Furor in Italy over "gay" nativity

[suzer1013]

See, now, this is the reason that CC's get in a furor, feeling they are being "attacked" by gay activists. And I've gotta say I agree with them on this one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061220/...pe_nativity_dc

Placing dolls representing homosexuals in "embraces" with gay marriage slogans on them in a nativity scene is, in my opinion, just childish. It has nothing to do with the nativity or story of the birth of Jesus. What could they possibly think this would accomplish?

Frankly, I, too, am outraged. This is stupid and does nothing to further the cause of global equality for GLBT people. In fact, it plays into the fears of the religious right and makes things worse for GLBT equality. I am very, very frustrated by this!

Rant over.

Susan

[dewdrop_world]

Such displays are certainly not in the spirit of nonviolence.

James

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I've got to disagree with Suz on this. I happen to be rather devoted to nativity scenes myself, and I collect Italian nativity figures. The Fontanini collection of nativity figures goes on and on including not just Mary & Joseph and the Baby, but angels, sheep, goats, ducks, Roman Soldiers, Rabbi's, students, shepherds, goose girls etc. etc.

Part of the tradition and symbolism of the nativity scene is the expansive scene which includes all of God's creatures from high to low. The tradition of the nativity scene is, after all, rooted in St. Francis who was noted for his love for all creatures and for all humans rich and poor. The inclusion of gay couples in the nativity scene is therefore entirely appropriate unless you believe that gay persons are somehow excluded from God's creation---unfortunately some Christians believe exactly that---and if those Christians are offended by our presence in creation, that is just too bad. I don't think God agrees with them, and I think God would like to teach them otherwise.

Steven Webster

[NathanATX]

http://amboytimes.typepad.com/the_am...ativity_s.html

"The display, the first of its kind in the nation, will feature characters that are quite a bit different than the standard crèche. “We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Chairman Tony McDonald. “The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America.” The scene will also display a terrorist shepherd and an angel in the form of Nancy Pelosi."

Now THAT, my friends, makes me angry.

Edit: I personally like that they chose Nancy Pelosi to be an angel.

[suzer1013]

Steven -- I don't disagree with you the way you present it.

But it appears from the article (if the article is to be believed) that Barbie and Ken dolls (or dolls of that type) were placed into the scene lying with each other in an embrace. That is simply irresponsible. It gives a sexual connotation to the nativity scene, which is really not what a nativity represents.

The inclusion of gay people in a respectful way would not bother me. Had we placed two shepherds standing next to each other adoring the Christ Child, or two milkmaids or whatever, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with that. And actually, there are always shepherds or townspeople or whatever that could represent gay people in a nativity. What they did was put the dolls in what could be construed as a sexual pose - probably to identify the dolls as "homosexual". It seems this was deliberately inflammatory, with no attempt to present it in a way that might actually further the picture of creation as you present it.

This seems purposefully done to create a negative reaction. Maybe there's another side to the story, maybe this article is written with a slant, I don't know. All I know is it struck me as completely at odds with the goals of GLBT equality. Perhaps I should have researched this story a bit more before pounding out a post, but it sooooo set me off!

Oy.

Susan

[novaseeker]

It sounds more like ACT UP type activity to me, which I don't generally support. Interestingly, it was two MPs who did this apparently, but in any case, it's something that seems deliberately calculated to offend and probably as a result counterproductive.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

We seem to be piling on in opposition to these two LGBT Parliamentarians in Italy based upon rather incomplete information. That doesn't seem very Gandhian of us. Let's make sure we know the facts before we decide that they behaved like "ACT-UP" or anyone else that we don't approve of.

Suz sees the words "lay" and "embrace" and jumps to the conclusion that the display was offensively sexual. Perhaps that is what the author of the article wanted you to conclude (maybe not), but I would not necessarily conclude that the display was offensively sexual from that small amount of information.

Remember, we are dealing all the time with people who think that our very existence is offensive. Before we jump to conclusions, let's see if more facts come out. Let's see if the request to have these Parliamentarians censured is followed through or simply dismissed.

No doubt, there is many a thing Soulforce has done that has been deemed "counterproductive" by someone. Too bad we can't seem to achieve our goals by simply asking for fairness and respect. I'll guarantee you that just our politely asking for fairness and respect is going to offend someone.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

My thought on the matter: if we take our iconography so seriously, I think we're really missing the point. Or points. Whatever your perspective is.

Is that too serious of me? (1200 years ago, they got so serious about icons that smashed a good deal of them.)

There is a lot to be said for a change of view, embracing boys and barbies in creches or no. Though the idea of inclusion is, from what I learned one day at the Met Museum, the correct one. (Their tree is something to behold!)

I'd like to think (not having seen the representation) that the whole thing was rather funny. But that wouldn't be respectful, would it?

Ok. Back to being serious....

[Daniel]

The Metropolitan Neopolitan Christmas Tree!

It's HUGE...like 18 feet tall...with a gazillion angels, shepherds and Magi....but only one you know who....

[revtj]

I guess I've just developed a permanent taste for transgressive religious expression. All the hooplah seems good to me...Jesus certainly did his share of making the status quo uncomfortable.

