms had said and done gruesome, horrible things that have offended many people, but putting condom on his house where he lived, therefore it offended him and his family, has not brought about any positive changes, definitely it did not reach his heart, as far as I know.

My grandpa was being pretty grumpy when he complained to those kids about their music. BTW, they were Afro-American and he expressed himself in a way that they found to be offensive, thus it elicited them to spray paint swastika on their mailbox. However, that action has influenced my grandparents to have a pretty close minded opinion of Blacks.

My point is this; when somebody intentionally or not intentionally offends us, please, don't do something to that somebody that would offend him or her. I don't believe that it would be productive.

I guess my definition of violence is any action that has a high potential to offend somebody.

PS: If what I've said so far, has offended anybody, then I apologize.

PPS: Yes, Alecto. I personally find the word "breeder" to be dirty. Almost as dirty as the one you mentioned before.
Who said the point was 'reaching his heart'? Their point was to get publicity and to make a political statement that would not otherewise be heard. Jesse Helms' heart was never going to be reached, and the time came to work around him. One way to do that is to minimize him and openly mock his ridiculously hateful point of view.

And I'm sorry, putting a big tent over somebody's house is not the same as painting a symbol that represents hate and murder. It's not even close.

I get the impression that you want everybody to sit down and have tea and hug this all out. Sorry, but the bigots ain't coming to the table without a little help. And SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO, while thousands were negatively affected (up to and including death) by Helms's vote, one of the ways people helped them to the table was to make a mocking, HARMLESS statement that DIDN'T HURT ANYBODY.

As for the analogy, I already said it was a bad one. And no, slaves were not people. At best they were 3/5 of a person, and they were usually treated as less than that. They, as far as their owners were concerned, were property, the same as the tractor in the back 40. That's why getting them out was more important than worrying about whether you were causing angst or offense or whatever to the slave owner.

But I digress.

[inca nitta]

Well Matt,

I see that you have your unique perspective of the world, just like I have my own unique perspective of the world. What I think would be helpful if we try to see each other, meaning, to see what is in our hearts. I tried my to explain where I was coming from, and even though I see that you don't see it, that's cool. At least, I can say, that I've done my best.

To be honest with you, in 1991, I was nothing but 12 years old, thus I knew nothing of Jesse Helmes at that time, and quite frankly, knew very little of him and his deeds, later on. It seems to me that you are much older than me, thus you know much more about this than I do. I guess I need to do a bit more study on Helms, so I can understand this issue much better.

It is my understanding that this website's mission is to teach people to live a life in a nonviolent way, so that we can do great things and make a world a better place. It is also my understanding that Gandhi, the founder of satyagraha, which literally translates as "soulforce" and on whose principles this website was founded, developed several rules, some of which, were to never react to oppression in anger, and also suffer the anger of the opponent/adversary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha#Rules_for_Satyagraha_Campaigns

I'm sorry, but when I saw the video, I watched Helms's, what I presumed daughter, or some other family member, and I noticed the look of her eyes and her whole body language, I could see that she looked angry and frustrated. I believe that her feelings were hurt.

Now, if I take Gandhi's principles seriously, then I don't think that such action with a condom would be approved by him.

And yes, since I'm an avid tea drinker, I would love to have a cup of tea with all kinds of people. I surely believe it would be a positive step in reaching them, even if they are the most bigoted in the world. As far as I understand, reaching people's hearts was the goal of Gandhi, and I'm assuming it is the goal of this site, since it is founded on Gandhi's principles.

