On Morality, Civil Rights, and Soul Force

[simpleman]

Before I begin, I would like to say that I hope none of this will subject me to being lambasted off of this board, but since the whole Soul Force organization is based in peace and equality, I will not expect it to happen.

I would like to begin by making a few observations about the various University handbook excerpts available on this website. Of course the purpose of posting these excerpts is to expose the policies of campuses that are discriminatory in nature towards homosexual behavior.

Firstly, none of these campuses exclusively prohibit homosexual behavior. They essentially prohibit any and all forms of sexual behavior aside from heterosexual intercourse between a man and woman bonded in holy matrimony. They also, in several instances, prohibit the consumption of tobacco and alcohol, even for those of legal age, by any student regardless of whether they are on campus or not. As much as I respect Soul Force's work to promote equality among people, I do not see, strictly in theory, that any of the colleges treat homosexuals in a way other than they would treat anyone else the considered engaged in wrongdoing. In practice, I do understand that many of these colleges treat students who are homosexuals differently then they would treat fornicators, however I do know that these universities dispense with those who consume alcohol quite severely as well.

Secondly, these campus rules are based upon a moral structure that is revered and upheld by the college and its students. A young man I am friends with who attends Oklahoma Wesleyan University in Bartlesville, OK, explained to me that each student must sign a contract to the effect of all of these policies on sexual behavior and consumption of various substances. The same contract even included clauses that required the student to eat healthy and exercise. Any student who chooses to attend such a college signs and consciously consents to obey such a contract.

Thirdly, agree or disagree with the moral structure of a privately funded college or university, it is the moral structure that they revere and uphold dear to their hearts. Right or wrong, it is what they sincerely and earnestly believe. Since it will undoubtedly come up, I will remark here that I do not myself believe in the exact moral structure and theology of these schools. However, I respect their moral structure, as I would have them respect my own. Also, as a note, I attend a public university, therefore my school is not governed by a moral code. Back to my final point on these policies, I know that Soul Force, a private organization of like-minded individuals, has its own moral code that it upholds and reveres. It is my humble observation that Soul Force finds many of these policies to be offensive to its moral code. Therefore, I urge you, keep in mind that Soul Force's is offensive to these schools as well. This means that when you express your disgust with school policies, and decry them as false or wrong, it is the same as them decrying your beliefs as false or wrong.

My second point involves what I consider to be a glaring contrast between the Civil Rights movement and the Soul Force Equality Ride.

The Civil Rights movement was a large group of individuals who quietly but passionately protested against unjust public laws. The Civil Rights movement fought for equality under the law, which, at the time, denied blacks inalienable rights. The law I am referring to is an object within the public sphere. Policies of privately-funded colleges and universities exist within the private sphere. The very existence of this private sphere is what keeps the country from being able to make laws against engagement in what are considered to be immoral sexual behavior (such as homosexuality, adultery, fornication, bestiality, etc.). In instances of criminal law, the public sphere and the private sphere can overlap, but in cases of equality among people, the private and public sphere are separate. In the public sphere, any public law denying a person the right to seat emself on a public bus would be unjust and actionable under the law of the public sphere. However, in the private sphere, a rule that disallowed a homosexual admittance to a university is completely legal, and is often a part of the moral structure on campus. Under the law, a person can deny essentially anyone for essentially any reason from being on their private property. This is why liquor stores can refuse sale of liquor to anyone that they are not convinced is 21 years of age or older. This is the beauty of our country and its legal system. You don't have to agree with anybody that you don't want to agree with, and you can speak freely in public places about essentially whatever you want. The goal of the Freedom Ride is to try and pressure a private organization to change its policies that are considered unjust. Civil Rights was about pressuring a government to change laws that were unjust. Breaking school policy would result in expulsion at worst, but breaking laws means prison.

My third point, and probably my most controversial, deals with activism as a whole, and the activism of the Freedom Ride.

Soul Force's numerous requests to come and hold events on private campuses is tantamount to Fred Phelps requesting to speak in the middle of Soul Force's headquarters. He has no right to do so, and his message is totally incongruous with the moral structure and cultural foundation of your organization. I can't speak to whether or not Soul Force would decline such a request, but I am sure that the message that Fred Phelps has to offer is completely against everything that Soul Force and its members believe. In the same way, the message that Soul Force has to deliver is, in many ways, against the beliefs of these private colleges and their students. To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men. These men were fighting against government oppression, from which there was no shelter. There is more than enough shelter from religious colleges, as no GLBT person has to subject themselves to any discrimination by such organizations.

My final point is this: As you attempt to shed light on equality and foster discussion on this Freedom Ride, I strongly urge you to be respectful. You do not have to agree at all with the policies of these colleges and universities, but please respect them. Though there are many societal and cultural inequalities in the world, there are far fewer legal ones. The same Constitution and set of public law that allows the Freedom Riders to assemble on public property and express their message also protects private organizations' rights to deny anyone that they please from being a part of the organization. The Civil Rights movement ultimately ended with the repeal of oppressive public law, while your movement seeks only to change people's moral structures.

[scott snedeker]

You Honor me with your post because I can feel some openness in your asking. So I will answer genuinely.

Originally Posted by simpleman

.....


your movement seeks only to change people's moral structures.

