Jesse Helms died

[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/Satyagr...raha_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. With whom should i file charges?

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.