[wmanion]

My view is that it was a peaceful demonstration to make a point. I do not see anything violent with the condom incident. Everything that someone does could be considered offensive to someone. Even SoulForce's equality ride offends some. In fact, Soulforce is offensive to most fundamentalists. When Jesus healed on the Sabbath it was offensive to many. However, there is no violence in any of these incidents. The offense lies within the individuals heart and how they perceive the world according to their own personal views. What has been violated has been their own self-righteousness but it was not done in a violent way. In the fight for equality many will be offended. You can see that with all the marriage bans taking place. However, we press on in non-violent ways because violence breeds violence. I am a father of three and if someone offends me, of course my children are going to be hurt because they love me. However, it does not mean they were violent towards me. Maybe, his daughter was saddened at the fact his father was made an example and loving him hurt her, but I fail to see any violence in the act itself. We have to be proactive in our non-violent approach to combating those who want to drive us back into the closets. Every great leader has offended someone but it does not mean they were violent in making a stand. To sit back and say nothing or do nothing {of course in non-violent ways) is just to sit back and say...you win! My cousin was a victim of that legislation and by the time he had access to AZT, it was too late. He died, to me that condom represented the fact that education about HIV/AIDS could have saved many lives. Without even realizing it (or maybe they did because they thought it was only a gay disease) they sent many to a virtual death camp. We cannot allow the world to continue to treat us as second class citizens anymore.
Just my opinion.

Love,
Bill

[inca nitta]

Bill,

Thanks for your input. Nobody is saying that nothing should be done about the actions of Jesse Helms and others of his kind. The issue is how it needs to be done. As I said earlier, I agree with everything that was said about Mr. Helms here, it's just the condom thing kinda startled me.

Last time I checked, Soulforce activists have been doing a series of silent vigils in front of churches and organizations that reject LGBT people, like they did it during the UMC conference in Texas. Hey, that's the way how to do things. Remember, they have not done anything physically to anybody's property, so to me, it does not remotely resemble the actions of folks in the video.

About the video, I noticed that his daughter complained about that it was done to the house. Seems like, she was upset that it happened to a place where they all lived. Personally, I would be very disappointed if I woke up in the morning and found something unusual on my porch, but that's just me.

Also, I think that neither Gandhi, nor MLK would advocate what those folks did in the video, that's all.

[antiochian]

My reaction is simple and twofold.

1. May God show him the kindness in the next life that he refused to show so many in this life.

2. Having said that, I now say--good riddens.

[nmwolfboy]

i think it was most likely a neighbor in the video, not his daughter. She seemed more upset about the disruption/obstruction in her neighborhood. It's just conjecture on my part, but i think a daughter would be upset about the condom on the house rather than perceived disruption to traffic in the neighborhood. i also doubt his daughter would refer to him as "Senator Helms".

What i find most interesting about one of the turns this thread has taken is the equating of "offense" with "violence", which hardly are the same, at least to my eyes.

While i do not see the two as equal, perceived offense appears to be an underlying complaint in contentious engagements i've had, especially with anti-gay Christians. As if there exists some inalienable human or civil right to freedom from offense.

Here's why i think it's inaccurate to equate offense with violence: it's an emotional reaction to something, rather than an act perpetrated upon someone or something. People can take offense at the most innocuous things, and sometimes do. i know i've offended people at times without ever anticipating their offense. i'm sure everyone else has too. Heck, as a man who is openly gay, my very existence offends some people. The fact that i'm a Christian and also joyously gay offends many other Christians. So much so that some, even strangers, feel compelled to point out to me that the way i love is a sin in their eyes.

i used to take offense at their ignorance. Sometimes their 'loving' admonitions hurt me deeply. Very occasionally i felt violated by their unwanted and uninvited intrusions into my life. But i don't equate their offending behavior with the violent behavior of the gay-basher who assaulted a college friend in the midst of a crowded college cafeteria. Or the violent mugging i experienced several years later.

Being offended involves feeling that your person, beliefs, or ideas have been slighted. It's common enough hear that someone's 'sensibilities have been offended'.

i can't recall ever hearing that someone's 'sensibilities' were beaten and left bloody on a street corner. Or that injury to someone's 'sensibilities' required medical treatment or hospitalization. Or that damage to someone's 'sensibilities' required hiring a general contractor to repair the damage.

i do recall instances where taking a stand for civil rights has offended some people. i'm sure at least some white folks were offended when Ms. Parks refused to give up her seat on that bus. i'm sure King George was offended when he received the Declaration of Independence. i'm sure we've all offended someone when asserting ourselves and defending our beliefs/ideas. But if people weren't willing to risk offending others, societal wrongs would never be addressed.