Your last line is the revelation of the issue.

I am not gay because my morality is different. I am gay for the same reason that I have blue eyes, red hair and fair skin. It is a trait.
Some say being gay is a choice. They are half right. You can choose to be
true to your nature and experience passion, romance and love, all essential
parts of a balanced normal life. Or you can falsely pretend to be attracted to the opposite sex and live an empty passionless lie.



Blacks were discriminated against by identifying them by skin pigment and phyisical features. We were taught how to recognize "morally inferior" people by their physical traits.

The only difference today is that the trait is not visually recognizeable

My "choice" was to be straight. I tried my own form of aversion therapy to change my sexual attraction from men to women so that I would not be this "perverted monster" and devastate my parents and be the "pariah of the world and God's abomination"

Imagine the time in your adolescence when you were discovering your sexual awareness. Now Imagine being told that your feelings of sexual attraction make you a worthless deviant because you feel them toward the same sex. So to survive you hide this secret and stifle the growth of your emerging dentity and learn to hate yourself.

This is psychological child abuse at its worst. Each time this message is received by the young person he is wounded. The abuser gains a gratification at the young persons expense. This is typically used as compensation for a personal sense of inadequacy in the abuser. This is emotional predation. When the abuser then claims he is entitled to do this because of morality it becomes sanctimonious predation.

This is not the same as making rules against smoking or drinking.

This is telling a young person they have no right to exist or any entitlement to live true to their nature or love who is in their heart.

Equating the two is a tactic that an abuser uses to justfies his abuse. He seeks to trivialize his trespass by confusing behavior with trait.

......But then there is hope.....


Imagine the miracle of courageously overcoming this self loathing imposed by your past abuse. Imagine someone who sees the shining boy inside you and helps you see this shining boy your self; just the way your are with no changes needed nor desired. This is unconditional love, not I love you but you're deviant!

This epiphany restores your sense that you are a person deserving of happiness, equal worthiness and love. A hard fought internal struggle won by myself and many other gay people.

Acceptance and affirmation of your own NATURE is the foundation of Spirituality.

Discrimination based on behavior is morality, yes.

Discrimination based on a trait is a civil rights violation.

Enlightening people to clear up this the confusion, the confusion of behavior with trait, is the mission of Soulforce!

I hope that you see my reply as an opportunity to more strongly connect with the unconditional love of self and others. You are eloquent and respectful. I feel good sharing my perspective with you. Your venture on to this site is how folks like us are making the world a kinder place for the future

[BruceChris]

To begin with, we have already had this conversation, or perhaps we are still in the middle of it. See below, and please read it to the end. While you present yourself in a much more thoughtful manner than JacoBison initially did, you point seems to be exactly the same.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2426

Re your comments about Fred Phelps. I would suggest that he is an EXTREEMLY poor example. I have met him, and his followers. It is my experience that he, and his followers are incapable of any meaningful form of communication. The man is incapable of dialogue, her is largely incapable of even expressing ideas. The only thing that this man seems to be capable of expressing is hate. I will not accept any teaching, certainly not anything that proports itself to be a Christian teaching, that is only expressed as hate. -- "God Hates Fags"? No, God does not hate anybody, and that is not a Christian teaching.

We are not out to change anyone's rules. That will come later, and that is something that each of these colleges must do on it's own. We are at these colleges only in an attempt to open a dialogue, and to try to touch hearts.

I am reminded of the parable of the Good Samaritan. If you go back, and read your bible, you will read that the Samaritans were a DESPISED people. It did not say that they were bad people, simply that they were a despised people. And of course, the Samaritan in question was clearly acting in kindness, and goodness. So I assert that we are also Good Samaritans. Our members, if they are out, or even if they are not, are despised by many people who call themselves Christian. Now, not all of our members are Christian, but all of them that I have encountered here are usually doing their best to act on their understanding of the Great Commandment.

Compare, the civil rights workers of the 1960's. They were a despised people, and they went where they were not welcome. Is that any reason to say that the freedom rides should not have happened, or that it is still O.K. to see someone as less than yourself, because of the color of their skin? For hundreds of years, the bible was cited as supporting slavery.

I simply refuse to accept your argument that Equality riders should submit to any rules that keep them from dialoguing with students.

Jesus went into the temple, where he was not wanted, and threw over the tables of the money changers. What parallels can I be allowed to draw here?

The practice of non-violence has been described as -- one person or group's putting their ability to accept and withstand suffering, up against another's ability to inflict suffering.

To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men

I flatly disagree with you here.

I believe in what we are doing here. Do you believe that those of differing sexualities, who were created that way by God, are to be despised, and if not, how do you suggest that we go about changing that?

I am asking you to answer the question in my last paragraph. - (If you simply wish to tell me that I am a bad person, and do not answer this question, I have nothing further to discuss with you).

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by simpleman

To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men. .

We've heard this argument time and time again, and it's truly laughable, on one level, and arrogant and destructive on another. First of all, Arun Gandhi, Mahatma's grandson, who lived with his grandfather, joined Soulforce in Cleveland in 2000 and was arrested in his first act of civil disobedience. Secondly, Yolanda King also joined us there. And her courageous mother, Coretta Scott King, was one of our staunchest allies. She was consistent in standing up for the rights of LGBTs.

