How do we stoop to their level without stooping to their level?

[Emproph]

I’ve been scouring the net for the past few days (again), looking for solutions, ideas, information etc., for more effective ways to combat the intentional dishonesty of the radical right in regard to anti-gay slander. One theme continues to recur, they know how to organize.

Considering they already have many organizational structures in place (especially churches), essentially they are adept at organizing the organizational process itself. ‘Liberals’ and outcast communities like us GLBT, are far less likely to organize as effectively.

First, many if not most of us who are outcasts, to the extent we've been isolated, do not identify with the feeling of being included, and second, liberals and outcasts, by design or default, tend to be more free thinking, there is no desire/need to be part of a ‘group think’ mentality. One of the quotes I read today was "I'd be a Christian if it weren't for the Christians." That says it for me.

To become as organized as they are would require a separate campaign in and of itself. Possible to an extent and necessary at times, yet not nearly as practical to accomplish for us as it is for them.

Knowing of their love of religious superiority by their consistent expression of “my God can beat up your God” mentality, shouldn’t part of our strategy be to capitalize on that divisive mindset? Their own ‘houses’ (of worship) are already divided, in that they use the Bible to justify bearing false witness. A profound and ubiquitous weakness that as of yet they appear to be blind to.

If you saw the protesters (200,000?) to the RNC convention in NYC in 2004, the one thing liberals, or ‘reasonables’ (a term I recently read) are unequivocally united on, is the truth of what is truly evil, which begins with “first do no harm." Reasonables naturally ascribe to the golden rule and do so without the need of having read it in a book first. It also shows that it’s possible for us to organize and unite.

The radical right ‘ideology’ is that it’s ok to lie to a liar, liars being anyone who disagrees, or more accurately, ‘the ends justifies the means.’ So it’s like they have machine guns and are more than willing to mow us down indiscriminately no matter how many innocent bystanders are harmed, and we are trying to defend ourselves by ever so careful sharpshooting the truth. A noble defense posture to be sure, but so far, inadequate.

I guess I’m looking for some insight as to how much and what kind of effort we need to be putting into organizing ‘our side’ of the conflict, GLBT, liberal, democratic organizations etc., versus playing up our strength as free thinking individuals and freethinking independent organizations.

What are some of the strengths of being independent that we can apply as individuals and individual organizations, and how can we overcome the “I’m just one person / my ‘vote’ doesn’t count” factor in regard to that ‘individual’ context?

Obviously organization of some sort is required for either scenario, but how do we organize what is typically resistant to organization, and to what extent is that resistance real or perceived?

I'm not necessarily looking for comprehensive responses, any tid bits of understanding or experience are welcome, including any potential enlightenment from the "other side" for that matter.

[SolInvictus]

From the book:

Where the Edge Gathers: Building a Community of Radical Inclusion
Flunder, Yvette A., Pilgrim Press (Cleveland, 2005)

My book review of this text should be in print by Summer 2006.
For now, here are the 12 steps Yvette recommends for dealing with homophobic groups: (P. 137)

1. Reach out to the farthest margins, welcome everyone.
2. Love & celebrate the radical inclusion of marginalized people.
3. Recognize the harm caused by fear-based religion.
4. Minister to the margins & have an open, protective community.
5. Don't imitate mainline churches, but rather a ministry of reconcilation w/ other churches.
6. All Christians as a spirtual community - look past the exterior of people.
7. Re-examine ethical views, educate people, & destigmatize marginalized.
8. Marginalized to celebrate as God created them - be who you are unafraid.
9. Recognize diversity of marginalized groups.
10. Link with teaching and preaching radical inclusion.
11. Hospitality to and from everyone.
12. Be responsible and accountable in a sustained & celebrated community.

Additional Notes:
P. 117 - Encourage yourself & others to think for themselves.
Remind leaders who use fear to manipulate others to take away
earned freedoms & pass unjust laws: fear begats fear.
Our foundation is faith, not fear; love, not revenge.
We are a people of faith speaking the truth until change comes.
Fear-based religion like spousal abuse - once awakened to the all
loving God less likely to be victims of "God handlers."

