Fallout after the Equality Ride

[Venari]

Originally Posted by keltic63

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.

Keltic,

You have posted this once before. But the issue is not if NCU is wrong in its policy. The issue is how the Equality Ride is interacting with the school. If NCU is wrong and the Equality Ride is wrong in how they are interacting with the school then we are not coming to what is the right thing in this situation.

-Venari

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Venari

Keltic,

You have posted this once before. But the issue is not if NCU is wrong in its policy. The issue is how the Equality Ride is interacting with the school. If NCU is wrong and the Equality Ride is wrong in how they are interacting with the school then we are not coming to what is the right thing in this situation.

-Venari

perhaps, but you've avoided answering it before, as well as avoiding answering it in Matt's post. I guess you'll avoid answering it here again.

[Venari]

Originally Posted by keltic63

perhaps, but you've avoided answering it before, as well as avoiding answering it in Matt's post. I guess you'll avoid answering it here again.

But we have discussed this topic in my first post; http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...p?t=308&page=4

As I said I cannot bring my answer down to a yes or no. There are many factors that come into play that effect me and my community. The rules changed after as a result of the actions from a former student. But the new rules are stricter against homosexuality then before. While before the stance was "hands off" that is to tolerate but not yet accept until a full decision was made was much better then the stance we have now of forbidding until we can make a decision.

There is one thing that seems to be missing. The major difference between acceptance and tolerance. No one will ever fully accept other people... we may accept most of them but we tolerate the rest we don’t like. The same goes for sexuality... people are not required to accept anything but it is necessary to tolerate the differences in other people. But tolerance can only go so far which leads to the issue of "fall out."

Is the rule change due to plain intolerance or is it because of a failure to reach out and illustrate how our reaction is wrong and redirect to the right path. Personally calling someone "unchristian" and stating falsehoods about them is not the way to redirect.

-Venari

[themattperry]

Originally Posted by Venari

First, you’re showing the twisting I am beginning to expect. May of the schools have are taking the stance the Equality Ride is going to come but were going to grant you a forum but were not going to bar you from campus. So let’s break it down realistically.

Schools where the riders are not welcome, may face arrest;
Air Force Academy, Liberty, North Central, Oral Roberts, Regent, West Point

Campuses that are not inviting the riders but will not bar them from campus;
Lee, Union, OBU, Biola, California Baptist, BYU, Colorado Christian*,Azusa* Pacific

Campuses that cooperated with the Equality Ride;
Abeline, Texas A&M, Bethel, Wheaton ,Eastern

*These schools are allowing the Equality Ride onto campus but not allowing for forums or distribution of literature.

Break down;
Schools not invited to = 12
Schools invited to = 5

Schools not sponsoring any activities = 10
Schools sponsoring events = 5
Schools allowning limited events = 2



Needless to say we may disagree with what is cooperation but when a school says were not going to invite you but were not going to arrest you, like most have. That means that they are not cooperating with you.



This is just it. I see your post a spin on the facts. The fact is most of the schools have not invited the Equality Ride onto their campuses, and given the no choice in the visit they are deciding not to bar or arrest the riders.

Who's really spinning here Venari!? What you claimed in an earlier post was the "dishonestly" perpetrated by SF was the following:

Originally Posted by Venari's earlier post

I had addressed issues of how Jacob and Herrin have misrepresented important facts ... like saying in several interviews "Most of the schools are allowing them to visit."

By your own calculations above (which are incorrect, see below) this charge that you make is simply false. I take "allowing them to visit" at face value (ie -- to mean "not preventing a visit") (btw, you did not say "cooperating" in your original charge, you switched to that word in your response.) I'm not trying to spin anything! I just took your own words for what they most commonly mean to most people and tried to evaluate your charges of dishonesty. It is simply true that most schools on the route ARE "allowing SF to visit." It is also true that a majority of CCCU schools (the 15) are actually coordinating with SF to plan visits and events. As far as I can tell, this is not spin, but reality!!! (thank God)

Just in case you don't believe me, maybe you believe the San Francisco Chronicle. Here's what they report about visits to two campuses you characterize above as "not inviting the riders but will not bar them from campus":

Originally Posted by Today's San Francisco Chronicle

But in Southern California this week, the gay and lesbian Christians are drawing a much different response: An official welcome.

"We're at a place where we really want to learn from these students," said John W. Back, dean of students at Biola University in La Mirada (Orange County), which prepared for Tuesday's visit for several months. The school might have had a different response three years ago, he said, but now "we're praying for other institutions that they be at a place where they're able to do this."

Administrators at Azusa Pacific University, where the bus stops today, have planned a wide range of meetings between those on the bus and student leaders and top university officials.

"We thought this would be a wonderful opportunity to allow for interaction and conversation for folks who share different viewpoints," said Maureen Taylor, spokeswoman for Azusa Pacific.