I always find it interesting that strangers think they know more about Gandhi and King than their own families.

[simpleman]

Thanks for your responses to my post.

I hope I can respond to some of your concerns with my post directly now.

To Scott:

I don't intend to, by being on this site, debate the Biblical side, or scientific side, or any other perspective on homosexuality itself. The way you perceive your sexual orientation and sexual desires belongs to you. I am not here to say that homosexuality is wrong, evil, or that homosexuals are sexual deviants. This is not my place or reason for being on this board.

However, I want you to consider, for a moment, what your moral structure is, i.e. what you believe to be right and wrong. Though you see homosexuality as a trait, many people see it differently. They consider it to be sinful or wrong. So as your moral structure does not apply to sexual orientation, others' moral structures do. And even if these people do not believe that physical traits make others morally inferior, they do not believe sexual orientation to be a physical trait. I know you disagree, and in many ways I do too, but this is how people's moral structures work.

Finally, I want to try and explain something I believe to be crucial to the idea of civil rights. I will begin with this caveat, which is that everything in this next paragraph or two is based upon Constitutional Law, and nothing else. Under the law, civil rights are outlined in the Constitution. Some examples are freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc. Soul Force is properly and appropriately practicing freedom of speech when their Freedom Riders are on public property.

However there are no such thing as "civil" rights on private property. There are certain "human" rights, such as the right to not be murdered or raped, etc., but "civil" rights do not exist. If a property owner does not want to allow a person on his or her property, he has that right. If a privately funded organization, such as Mississippi College or Soul Force, does not want a person on their private property for any reason at all, they have the right to prohibit these people from their property under the law. Saying that colleges' discriminatory policies are civil rights violation is a misnomer. "Misguided" or "wrong" maybe, but "civil rights violation" no.

The government is not supposed to regulate private property. In many ways they do, but they should not. This country was founded on the principle of being able to believe what you want to believe, and have the freedom to discriminate however you wish on your own property. If the law was not this way, it would be nothing but a constant free-for-all to make laws that are detrimental to other religious or moral persuasions. If the law didn't protect everyone in this way, the government could make laws against discrimination anywhere, which might seem good on the surface, but if another group came into the majority in various legislatures, laws could be made against being gay or black or liking Tom Hanks movies. In order to keep rights for everyone in the public sphere, we have to give people the right to discriminate in their private spheres.

Bruce:

I read that other thread pretty closely. It appears that Jacob had a valid point to begin with, but he let his emotions get the best of him. This is a very emotional issue, and things like that do happen. I must, though, say the same for many Soul Force members. Emotions run high, but I think that the goal of the Freedom Ride is to cultivate dialogue, not to allow emotions to destroy meaningful discussion.

As for Fred Phelps, I do believe him to be completely out of his mind, unreasonable, and entirely reprehensible. The phrase "raving madman" applies to him. Even though I believe my analogy stands, you do not, and thus I will take that point and try again.

What if a group from Green Peace wished to protest your usage of gallon after gallon of gasoline for your Freedom Ride buses as damaging to the environment? They want to protest at Soul Force's headquarters on the front lawn, and speak directly to your members as they go about their daily jobs at headquarters. Again I cannot speak to whether or not Soul Force would allow them on private property, but I can say that Soul Force feels that its reason for expending the gasoline transcends the environmental effect of the fuel burning. Green Peace has no right whatsoever to be on Soul Force's private property, and no one (aside from Green Peace and other environmental interest groups) would be taken aback by it. I hope that one works a little better.

As for your point on the Civil Rights workers of the 1960s, I will reiterate what I said in my original post, which is that they were protesting against laws that were unjust and unconstitutional. These were laws that disallowed blacks to vote or drink at certain public water fountains, or sit in certain seats on certain buses. These were actionable under unjust laws that would put people of different colors in jail for breaking them. None of the rules set forth by these college campuses are actionable under any law, and only disallow certain people from attending their university. These universities are private organizations with private property, they are allowed, under the law to disallow anyone they please. The government is not allowed to, because the Constitution, on which it is built, does not allow it. I hope this clears up the difference between the Civil Rights workers and the Freedom Riders.

Additionally, I do not think that the freedom rides of the 60s shouldn't have happened. Again, they were fighting against laws, not campus rules. Also, keep in mind that Mississippi College and many other colleges were prepared to allow Soul Force on to their private property, i.e. the Riders were welcome. However, Soul Force refuses to respect the colleges' regulations for any and all campus guests, and this is what makes them "unwelcome".

Also, I know that my comment about disrespecting the memory of Dr. King and Gandhi has been a source of some frustration I'm sure, but I stand by it. By this I do not mean to say that Soul Force's mission is wrong, but Dr. King and Gandhi were fighting against corrupt and unjust governments, while Soul Force is fighting with legally protected private institutions. There is a marked difference.