P. 39-40 - Our Voice: Testify of our struggles and horrible experiences with others to begin recovery and reconciliation.
Our Growth: Marginalized Christians can be a "force" due to our "intimacy and experience with God" & "Celebrate occurs when we see ourselves through the 'eyes of faith...the eyes of God."

Hope this helps :-)

[zephyr013]

You used the term "intentional dishonesty," and I would like to say a little about that:

In the soulforce credo, it says something like: we have no reason to believe that our opponent's motives are any less pure than ours. Indeed, that is the trap that they fall into when referring to our quote unquote agenda.

I don't think our opponents are intentionally trying to hurt us. They are slaves and victims of untruth.

They are fighting for what they believe, just as hard as we are.

And that being the case, it will take a long time. We can only continue what we are doing, with open dialogues, our nonviolent soul/truth/love force, and intentional suffering in order to help them realize their full potential and capacity for love.

And the most important thing to have in this battle is infinite patience, because in that will be our victory.

[Zerbie]

We could probably go on for years about this topic - Emproph, you're wonderful, and you bring up so many points/questions/topics in a single post. . .allow time to delve into one or two points only, for a long time, maybe we will start finding more answers in the questions.

Now, some of what was suggested in the 12 points from the book makes sense to political organizing too. The "left"ward side of things does not come together very much (from what I observe or from what you observe).

We need to work together on some common goals without parcelling the fight out: the pro-choice activists over here, the gay activists over here, the environmentalists over here, the peace activists over here. . .d'ya get what I'm saying? Get all the big and little groups working for each other's causes.

DH and I have been to a variety of liberal, left-leaning political meetings in our area (DFA, moveon, etc) and left in frustration.

For one thing, reps from each group seem to be trying to use the meeting time to further one specific isolated agenda, rather than developing a larger agenda that includes the goals of ALL groups. Or when that isn't happenening, there tends to be such an insistence that the entire meeting be run democratically, that nothing can get done when 20 people have 20 different ideas of how to go about one simple task. There needs to be someone running the meeting unapologetically, or you can't even get a meeting started - trust me, I've sat in on meetings that never got started because we spent the entire time voting on how to get started.

The right takes its tasks from the top down. The left will need to do some of the same.

Regarding the motives of others, we can speculate all we want. For the most part, I'm certain that the thousands of "ordinary" folks opposing gay rights do it because their churches/leaders tell them to and they really think it is the right course of action. I've got a lot of suspicion on the part of the leaders of the movement though, because they are in every position to know better than what they say. But ultimately that comes down to speculation, and it's important to respond to what they DO, not to what we think they're thinking.

[awediot]

The only thing common enough for the left to unite on, is its dislike of the right. The built in issue of diversity and innate lack of desire to join is the lefts undoing. I am concerned about the prarie tit- mouses' extinction in our area. But I've only so much protest in me .The PETA people (rightfully) think my apathy is the problem and will help with my little issue when their's is solved. And visa-versa. It cannot be taken on together. Too much is wrong.

Pick a problem. Pick THE problem... Now get ten people to agree. And half of them to agree on the solution... Hell, they make TV shows out of such projects...

Right or wrong, the right has a definition to THE PROBLEM. If it is true that the "right" is now narrowed to the "fudamentalist Christian right" and the left is everybody else, it is no wonder they are organized. They believe in the same God, the same Fall, and the same Salvation. The left is proud of its scatterbrainedness.

While I am a lousy, hypocritical and involuntary Christian, I am a Christian and take some offense at the generalizations in your post. While I ascribe to the similar T-shirt deep quote, "Jesus save me from your followers", I dare not attribute such assumptions or thought processes to them as loosely as you.

intentional dishonesty of the radical right ...

(been addressed)

...there is no desire/need to be part of a ‘group think’ mentality...

I abhore the thought, as do all in my group, and the organization you are trying to unite. If mere agreement maketh one a sheep...Baah aahh, I guess.