What if they had the beloved disciple, the "disciple whom Jesus loved," nurturing baby Jesus at his breast?

Or Mary wearing a scarlet 'A'?

Or an angel holding a shotgun on Joseph?

Or the 2 prostitutes in Jesus' lineage dressed as hookers standing by?

Everybody says they want to be biblical, but not really.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by revtj

Everybody says they want to be biblical, but not really.

Just the stuff we like or agree with. If it's unpleasant, well God must have had a good reason for it, but we don't really need to talk about it.

[suzer1013]

Sorry guys, but even after a night's rest, I still have a problem with it.

As my high school principal used to say when students were caught kissing in the hallways -- "there is a time and a place for everything, and this is neither the time nor the place."

I'm not against provocative action altogether. But there is a time and a place for it. A nativity scene, in my opinion, is just not the place for a gay marriage statement. It appears to have been done to blatantly offend, and the activists accomplished that quite tidily. I hope they are happy with setting GLBT equality back a few steps. If progressive change is to be made, there must be some modicum of respect for those we engage. Yes, let's fight the stuff in religion that's oppressive, but using a nativity scene to proclaim a gay rights political viewpoint is just offensive to me -- and I'm a supporter of gay rights (obviously!).

I'm surprised there aren't more Soulforcians who think this action was unwise and/or inappropriate.

Scary as it may sound, I think Sammy1980 and I would be on the same page regarding this story!

My partner and I will be on vacation for a while, so I may not check in as much. The catsitter will take care of the furry guys while we're gone . Hope everyone at Soulforce has a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy New Year, or happy holiday season regardless of what you do (or don't) celebrate! Blessings, y'all!

Susan

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

It seems to me that we are wrong to pass judgment on what these two Italian parliamentarians did until we have all the facts as to what it was that they did.

Someone seems to have concluded from a sketchy news report that there was a inapproriate display of a sexual act in a nativity scene--that conclusion does not seem to be supported by any of the facts brought to my attention so far.

Are we saying it's o.k. for the baby Jesus to invite sheep and cattle into his home, but gay people are not allowed? Frankly, my faith is deeply offended by the idea that Jesus was not born for LGBT people as well as for the rest of creation.

There are some people that are offended that "unrepentent homosexuals" ask for communion or bring their children for baptism or seek to be members of Christ's church--I think that rightly offends me and every self-respecting LGBT Christian.

Our President calls Marriage a "sacred institution"--what he's saying is that it is offensive for LGBT people to want or receive Marriage. I think excluding LGBT people from Marriage is exactly the same thing as excluding them from the Nativity.

Now, when and if facts come out that indicate that these Italian parliamentarians perpetrated some patently offensive sexual display, than I'll agree with Suz, there's no excuse for that--but two people of the same gender embracing one another should offend no one.

Steven Webster

[novaseeker]

Steven --

While I understand what you are saying, in my opinion we should err on the side of respect for religious symbols. We gain no friends among the people who love these symbols by doing something with them that is viewed in their eyes as a political gesture. We just don't. All ideals taken well into account, in my view pragmatic usefulness weighs heavily in favour of not doing things like this, even if it was not an embrace or what have you. Many people, many, many people take offense at having their religious symbols politicised, and to be honest, our issues about acceptance are currently political issues as much as they are spiritual ones. I can't escape the conclusion that these kinds of actions will do more harm to us than good in the minds of those for whom these symbols hold spiritual import.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by novaseeker

Steven --

While I understand what you are saying, in my opinion we should err on the side of respect for religious symbols.

What does one worship? The symbol or that which it points to?

In my humble opinion- regardless of what transpired in Italy- it is a mistake to value form over substance.

[novaseeker]

That may be, Daniel, but, and I mean this and this entire note respectfully, in my view it is not our task to derail others over such things.

We have bigger fish to fry. We all know, regardless of what we personally think of the value of symbols, that others value them. I know as someone who grew up as RC, that RCs dearly value the creche scene, and will reflexively, knee-jerkingly react negatively to this kind of activism. They just will.

We have better ways of doing our thing, and convincing others of the relative value of their symbols is not an obvious goal for LGBT people, in my opinion. I understand that there are different opinions, but there are so many other ways to demonstrate activism apart from this. The "piss-off" risk of this seems so high that it seems to me that by proceeding with this kind of thing we may make a point about symbols, but miss the broader message of equality. I can tell you from my own experience that that tens if not hundreds of millions of Catholics would find that kind of political statement (which is the way they would interpret it, regardless of any "gloss" we may put on it) in a creche scene offensive per se.

We're smarter and more creative than this. We have other opportunities than making the nativity creche a crucible for activism. We can get our point across quite well without this kind of thing, in my opinion, and by doing this kind of thing we run a huge risk of backlash.

[Daniel]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...d=oid%3A431134

(What the display lacks in shimmer, it has recently made up for in shock – with the weekend debut of a nativity scene featuring Mary Cheney – the vice president's pregnant lesbian daughter – and her partner, Heather Poe, as Christ's parents, along with Dick Cheney and Rummy as wise men and an angelic floating Condi Rice overhead.)