And now, after all of that, I will attempt, to the best of my ability, to answer your question, and Bruce, please do not think that I believe you or anybody here to be a "bad person". I understand Soul Force's mission is to create dialogue, and that is what I'm trying to do. So, here's my answer:

If the Freedom Ride wishes to create dialogue, its people should not prepare for a standoffish "protest" or "demonstration", even in non-violence. I think that Freedom Riders would find welcome from these colleges if they agreed to follow that college's rules and respect them, whether they are right or wrong. Soul Force's message can easily be spread without breaking any rules for campus guests, such as those set forth by Mississippi College. If Soul Force wants to reach and affect this type of person on that type of campus, they need to be extremely respectful of their viewpoint, which, if I am not mistaken, is what you are trying to get them to do for you. I hope that clears some things up for you, Bruce Chris.

Kara:

I know that our viewpoints are quite different, and I will completely admit that I am a "stranger" as you say. I also know that this is an emotional issue and one that is very important to you, judging by your response to mine and other posts on this board. Even though I presume you do not consider me to be a respectable person, I do not appreciate the disrespect that you gave to my original post, and I will not judge Soul Force as a whole based upon this.

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by simpleman

I do not see, strictly in theory, that any of the colleges treat homosexuals in a way other than they would treat anyone else the considered engaged in wrongdoing. In practice, I do understand that many of these colleges treat students who are homosexuals differently then they would treat fornicators, however I do know that these universities dispense with those who consume alcohol quite severely as well.

Thanks for the respectful tone to your post. I have just a personal note. I went to a conservative religious college in the Midwest that had a anti-gay, anti-sex outside of marriage, anti-alcohol stance. There were women sneaking into the men's dorms at all hours of day and night. (I assume it was the same at the women's dorms) Our freshman class president was unmarried and very much pregnant by the end of the school year. We all knew which guys had their girlfriends sleeping over. The consumption of alcohol was no secret either. It was so widespread that to expell students for being caught with alcohol would have reduced the student body by 50%. However, any guy seen kissing another guy would have been an automatic expulsion with no questions. Even just sexual orientation was grounds for expulsion.

I was generally one of the straight-laced, follow the rules type of student. I did everything that I was supposed to. My across the hall neighbor was one of those who was drunk every weekend to the point of being passed out and having to be carried back to room. Yet I was the one that would have been expelled for something I had no control over. I feel that colleges whether private or public need to be confronted when they discriminate against groups of people. Private colleges should not be left unchallenged in this.

I feel college campuses are places to learn and explore new ideas and to challenge people to think in new ways. They are not like other private property because they are specifically designed to expand students' understanding of the world. We had people from various groups that often disagreed with us come to campus. They all got their say. After they left we discussed the issue they brought up. (And usually dismissed it.) That is part of the college experience.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Kara:

I know that our viewpoints are quite different, and I will completely admit that I am a "stranger" as you say. I also know that this is an emotional issue and one that is very important to you, judging by your response to mine and other posts on this board. Even though I presume you do not consider me to be a respectable person, I do not appreciate the disrespect that you gave to my original post, and I will not judge Soul Force as a whole based upon this.

In your initial posting you wrote: To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men.

I responded:

We've heard this argument time and time again, and it's truly laughable, on one level, and arrogant and destructive on another. First of all, Arun Gandhi, Mahatma's grandson, who lived with his grandfather, joined Soulforce in Cleveland in 2000 and was arrested in his first act of civil disobedience. Secondly, Yolanda King also joined us there. And her courageous mother, Coretta Scott King, was one of our staunchest allies. She was consistent in standing up for the rights of LGBTs.

I always find it interesting that strangers think they know more about Gandhi and King than their own families.

I do not believe there was anything disrespectful in my response to you. You speak as if you have some knowledge which I seriously doubt. I pointed out that family members of King and Gandhi do not share your views, and one would tend to believe they knew their family better than you know them. I see nothing disrespectful in that. I was not calling you a stranger to Soulforce, because hopefully there are no strangers, just newbies learning to understand what we are about. Many of us on the forum are students of King and Gandhi and have spent years studying him, but compared to Arun and Coretta, we are all strangers. It would seem to me that strangers pretending to know know more than the families of King and Gandhi is extremely arrogant.

I never suggested you were not a respectable person, you made a leap there, that to me makes no sense. I did suggest that you are speaking about things you know nothing about. There is a huge difference in what you perceived I said, and what I said. And yes, I am very passionate about issues of justice and peace. I've been committed to those issues for over 40 years. And I will not apologize for that passion. Kara

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by simpleman

However, I want you to consider, for a moment, what your moral structure is, i.e. what you believe to be right and wrong.

Though you see homosexuality as a trait, many people see it differently.
They consider it to be sinful or wrong.

So as your moral structure does not apply to sexual orientation, others' moral structures do.

And even if these people do not believe that physical traits make others morally inferior, they do not believe sexual orientation to be a physical trait.

I know you disagree, and in many ways I do too, but this is how people's moral structures work.

My "moral structure" does not apply to sexual orientation because my moral structure does not apply to the mere fact that I exist.

The contention is not with the belief that sexual orientation is not a trait, it’s with the idea that people can be considered beliefs.

It occurs to me that you think I'm still up for debate.

[simpleman]

Pablo:

I absolutely understand your point. As I mentioned in the portion of my post that you quoted, the theory is definitely one way, and the practice is most definitely another. This double standard is surely wrong. Even so, my point is not to defend the colleges policies on their merit, but rather under their protection by the law. And even though your college practiced a deplorable double standard in punishment of offenders, some of these colleges aren't so bad about it.