Officials at both schools said this openness does not signal that they are changing their beliefs on homosexuality, but that conservative churches are shifting how they respond to gay and lesbian people.

"We've realized we have some things to learn," Back said.

"Wonderful oportunity" -- "Wide range of meetings" -- "Top University Officials" --- "praying for other institutions" ???? Is this spin too? Twisting? Since your are refuted by the words of college officials at the schools in question, I don't think so. Are you at least willing to consider now that this charge against SF (forgetting for a moment the other ones) might not be so accurate?

I really just have to guess that these charges you are making come from a place of pain. I can hear, Venari, that you are hurt by SF coming to your school, and perhaps by some of the things that have been said about your school, by Jake, Herrin ... whoever. But it is not ok to be so angry and hurt that you end up saying things that aren't true .... Or rather I should say ... it's ok to be as angry and hurt as you need to be ... or however you feel. It's not OK to make false charges against people.

Originally Posted by Venari

And my answer is a Yes with an IF and a No with a BUT. That’s the best answer I can give you.

With all due respect, the question I asked (do your school's policies contain discriminatory language?) is very simple and does not require a complex answer. Either a College has or does not have discriminatory language on its books. It's simply not very hard to tell. I was just wondering if you think your college does .... I'm not trying to corner you ... I actually sort of wanted to know whether perhaps you thought your college's rules did NOT contain this kind of language -- if there was some interpretation you were applying that rendered the language non-discriminatory. Because if I were at a college that did NOT have language like that and the Ride showed up, I would be angry too! But you have been clear -- I guess you can't provide a simple answer, and that is OK with me. I'll be happy to draw my own conclusions.

I want to make it clear that I am NOT trying to discredit you Venari. I want to repeat also that I think you are a reasonable, good person. You've proven that, and I repsect you -- heck I enjoy talking about these things with you. So far, this debate has been helpful to me. i just don't think that you are right about a couple of these things, and I think you would have to agree that some of what you said in your last post on this matter was in fact inaccurate.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Venari

But we have discussed this topic in my first post; http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...p?t=308&page=4

As I said I cannot bring my answer down to a yes or no. There are many factors that come into play that effect me and my community. The rules changed after as a result of the actions from a former student. But the new rules are stricter against homosexuality then before. While before the stance was "hands off" that is to tolerate but not yet accept until a full decision was made was much better then the stance we have now of forbidding until we can make a decision.

There is one thing that seems to be missing. The major difference between acceptance and tolerance. No one will ever fully accept other people... we may accept most of them but we tolerate the rest we don’t like. The same goes for sexuality... people are not required to accept anything but it is necessary to tolerate the differences in other people. But tolerance can only go so far which leads to the issue of "fall out."

Is the rule change due to plain intolerance or is it because of a failure to reach out and illustrate how our reaction is wrong and redirect to the right path. Personally calling someone "unchristian" and stating falsehoods about them is not the way to redirect.

-Venari

and once again, I ask, are the policies described in the quotes and links, discriminatory or not?

[Venari]

Originally Posted by themattperry

I want to make it clear that I am NOT trying to discredit you Venari. I want to repeat also that I think you are a reasonable, good person. You've proven that, and I repsect you -- heck I enjoy talking about these things with you. So far, this debate has been helpful to me. i just don't think that you are right about a couple of these things, and I think you would have to agree that some of what you said in your last post on this matter was in fact inaccurate.

Matt,

I appreciate what you said. As I have said before we support the same goals but though very different means. That said we see things in a very different light and have access to different information that leads us to our conclusions.

That said I do feel Jacob and Herrin are twisting events to portray things to their favour. This is from my view the schools are not inviting or welcoming them to campus, yet they are not taking the steps to threaten arrest so that means, to me, the bottom line is the Equality Ride is not welcome but the school is choosing not to exercise their right to arrest the riders... which I will say is stance that the schools should take.

But it also boils down to other issues of slander. As in the March issue of Lavender Magazine Jacob called North Central University "Decidedly unchristian." Pared with what is on the Soul force website, north central, NCU has never expelled a student just for being gay. I have been openly gay for over 3 years and I have never faced any sort of discrimination or referral to conversion therapy ... my decision to attend an ex-gay ministry was my own choice and over all most people at my school do not know I have gone. As for the issue of former students I cannot discuss them because of legal reasons, all I can say is from my own experience.

Which is why I cannot give a direct answer about the policies, yes hey have recently changed to include homosexuality but that is in response to the actions of another gay student. But they only serve as clarifies to homosexuality immorality is considered equal with heterosexual immorality, that is any sexual activity outside of marriage. So yes homosexuality is listed but not in a manner that I consider to be discriminatory, once you look at the larger picture I feel this is seen.