So how does this sit with everyone?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by novaseeker

That may be, Daniel, but, and I mean this and this entire note respectfully, in my view it is not our task to derail others over such things.

We can get our point across quite well without this kind of thing, in my opinion, and by doing this kind of thing we run a huge risk of backlash.

May be?

Well....I see this discussion has gotten very PC.

I think I'm going to step back and keep my sense of humor about the whole thing.

Life is too serious a matter to take a matter like this seriously.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

There are a couple of ideas floating around here that I'm entirely comfortable challenging--that, in fact, need challenging.

One is that the Nativity Scene is somehow the exclusive property of the Roman Catholic Church or any other church. It is not. The Nativity Scene belongs to me as much as anyone else. The Nativity Scene at the center of this "Italian Furor" is not even owned by a Church of any kind. It is entirely the property of the Italian Parliament from what I can tell from the news reports we are relying on for information.

So when did the Italian Parliament become "not political."? Is a parliament putting up a Nativity Scene not a political act? Is excluding members of the parliament who happen to be LGBT from participation in the nativity scene a political act? Or is it a religious act of a political body? Even in the U.S. the Supreme Court seems unable to figure out whether the Nativity Scene is religious or merely cultural--and, there can be no doubt, folks left, right and middle are making it political all the time.

Where do we get the idea that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God is not political? Read Luke's version of the nativity and tell me there's no politics involved--seems to me most of the major political figures of the day get mentioned--the Emperor (who also had the political title "Son of God"), the Roman Governor and King Herod.

Does the Roman Catholic Church get a free pass "to play politics" and tell us how we are to vote on the question of same gender marriage (as they did in my state), and then get to hide behind "Religion" when the LGBT people they exclude from church and equal rights in society object?

Listen, I think it was plain wrong when ACT-UP in New York went into Mass and desecrated the communion host several years ago. I just have seen no evidence, so far, to convince me that what these Italian parliamentarians did was anything like that.

Also, in this thread, please note that a couple examples have been raised about the Nativity scene being parodied to disparage LGBT people--I have yet to read in the paper about "furor" over that. Where's the Roman Catholic Bishop who's out denouncing that sacrilege?

I'm not saying that everyone who's spoken up so far in this thread doesn't have a piece of the "truth" about all these issues--I'm just not convinced that anyone has it absolutely right. In particular--I still don't think we really know what really happened in Italy and whether what the Italian parliamentarians did was good, bad or indifferent.

If it's a sacrilege for a gay couple to be in a nativity scene, then it's a sacrilege for a gay couple to go to church--and that I will not accept.

I don't think the Roman Catholic Church (and most other churches) are showing LGBT people so much respect that they could hold themselves up for examples to emulate.

Now, if these particular Italian parliamentarians intended to disrespect Jesus Christ, or intended merely to hurt religious people out of spite, I agree that is wrong. But if what they intended was to assert the equality of LGBT persons before God and the State, more power to them. I'm not at all surprised that equality and the inclusiveness of God offends some folks--too bad for them--they will just have to put up with being offended from time to time.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I recommend this link to this informative Wikipedia article on Nativity Scenes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_scene

As I believe I've said before, I have some passion for this subject. Since I was a small child, the Biblical story of the nativity (even in the King James Version) always touched me, frequently bringing me to tears. Over many years I've collected Italian nativity figures (Fontanini).

The Wikipedia article confirms a couple of points I've tried to make here:
1) Nativity Scenes are expansive and inclusive. Traditional nativity scenes may be as small as the baby and his family, but often expands to include the animals in the stable, the shepherds, the Magi (who really didn't arrive in Bethlehem until two years after the birth according to scripture.) Angels played a part in the biblical story and so they are often included as well. Of course, the angels sing of Christ's significance to the whole world, and so the imagination easily includes all earth's inhabitants in the scene. Wikipedia describes Nativity scenes with hundreds of figures sometimes representing hundreds of different animals and folks of all walks of life.

2) Wikipedia points out that the Nativity Scene tradition even includes the profane and even the scatological (read the article all the way to the end). By no means are all the figures in the Nativity Scene occupied by "adoring the Christ Child"--most of them are going about their ordinary business. That is also the case with the Italian nativity figures that I collect--I have shepherds lying in the field with their sheep (horrors!), musicians and dancing girls (one in a red dress!), Roman soldiers, people selling their wares in the market, a school boy at the feet of a Rabbi, etc. etc. etc. It is my sense, grounded in this tradition, that the Nativity Scene breaks down any notion of division between the sacred and the profane. Theologically speaking, the purpose of the incarnation, the coming of God in the form of a poor, homeless baby in a barn, is to break down the division between the divine and earthy, making all of life holy.

3) I hope this helps you to understand why I was offended by the "furor" over the inclusion of the same-gender couples in the nativity scene. Unfortunately, our adversaries in the Christian tradition seek to deny that we have any place in God's creation, and thus they justify our exclusion from marriage, from political equality, from ordination in the church etc. etc. etc.

Steven Webster