Equating offense to violence offends me. :mad: With whom should i file charges? :lol:

So far as Mr. Helms - i hope that when he got to the pearly gates he was greeted by a big black drag queen, who stopped painting St. Peter's nails long enough to redirect him to the 'down' escalator. And i say that with all the love i can muster for ol' Jesse. ;)

Pax et bonum,
scott

[Daniel]

Inca-

I am also Matt's generation.. lived through- came out actually- in the the first decade of AIDS in America, that is, the 1980's. Your being 12 in 1991 means that you missed a great deal of gay history.

You missed the angry and productive marches in the street by ACT-UP. You missed people chaining themselves to the doors of drug companies which changed both their policy and the price of drugs. You missed President never saying the word AIDS for the first 7 years of his administration. You missed the NYTimes never using the gay- it was always HO-MO-SEX-UAL. You missed a lot my friend.

There is more than one way to get things done- and this has been talked about in other threads.

It would have been futile to get the majority of gay persons to enact what you would consider to be the tenets of non-violence- that is- never pissing someone off.

And here's something to think about: Gandhi exhibited his own violence. He was against gay sexuality and even made it his mission to destroy the temple of Khajuraho, which depicts same-sex love and sexuality in general. He wanted the whole things covered up, destroyed and buried.

Do I respect the man for what he and King expoused? You bet. But that doesn't mean he was a saint and accepted everyone? I doubt it, very much, if he would accept this website if he lived today. We should not forget that he lived in a culture were any public display of affection is considered a no-no. That still is the case as a friend from India has told me: he and his partner can live together, but their families NEVER EVER talk about it.

We should never forget that even the most well-meaning people- even those whose hearts are in the place- can't see their own blind spots.

Matt is right: there was a time and place for the Helms action. And it did piss people off- and it made others laugh. If nonviolence means never pissing anyone off- that would mean that some things will never change. And that- my friend- is my observation after nearly 50 years of life.

Is it better when we can all sit down together and get along? Absolutely. But sometimes, and I believe in Helm's case this proves the point, drastic measures are needed for drastic situations.

The world needed to know just how horrible Helm's policies were. He fought any kind of action by government to prevent the transmission of AIDS. The action was not about him the person, but about saving people's lives.

And I'm very sorry that his daughter was upset (was it his daughter?). But you know, I hope she thought for a moment- then or later- about the actions of her father and how his views harmed others.

Change isn't always pretty my friend. It can be down-right messy. Is that bad thing?

I don't think so.

One has to choose one's tools for change wisely. And is nonviolence the best of them? I think so.

That said- I hope we are not too quick to damn the actions of others who were only endeavoring to save lives. Covering Helm's house with a condom may not have been the best idea. But guess what? We're still talking about it, aren't we? And guess what? Even Soulforce uses publicity. That was part of Gandhi and King's method. ;)

Think what you will, but it was fantastic publicity for the Safe-Sex movement back then. And methinks that we could use more attention in this area again. Sero-conversion rates are up again. Why? Because young people have no memory- don't know what happened- and think themselves immortal- and aren't using condoms.

The message is the same. Only the characters have changed. This country still needs a comprehensive AIDS/HIV policy that focuses on prevention.

[Matt Algren]

In 1991, I was a senior in High School. SADD (which, let's be honest about it, was just an excuse to get out of class) had a special speaker who was gay and HIV+. Guess how far we got into his presentation before one of my esteemed colleagues started shouting him down, calling him a faggot, and telling him that he was getting what he deserved. Couldn't have been ten minutes. And everybody else, including the teachers, did nothing to stop it.