But there is a fact it can be twisted and interpreted as such to offer room to discriminate against homosexual students. If such an incident occurs it will be met by the outcry of many students. As things are we are in an attempt to find a balance of maintaining our foundation and creating a welcoming atmosphere. Needless to say there are two forms of change; the first violent and drastic change like a volcano erupting, or the slow process of metamorphosis that can take a while but in the end emerges as something beautiful. This is where I feel Soulforce is failing. A few of these schools are in the metamorphosis process and there is the failure to recognize this change in progress and the insistence that things move as they want ... for those of you missing what I am saying here it is;

When your interrupt the metamorphosis you often kill the organism changing and you will never see the beauty it can become.

So that is where I see Soulforce and the Equality Ride failing. You are killing the very thing you are seeking to create.

-Venari

[SteveSGU]

Counts:

No visit:4
Visit: 13
Unknown: 2

Venari, unless your definition of "allowed to visit" is really different than mine, you are just wrong about this.

My question is this: How many welcomes has Soulforce abused by insisting on doing something to be arrested? If I'm not mistaken, that has happened at most of the 13 universities in your count above. Even pro-gay people are saying that the Riders are causing more problems than they are solving by "not allowing any limitations on the dialogue." (What dialogue, when you are insulting people by silently pretending to die in representation of the people we are supposedly "killing" with our sincere beliefs?)

The Equality Riders I spoke to were nice people, but they are diminishing their own effectiveness by seeking publicity by breaking the law.


Steve

[closetcougar]

Originally Posted by SteveSGU

Counts:

No visit:4
Visit: 13
Unknown: 2

Venari, unless your definition of "allowed to visit" is really different than mine, you are just wrong about this.

My question is this: How many welcomes has Soulforce abused by insisting on doing something to be arrested? If I'm not mistaken, that has happened at most of the 13 universities in your count above. Even pro-gay people are saying that the Riders are causing more problems than they are solving by "not allowing any limitations on the dialogue." (What dialogue, when you are insulting people by silently pretending to die in representation of the people we are supposedly "killing" with our sincere beliefs?)

The Equality Riders I spoke to were nice people, but they are diminishing their own effectiveness by seeking publicity by breaking the law.


Steve

Nor should there be any limitations on this dialogue. Why should we apologize for demanding rights that everyone has access to. And why should we demand any less. To demand less is a lie. I was at the BYU stop. I am a BYU student. I won't take credit for this analogy. Another gay student from BYU shared it while SF was here. I hope it is coherent.
It was either in a bug's life or the movie antz when grasshopper A punishes an ant for getting out of line and tells grasshopper B that he has to exert his authority whenever he can so that the ants don't get out of line. Grasshopper B doesn't understand why b/c the ants are so small and powerless. So grasshopper A throws a seed at him and asks "did that hurt?'' Grasshopper B chuckles and says, "no." Then grasshopper A throws a bunch of seeds at grasshopper B and says "did that hurt?" Grasshopper B says "yeah." And then grasshopper A says, "see you don't ever want to let them know how much power they have if they band together."
What SF did was create a place in which we could have an open dialoque and the effects WILL last. We are already planning another Lilly Procession next year to commemorate the suicides of the gay mormons that were remembered this year. The rest of the week after SF visit, we had discussions in all of my classes about SF visit and homosexuality. Most of the students were tolerant of differing opinions, at the very least. Before SF came, I was scared to say anything, but after watching Haven and Jacob and the other riders demand equality and nothing less, I realized that I have absolutely nothing to apologize for, and short of getting kicked out for actually being gay, I won't apologize for disapproving of derogatory name calling or misinformed stereotypes. And when I graduate, I will continue to fight against the BYU policy, from outside of the closet. They have shown me that it is possible and that if you want things to change, you are inevitably going to piss some people off.

[Liberal Crozier]

Revisionist history is becoming very popular, and reading the thematic posts in this thread, including the one tonight that precipitated this response, I just wonder what would have happened if:

1) Martin Luther would have asked permission to post his theological disputations on the cathedral door?

or more specific to the Equality Riders, I wonder what would have happened if:

1) The Freedom Riders would have asked the Southern governors, mayor and their Dixiecrat Jim Crow representatives in the Congress for permission to organise the Freedom Ride and allow them to set both the agenda and the strategies used to end bigotry, hatred, murder, inequality ...not to mention theocratic support for segregation, and proscriptions against interracial marriage.

There is a fact in human dynamics......you must define yourself and your purposes and motivations,... you never allow your enemies to define you....and that is what our enemies are doing on a global scale.

To work is to pray (laborare est orare). The work of justice begins with one step and not cursing the darkness....