“my God can beat up your God” mentality,

All sorts of things can be read into you percieving it that way. Says nothing about them.

...Reasonables naturally ascribe to the golden rule and do so without the need of having read it in a book first...

Common sense is no attribute of the left either. You've got your fortune cookies to teach you.

The radical right ‘ideology’ is that it’s ok to lie to a liar, liars being anyone who disagrees, or more accurately, ‘the ends justifies the means.’ So it’s like they have machine guns and are more than willing to mow us down indiscriminately no matter how many innocent bystanders are harmed...

Be sure to smile when you throw that kind of crap around.

The diversity of members on this site has no doubt quieted some of the responses to this interesting post. The gay thing is not the only divisive issue here. Debating religions and beliefs sans the glitterati, is an inevitable topic I think no one on this site is in a hurry to enflame.

[Emproph]

These were some of my favorites, definitely the message I needed.

Originally Posted by SolInvictus

From the book: Where the Edge Gathers: Building a Community of Radical Inclusion, Flunder, Yvette A.,
For now, here are the 12 steps Yvette recommends for dealing with homophobic groups: (P. 137)
-welcome everyone. radical inclusion. of marginalized people.
5. Don't imitate mainline churches, but rather a ministry of reconcilation w/ other churches.
11. Hospitality to and from everyone.
-Fear-based religion like spousal abuse - once awakened to the all loving God less likely to be victims of "God handlers."
-Our Growth: Marginalized Christians can be a "force" due to our "intimacy and experience with God" Hope this helps :-)

I get so frustrated sometimes that I lose sight of the faith behind my sight.
Thanks for the reminder Sol, it does help. (I hope you don't mind if I call you by your first syllable. )
P.S. Where will your book review be in print?

Originally Posted by zephyr013

You used the term "intentional dishonesty"
-In the soulforce credo, it says something like: we have no reason to believe that our opponent's motives are any less pure than ours. Indeed, that is the trap that they fall into when referring to our quote unquote agenda.
-I don't think our opponents are intentionally trying to hurt us. They are slaves and victims of untruth.

That’s absolutely perfect, and you’re right and I agree. Speaking out of frustration I didn’t clarify that it’s the dirty work of the few, and usually the "leaders" that are being intentionally dishonest. I think the majority of their constituents just accept what they say as the “Gospel truth,” and why not, that’s who they get the Gospel truth from. And if the lies were true I’d feel the same way in their position.

I’ve had a rude awakening the past couple of years and I think the biggest part has been that there actually is a specific element of intentional dishonesty. As far as I can tell they reconcile their dishonesty by that ends justifies the means philosophy but I’m still not sure. I am convinced though that it is an intentional effort by some.

Joe has a four part series on his site called: Six Roads of Deception: The Religious Right’s War of Lies on Gay America By Alvin McEwen. It’s the most comprehensive documentation I’ve read so far illustrating the intentionality of the dishonesty of which I'm speaking, usually revolving around studies and statistics. I would consider it required reading and an essential tool to the undoing of untruth. This is the link to the first part.
http://www.joebrummer.com/SixRoadsofDeceptionPart1.pdf

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Emproph, you're wonderful, and you bring up so many points/questions/topics in a single post.
-suggested in the 12 points... makes sense to political organizing too...Get all the big and little groups working for each other's causes.
-I'm certain that the thousands of "ordinary" folks really think it is the right course of action. I've got a lot of suspicion on the part of the leaders
-ultimately that comes down to speculation, and it's important to respond to what they DO, not to what we think they're thinking.

Agreed, I am wonderful . Right back at ya though, you make even the regulars around here feel welcome.

You know I concur with most everything you said, and I’ve come to this conclusion before that it’s really the religious community and other “legitimate” (not gay) organizations who are essential to turn this around, I think even you mentioned that before. If you’re devoted to the anti-gay thing the blatant attitude seems to be that confusion/delusion is both the cause and effect of homosexuality, not one word that comes out of my mouth is taken seriously. So irrelevant am I in fact, I don't even deserve the respect of that explanation, that's what bugs me.