This was the atmosphere in which the only way a few people felt they would be heard (really heard, not just listened to) was to put a tent over Helms's house with a few video cameras present. I just can't bring myself to fault them for it.

I read a blog the other day* where the author was marveling at how much progress has been made when we don't have gay pride marches anymore, we have gay pride parades. HUGE difference.

*edit: Found the link. (http://www.rmnblog.org/2008/06/celebrating-not.html)

[mew24]

I have realized that many of these men and women who so greatly and efficiently oppose Gay Rights, have emboldened many of us. For years we have sat idly by while these people have pecked away our rights as human beings among civilization. We seemingly allowed it to transpire. Conversely I am thankful for the Helms' in life. They have ignited a fire that will be eternal and is growing over them. We can be proud of our successes. However, there is always another Helms around the corner. I pray we remain ever vigilant and successful against the ignorance that pervades these people. I will remain thankful for their engagement so that I/We can further our struggle to just be.

[inca nitta]

Inca-

I am also Matt's generation.. lived through- came out actually- in the the first decade of AIDS in America, that is, the 1980's. Your being 12 in 1991 means that you missed a great deal of gay history.

You missed the angry and productive marches in the street by ACT-UP. You missed people chaining themselves to the doors of drug companies which changed both their policy and the price of drugs. You missed President never saying the word AIDS for the first 7 years of his administration. You missed the NYTimes never using the gay- it was always HO-MO-SEX-UAL. You missed a lot my friend.

There is more than one way to get things done- and this has been talked about in other threads.

It would have been futile to get the majority of gay persons to enact what you would consider to be the tenets of non-violence- that is- never pissing someone off.

And here's something to think about: Gandhi exhibited his own violence. He was against gay sexuality and even made it his mission to destroy the temple of Khajuraho, which depicts same-sex love and sexuality in general. He wanted the whole things covered up, destroyed and buried.

Do I respect the man for what he and King expoused? You bet. But that doesn't mean he was a saint and accepted everyone? I doubt it, very much, if he would accept this website if he lived today. We should not forget that he lived in a culture were any public display of affection is considered a no-no. That still is the case as a friend from India has told me: he and his partner can live together, but their families NEVER EVER talk about it.

We should never forget that even the most well-meaning people- even those whose hearts are in the place- can't see their own blind spots.

Matt is right: there was a time and place for the Helms action. And it did piss people off- and it made others laugh. If nonviolence means never pissing anyone off- that would mean that some things will never change. And that- my friend- is my observation after nearly 50 years of life.

Is it better when we can all sit down together and get along? Absolutely. But sometimes, and I believe in Helm's case this proves the point, drastic measures are needed for drastic situations.

The world needed to know just how horrible Helm's policies were. He fought any kind of action by government to prevent the transmission of AIDS. The action was not about him the person, but about saving people's lives.

And I'm very sorry that his daughter was upset (was it his daughter?). But you know, I hope she thought for a moment- then or later- about the actions of her father and how his views harmed others.

Change isn't always pretty my friend. It can be down-right messy. Is that bad thing?

I don't think so.

One has to choose one's tools for change wisely. And is nonviolence the best of them? I think so.

That said- I hope we are not too quick to damn the actions of others who were only endeavoring to save lives. Covering Helm's house with a condom may not have been the best idea. But guess what? We're still talking about it, aren't we? And guess what? Even Soulforce uses publicity. That was part of Gandhi and King's method. ;)

Think what you will, but it was fantastic publicity for the Safe-Sex movement back then. And methinks that we could use more attention in this area again. Sero-conversion rates are up again. Why? Because young people have no memory- don't know what happened- and think themselves immortal- and aren't using condoms.

The message is the same. Only the characters have changed. This country still needs a comprehensive AIDS/HIV policy that focuses on prevention.

Daniel,

Thank you very much for your input.

I see that you are the living spirit of nonviolence and a true enforcer of rules of satyagraha.