[closetcougar]

Originally Posted by Liberal Crozier

Revisionist history is becoming very popular, and reading the thematic posts in this thread, including the one tonight that precipitated this response, I just wonder what would have happened if:

1) Martin Luther would have asked permission to post his theological disputations on the cathedral door?

or more specific to the Equality Riders, I wonder what would have happened if:

1) The Freedom Riders would have asked the Southern governors, mayor and their Dixiecrat Jim Crow representatives in the Congress for permission to organise the Freedom Ride and allow them to set both the agenda and the strategies used to end bigotry, hatred, murder, inequality ...not to mention theocratic support for segregation, and proscriptions against interracial marriage.

There is a fact in human dynamics......you must define yourself and your purposes and motivations,... you never allow your enemies to define you....and that is what our enemies are doing on a global scale.

To work is to pray (laborare est orare). The work of justice begins with one step and not cursing the darkness....

What would have happened if ...
SF had gone to San Fransisco, or to the University of Utah instead of BYU. Nothing. This is not where the change needs to take place most. The newspapers wouldn't have shown up. Nobody would have cared, and we would still be the only one's talking about this stuff. Go to www.provodailyherald.com and see how alive this dialogue is right now. And SF created it.

[peaceboy]

I haven't had a chance to read all of the posts, but I am a little surprised that no one has mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr. He did something radical by staging sit ins and disrupting the segregated society's order. Rosa Parks did the same thing. The past civil rights movements are filled by people who are willing to have peaceful protests even at the stake of being arrested or harassed or abused, having rights taken away before they were gained back with more equality than before. We look back at them with romanticized views, but the fact is that they were detested and despised as much as the equality riders are today. We must never forget this on our journey to equality and true freedom!

[tdogg]

Change isn't made by lying around waiting for an engraved invitation. It is made by making informed decisions to blaze a path where none has been blazed, to force those in fear and ignorance to confront the issues of which they are most afraid and ignorant, to take a stance for something we believe in and follow through with actions (albeit non-violent actions).

Jesus didn't spread his message of love and salvation by sitting around in Jerusalem and waiting for those to come who wanted to listen to him - he went out and about, speaking, teaching and preaching to those who were afraid of Him, uncomfortable with His message and His presence, abusing to those less fortunate and/or different from them (them being the religious and political leaders of His day) - He didn't wait for engraved invitations, He took a pro-active approach and went for it. He wasn't all that popular as a whole, His message wasn't all that well-received, most people wanted to be left alone with their personal opinions and beliefs but Jesus didn't allow for that. He got His message across.

That is all the Equality Riders are doing. They aren't beating anyone up. They aren't threatening them with violence or emotional abuse. They are taking a pro-active stance for equal rights for everyone, which is basically the premise of this country in which we all live. They are brave in confronting those who are afraid and ignorant, those who are unwelcoming and have a closed-minded attitude. The Equality Riders are doing what most of us just dream of doing, a positive high-impact action to get the message across to those who otherwise wouldn't be open to thinking about it on their own. There would be no formal invitation, no acceptance dinners, no schedules of open-minded dialogue set up by the political and religious leaders of these schools. If the Equality Riders waited for a formal invitation to come to the schools and speak, they probably would have made it to very few of the schools if any...

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Change isn't made by lying around waiting for an engraved invitation.

Originally Posted by crozier

The work of justice begins with one step and not cursing the darkness....

You both made me smile wide- this- the day after Easter. Thank you for your well-formed words. I will remember them and take them to heart.

[NathanATX]

When I was in Oklahoma last weekend, someone said the senator's actions were overturned.

I haven't found anything that confirms it, though...

[themattperry]

It's good to see this thread revived somewhat ... I never did get a sense of peace about it.

This discussion had its origins -- or at least some part of its origins -- in one student's anger about the aftermath of a SF visit to a school, and charges that SF leaders were engaging in inflamatory and dishonest speech. I argued against this, asking for proof. None was forthcoming, and it's my belief that those accusations came out of anger and frustration.

I think I can -- to a certain point -- empathize with this point of view. When SF comes on to a campus, they provide comfort and voice to gay students under threat and in the closet, but I think we should also realize that they must scare the hell out of some closeted students. The closet is a place where one finds a survival strategy. Any force that comes in and threatens to upset an equilibrium under which one has learned to survive in a hostile environment can be seen as a threat. In other words, I think we usually choose the misery we know over the risky liberation that we don't know. This also explains the strident self-identified conservatism in which many glbt kids live before coming out. At least this is my experience, and it's almost certainly why some sympathetic people at the schools have been launching atacks agains SF and its leadership.

However, I also know that the Gospel was never meant to be comfortable -- it was meant to be liberating. (This is certainly my experience of the Gospel!) Through the word we are called out of dark places and scared compromises into the full light of living. This calling is not always polite, but definitely loving. It is not always tactful, but definitely truthful. It does not ask permission, but rather includes us all by default.

My 2 cents/