Anyway, schoolboi’s timing in posting the “Faith in America” thread was perfect, and addresses the above paragraph. It makes me feel much more confident because I know that so much of the religious community IS supportive and is just as offended as we are. So I think the inspiration for this thread was out of frustration from not actually seeing the efforts on their part.
-Here’s the link to the thread: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=380

Originally Posted by awediot

-I am a Christian and take some offense at the generalizations in your post. While I ascribe to the similar T-shirt deep quote, "Jesus save me from your followers", I dare not attribute such assumptions or thought processes to them as loosely as you.
-If mere agreement maketh one a sheep...Baah aahh, I guess. All sorts of things can be read into you percieving it that way. Says nothing about them
-The diversity of members on this site has no doubt quieted some of the responses to this interesting post. The gay thing is not the only divisive issue here. Debating religions and beliefs sans the glitterati, is an inevitable topic I think no one on this site is in a hurry to enflame.

What attracted me to Soulforce to begin with was the Explicit notion of 'the enemy' so to speak, being considered victims of untruth (as opposed to intentionally dishonest). Even intentional liars can could and should also be considered victims, just victims of an even ‘bigger’ untruth.

I identify with your description of yourself as a ‘reluctant Christian’ so to speak (The Reluctant Christian, that sounds like a book title. 1 fake book review coming up), but I’m a little know it all brat (ok a big one), which of course throws me right back in the same pride boat I accuse ‘them’ of being in.

Now I made it a point to clarify my statements in this post so as to minimize any potential perception of at least the intent to be inflamtory, but obviously there’s still a need for improvement.

What strikes me is that I don’t have a frame of reference when it comes to being offended by disparaging the Bible or Christianity. I think politically speaking this is the problem with the left too.

A liberal perspective encompasses a conservative perspective. Technically a liberal is both a conservative and a liberal. But such a perspective does not account for the strict boundaries of a “conservative” perspective. Which explains the conservative/religious right’s propensity to project when describing the left or anyone who disagrees. They can only use the concepts/motives they are aware of and practice themselves. Anything outside of “my way” literally doesn’t exist for them.

In this case it’s my pantheist perspective not making the clear distinction between the clearly defined boundaries of the radical religious right perspective and the clearly defined boundaries of the simply religious perspective, and as a result, I am or at least risk being seen as flip in my comments.

Establishing the isolation of this gap in understanding seems to be the key to meaningful communication. The problem is not in the disagreement of the issues it’s in the misunderstanding of why we the other feels the way they do.

Here’s one of our assets, we’re easy to teach! Using Zerbie’s example of meetings that never got started because they spent the entire time voting on how to get started, if that story was told at the very beginning of the meeting for the specific purpose of establishing the need for an unapologetic moderator, in many cases that would fix the situation.

We’re blinded by own potential, but within that potential lies the inherent ability to introspect. To the extent that we are unafraid of fear itself, we are unafraid of change, and therefore learning anew. So though it might take a separate campaign to get this message across, if conveyed with precision, the potential for permanent impact is enough to motivate even a cynical liberal like me. The message would be the way to convey.

By isolating and articulating the nature of our mutual core goals, the nature of our disagreement becomes apparent, and to that extent is understood. To the extent that it is understood, it can be respectfully discussed, trust has been established.

Liberals need to know what it means to be conservative, for the specific purpose of understanding what conservatives don't understand about liberals. (For the sake of illustration I’m generalizing with the term ‘liberal’ and 'conservative')

Now all we have to do is figure out a way to fit all that on a bumper sticker and we’ll have an interracial lesbian couple in the White House by ‘012. Whose with me?

(-Points well taken, thanks guys.)

[SolInvictus]

Hey Emproph, of course you can call me Sol :-)

Book review should be in print in the Summer '06 (prob. June or July). It will be in Waves, a magazine of the UCC (United Church of Christ) LGBT Coalition: www.ucccoalition.org

It was a reminder for me too as most of my family are fundamentalists. Her book was most enlightening. Glad to help & peace and blessings upon you.