Kara:

I can certainly see that you see no disrespect in your comments. I admire your fervor as an unabashed believer in your stance and viewpoint. However, your language and syntax was, in both posts, snide and confrontational. Any time you start a sentence with "I find it interesting that..." it sounds snide. Furthermore, other posts of yours that I have read, specifically ones that are to people with which you disagree, you sound exactly the same way, harsh and critical. Whether or not you can see it, your "online voice" sounds extremely harsh. I'm sure that your voice is fueled constantly by your passion on the issues, and that's okay, but I cannot believe that you are incapable of putting your emotions aside in order to have meaningful repartee with people of differing viewpoints, even those you see to be radically different from yours. I have done nothing but show respect to everyone on this board, and I will continue to do so, regardless of whether you think my viewpoint is "laughable" or not.

Note: I will not post the whole thing here again, but even though I do believe that Dr. King and Gandhi would support the mission of Soul Force, which is to expose and decry discrimination, I do not believe that what Soul Force is doing is the same thing as what Dr. King and Gandhi did.

Emproph:

I was not trying to make any generalizations about people's individual moral structure. And I am fully aware that you, emproph, consider homosexuality to be a trait, but other people don't. I was simply trying to point out a little bit of the core of these colleges' moral structures and how they relate to the rules that Soul Force finds discriminatory.

I have to apologize as I don't understand exactly what you are talking about in the next two paragraphs. I don't recall saying that individual people are beliefs, or trying to imply that. I mean that people have different moral structures, based on whatever they want to believe.

When you say "It occurs to me that you think I'm still up for debate." Was this supposed to be a joke because you think that I believe people themselves to be moral structures in themselves? Because I don't believe that. I'm not here to debate anyone on their own moral structure nor am I here to comment on the nature of sexuality. I came to discuss the marked difference between the public and private sides of society with respect to Constitutional Law.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by simpleman

uNote: I will not post the whole thing here again, but even though I do believe that Dr. King and Gandhi would support the mission of Soul Force, which is to expose and decry discrimination, I do not believe that what Soul Force is doing is the same thing as what Dr. King and Gandhi did.

You are correct in making a distinction between protest of government laws and protest of private institutions for their codes of conduct. Yes a distinction does exist. I believe the reason so many supporters see the Ride as being of the tradition of MLK & Gandhi is that the spirit of the matter is analogous, regardless of what kind of institution they are protesting. (Because of the emotional, psychological, and practical repercussions of anti-gay policy, whereEVER it is found.) I can see how the technicality is debateable. Thank you for making the technical distinction clear to my perception. I support the spirit of the Ride, while agreeing with you on the technicality that a private institution has the legal right to maintain its policies as it sees fit.

Emproph:

I was not trying to make any generalizations about people's individual moral structure. And I am fully aware that you, emproph, consider homosexuality to be a trait, but other people don't. I was simply trying to point out a little bit of the core of these colleges' moral structures and how they relate to the rules that Soul Force finds discriminatory.

I have to apologize as I don't understand exactly what you are talking about in the next two paragraphs. I don't recall saying that individual people are beliefs, or trying to imply that. I mean that people have different moral structures, based on whatever they want to believe.

When you say "It occurs to me that you think I'm still up for debate." Was this supposed to be a joke because you think that I believe people themselves to be moral structures in themselves? Because I don't believe that. I'm not here to debate anyone on their own moral structure nor am I here to comment on the nature of sexuality. I came to discuss the marked difference between the public and private sides of society with respect to Constitutional Law.

Then I think we should in future stick to the matter of your purpose for being here. I know I shouldn't speak for Emproph, but I would suggest if you really want to know where he was coming from, that you go over some of his many posts over the past year-plus.

Since you DID bring it up, I will address the "moral structure" problem. Other people might think homosexuality is not a trait and therefore something out-of-bounds of a 'moral structure,' but it's akin to believing that the earth is flat, and then claiming the spherical globe itself out-of-bounds of a moral structure. Homosexuality is not a belief, and being gay does not automatically bring along its own moral structure (there are gay people who believe homosexuality is morally taboo, there is no automatic "gay morality." I think you know that, but then, why do you bring the argument up?)

Taking up what I see in Emproph's (and your) words: we are looking at a conflict between a "moral structure" that prohibits gay-ness versus the state of being gay.

It's a 'moral' argument against existing. It's not two conflicting moral structures, at its core, it's people merely being, who are assailed with "moral" arguments why they should not be.

It is (usually) not "the behavior" that is punished. Being gay is punished. You can be a virgin, but being a gay one can get you punished. Saying you are gay gets you punished at many (all??) of these schools. It can get you fired in 34 states in the US, in some countries it can get you imprisoned, tortured, and killed, and it can get you beat up nearly anywhere in the world. The issue is a matter of simply being, and to claim opposition to someone's being, let's say Emproph's since he he brought it up, as a moral argument is in fact ridiculous (though I do not dispute your point that many people DO claim it a moral issue.) He's alive. He's there. That fact is not a 'moral structure.' He's not a philosophical construct. He's a living being.

What I hear you saying is that since some people have taken a theoretical and MORAL stance about his being, therefore those beliefs, being "moral structures," deserve to be automatically elevated.

[simpleman]

Zerbie:

I believe that we said the same thing concerning the mission of Dr. King and Gandhi. Discrimination of any kind is analogous to discrimination of any other kind, whether in the public or private sphere. But battling against governmental oppression punishable by jail time is far different than battling against school policies that are actionable only by expulsion.

I want to address your point about schools expelling people just for declaring themselves as gay. Such action, as wrong as it may be, is not, nor should it be, illegal. A private organization can discriminate whatever way it wants. Since people will undoubtedly ask, I will say that I disagree with such a policy, and would disagree ENTIRELY with such a decision, I can do nothing but defend the school's right to do it. There is no law that says a private organization that makes its own rules even has to follow its own rules. That means if their rule book says that homosexual "activity" is punished, it probably also says that "anyone who is deemed by the school to be disruptive to the school" can be expelled as well. It's their right under the law. It's not right, it's not fair, but it's how our legal system does and should work.

Now I will work back to your point about Emproph. As I said, I'm not here to debate anyone's sexuality or whether it is a trait or a choice or anything else. Forgive me, you and he, for my apparent trespass on his feelings. I am not coming here to be offensive to anyone. I know this is a very sensitive issue, and I'm trying my best to be as respectful and careful with people's feelings as possible without compromising what I am trying to express.

My point is that, right or wrong, these schools, their leaders, and many of their students see it as a choice to be sinful. I know that you, and emproph, and many many others believe that it is part of who he is. Your beliefs about the nature of homosexuality are fundamentally different than the people you are trying to debate. It is not, as you say, a conflict between a moral structure that prohibits a state of being and the prohibited state of being. Those who have a moral structure that prohibits being gay do not believe that being gay is a state of being, but rather a sin against God. It is a conflict between two different fundamental beliefs.

Also, I do not believe that their moral structure should be elevated. However, on their property and in the scope of their school, their rights under the law should be elevated. For our American structure of freedom of belief, their right to be wrong in your eyes must be respected.

To everyone:

I want to reiterate some of my previous points.
1. I am not here to offend any one. My deepest apologies for any offense my posts may cause. I am trying my best to have respectful and honest dialogue with people who have different views than my own.

2. I am not here to debate the merits of anyone's moral structures against anyone else's. That's a really difficult thing to do, because there are endless reasons for people believing what they do.

3. I am not here to defend the merits or lack thereof of the policies of Christian colleges or universities, only to defend their rights under American law. In America, everyone has the right to think that they are right, even if other people think they are wrong.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Zerbie:

I believe that we said the same thing concerning the mission of Dr. King and Gandhi. Discrimination of any kind is analogous to discrimination of any other kind, whether in the public or private sphere.

I want to address your point about schools expelling people just for declaring themselves as gay. Such action, as wrong as it may be, is not, nor should it be, illegal. A private organization can discriminate whatever way it wants. Since people will undoubtedly ask, I will say that I disagree with such a policy, and would disagree ENTIRELY with such a decision, I can do nothing but defend the school's right to do it. There is no law that says a private organization that makes its own rules even has to follow its own rules. That means if their rule book says that homosexual "activity" is punished, it probably also says that "anyone who is deemed by the school to be disruptive to the school" can be expelled as well. It's their right under the law. It's not right, it's not fair, but it's how our legal system does and should work.

Well perhaps this hasn't been clear: I completely agree with you on the point above.

I am not part of the E Ride, so I may be incorrect, but my partial understanding is that one goal of the Ride is peaceable persuasion, in the hopes that these schools might soon *willingly* change their policy, as part of an evolution in how they live out their faith, institutionally speaking. I think all of us who hang around this forum recognize that the institutions might not choose to do so.


Now I will work back to your point about Emproph. As I said, I'm not here to debate anyone's sexuality or whether it is a trait or a choice or anything else. Forgive me, you and he, for my apparent trespass on his feelings. I am not coming here to be offensive to anyone. I know this is a very sensitive issue, and I'm trying my best to be as respectful and careful with people's feelings as possible without compromising what I am trying to express.

I can tell.

My point is that, right or wrong, these schools, their leaders, and many of their students see it as a choice to be sinful.

Yes, we know they do.

I know that you, and emproph, and many many others believe that it is part of who he is. Your beliefs about the nature of homosexuality are fundamentally different than the people you are trying to debate. It is not, as you say, a conflict between a moral structure that prohibits a state of being and the prohibited state of being. Those who have a moral structure that prohibits being gay do not believe that being gay is a state of being, but rather a sin against God. It is a conflict between two different fundamental beliefs.

[COLOR="Blue"]Okay, if you have two "sides" having a debate. But what I'm saying is that lived experience does not constitute a belief. And that, "debates" aside, there are plenty of homosexually-oriented people who will not take on a debate of this kind, but who by virtue of being, find their very existence held up as a point of debate, whether they believe their own sexuality is acceptable or not, ie: regardless of their belief they are assailed by claims that their nature is "reprobate" and "immoral." In that sense, it is indeed as I have described it - a conflict between someone's mere being, and another's THOUGHTS about what constitute morality. Between a LIFE, on the one hand, and THOUGHTS on the other. /COLOR]


Also, I do not believe that their moral structure should be elevated. However, on their property and in the scope of their school, their rights under the law should be elevated. For our American structure of freedom of belief, their right to be wrong in your eyes must be respected.

Agreed. One of the reasons I did not apply to be on the E Ride myself is that it moves out of my comfort zone to go onto such a campus, b/c from my own mindset, I think, "Well, it's part of the design of the college that they adhere to beliefs I find offensive, but let them have their space and I'll seek out my own." (However I have an entirely different response when such things move into the public policy arena.)
But despite that I would not feel comfortable that way myself, I do support what the Riders are doing b/c they have very valid points that such teachings constitute abuse. I know people who tried to kill themselves because people they trusted taught them they were abominable freaks. The issue becomes complex b/c while it is a private school with particular policies, experience and observation shows the policies harmful. Sadly, there is no question these institutions have a legal right to maintain them. It becomes complex because we are all going to have a different boundary point beyond which we feel we must not collude in harm, and that's when all the arguing comes into play, between "sides," and also within them.

To everyone:

I want to reiterate some of my previous points.
1. I am not here to offend any one. My deepest apologies for any offense my posts may cause. I am trying my best to have respectful and honest dialogue with people who have different views than my own.

2. I am not here to debate the merits of anyone's moral structures against anyone else's. That's a really difficult thing to do, because there are endless reasons for people believing what they do.

3. I am not here to defend the merits or lack thereof of the policies of Christian colleges or universities, only to defend their rights under American law. In America, everyone has the right to think that they are right, even if other people think they are wrong.

No disagreement here. I can tell you are being calm and respectful, and that makes me very comfortable discussing with you.

I am becoming increasingly curious, however, since you keep reminding us what "others" believe, as to what YOU believe on the matter. You have put forward very valid and logical points about the private schools and their policies. You have also said you're here for dialogue with those whose views are different from yours, so I'm curious how the prevailing views on this forum differ from your own.

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by simpleman

there are no such thing as "civil" rights on private property........If a property owner does not want to allow a person on his or her property, he has that right

[ You are mistaken. This is actually not true IF the reason is strictly because they discriminate against a minority but serve other groups]

If a privately funded organization, such as Mississippi College or Soul Force, does not want a person on their private property for any reason at all they have the right to prohibit these people from their property under the law

[ again, not true for the same reason].

Saying that colleges' discriminatory policies are civil rights violation is a misnomer. "Misguided" or "wrong" maybe, but "civil rights violation" no.

[Also not true see below]

The government is not supposed to regulate private property..... we have to give people the right to discriminate in their private spheres.

[Inaccurate again, entitlement to discriminate against a minority while serving other groups is not protected in private spheres.]

.

(...........pause for a deep breath.............)

This is because History, Precedent and legislation have disagreed with this claim long ago.

It was the Woolworth's sit-in in Greensboro, North Carolina in the sixties that led to refutation of this claim specifically and exactly!

Legislation left no room for any other interepretation.

The claim of "there are no such thing as "civil" rights on private property" specifcally was tried and judged untrue forty years ago!

Substitute gay for black and MC college for Woolworth's (private property also) and............

Bingo!

We have a Civil rights violation with a well Known precedent and legislation!


^ Q.E.D.


The only reason it is not enforced is the confusion between trait and behavior.

If all heterosexuals had blue ears to mark them at birth and all homosexuals had red ears to mark them at birth, the question would have been settled more than thirty years ago.

Again Clearing up the confusion between trait and behavior is the mission of Soulforce. It is no different than dispelling the myth that blacks were morally inferior because of their physical features.

Again I invite you to be a proactive part of the the changes today that will make the world of tomorrow a kinder one.

This is history! Filled with heros and villians, passions, romantic figures and some people who just don't know what to think.

And we are living it! What an incredible privilege!.....and responsiblity!

[scott snedeker]

Just another note:

I really do appreciate your respectful participation.

You have broadened my perspective and helped me in a profound way to clarify my thoughts. Strangely, I believe this is primarily because we disagree!

I feel I have grown immensely from interacting with you and your thoughtful illustration of your perspective.

I truly feel I am in your debt. I hope that I have provided something in return.

[BruceChris]

But you seem to have done that more than thoroughly.

In my original posting, I asked s.m. to answer one question:

Do you believe that those of differing sexualities, who were created that way by God, are to be despised, (By which I guess I have to specify "made the subject of moral judgement, or subjected to rulings other than those of law") and if not, how do you suggest that we go about changing that? -- I withdraw the part of the question concerning changing anything.

My question made the explicit assumption that a person's sexuality was "created by God". An innate trait, like hair, or skin color. From my reading of your subsequent posts, I cannot find anywhere where you have stipulated that a person's sexual orientation is, or is not created by God. The closest that you seem to come to touching that question seems to be that because it is something that cannot be measured at birth, it doesn't matter, and that it can be arbitrarily specified by someone else, at a later time. Well, it matters to us.

Exactly the same arguments were made for hundreds of years concerning left-handedness. Indeed, that analogy could go on for a LONG way.

O.K. I will admit that I did not exactly address your points, and that you did not address mine. But clearly, this discussion is over.

BC

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by simpleman

To say that Soul Force is crusading in the same way as Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is a disrespect to the memory of both men. These men were fighting against government oppression, from which there was no shelter. There is more than enough shelter from religious colleges, as no GLBT person has to subject themselves to any discrimination by such organizations.

This is a very uninformed statement.

Read what Coretta Scott King says about fighting for LGBT equality:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

And last night, I had the distinct honor to attend a lecture given by Dr. Arun Ghandi, the grandson of Mahatma Ghandi. When I asked him about Soulforce and working for justice in the church, he said he strongly believes in Soulforce and has participated in several of our non-violent actions.

There is no shelter for a gay christian student enrolled in one of these schools. There is no peace, no sense of authentic safety and welcome when these schools have policies that threaten to expel, excommunicate, and destroy the emotional & spiritual lives of these students.

You sound confused about why a gay person would want to go one of these schools. I can only speak for myself. I loved Oral Roberts University my entire life. My church was right across the street. My pastor was an ORU graduate. It was the ONLY school I wanted to go to. While I absolutely loved being a student there, I was continually terrified someone would find out about me. I got engaged in order to keep the "facade" of being straight.

I knew several young men who were in fact expelled and outed to their churches and families. That, my friend, is nothing but unadulterated violence committed in the name of God. And it must stop.

[simpleman]

Zerbie:

I don't want to sound like I'm harping, but my point on your "state of being vs. morality/thoughts" point is that you are working under the assumption that it is, in fact, a state of being. Those with moral reservations about homosexuality don't believe it to be necessarily innate. I understand what you are saying, and I'm not refuting homosexuality as a state of being, but that's not the widely held belief among Christian college students.

Since it has come from several sources, I'll address my own opinions on the nature of homosexuality at the end of this post.

Scott:

Woolworth sit-in was in a private place, but as a restaurant, Woolworth's served the public. When your business is "open to the public" based upon nothing other than them choosing your restaurant in which to dine, it's a different issue of private vs. public. If you own a business open to the public you forfeit some, but not all, private property rights. A college inherently has an application process, and thus it is selective by nature, where as a restaurant is not. I hope that clears some of that up.

Also, thank you for your kind words. I have also appreciated the interaction on this board.

Bruce:

I apologize for not answering your previous question thoroughly. I did not understand that you were asking me my own opinion on the nature of homosexuality and its relation to culture. Looking back at your first post, I have to say that I just plain missed it. As I said to Zerbie, I will address this at the conclusion of this post.

AntonyH:

Well said. I'm glad an insider can also say exactly what I mean. Critical self-evaluation is crucial for any interest group. There must be constant evaluation of methods, purpose, plans, and most importantly whether or not the methods employed are making any progress.

Nathan:

I believe that I have addressed nearly everything in your post in one of my previous posts. I am not here to debate with anyone the merits of these policies, or the effects thereof on young, homosexual students. I know that you see glaring persecution and spiritual violence on many levels. As I have mentioned several times previously, such "spiritual violence" is often protected under the law with respect to religious and moral freedom, and especially on private property. It may not be right, but private colleges' decisions must be protected under the law, and the legal protection (i.e. not the decisions themselves) must be respected by all who have faith in the American system. If you do not have faith in the American system, then you have no faith in the very rights that you have to voice and maintain your own beliefs.

And now finally, the moment we've all been waiting for, when simpleman comes forward with his own beliefs on the subject.

First of all, let me say thank you to the many posters with whom I've had respectful and effective dialogue. I appreciate very much the ability to speak openly and honestly with people about issues that are often not dealt with in such a respectful and open way. This is a good thing for everyone, and I think everyone can agree on that.

Second, let me say, specifically to answer BruceChris' question, that I do not believe anyone should ever be hated or despised or otherwise. No one at all, because everyone is a person, and nobody should be hated, even if they most likely deserve it. Jesus teaches this. Even in His harshest of rebukes to His children, He does not show or preach hatred.

Now, for my own views. As any other Straight Southern White Male, I have never had to endure being hated or despised This means that I have no perspective on what it "feels like" to actually be a homosexual (either to be sexually attracted to other males or any of the disdain that comes with admitting such feelings). But, when I read my Bible, I read words that seem to say that homosexual behavior is wrong. It also says that sexual acts with animals, or members of the opposite sex out of wedlock are wrong. As a Christian I believe all of these things. The urges to do sexual things are strong in everyone. Some people feel them towards the opposite sex, and others towards the same, others towards animals, and even others towards children. I presume that my own sexual urges are innate to me, and that that I was born that way, and so I can't, in the same breath, say that anyone else's sexual urges and preference aren't natural either. I believe that even though sexual urges are innate, acting upon them is sinful. If I were to have sex out of wedlock, I would consider myself in the wrong. Being tempted to have sex is one thing, doing it is another. If a homosexual feels the urge to have sex with another person of the same sex, it is their natural feeling, but acting upon it is sinful. I realize that there is no way to make that sound good, particularly in this arena. I cannot apologize for my own beliefs, but I do apologize for the fact that there is no way to say it that won't be construed by many to be offensive.

I fear that I have now undermined some of my credibility, but nonetheless I wanted to be honest with all of the people who have had earnest and open discussion with me. I did not come here to try and sway anyone to my opinion on homosexuality itself or to condemn anyone for anything, but to ask that Soul Force to consider its role with respect to legal protection for private organizations. Thank all of you for your time. As I said, there is no way to express beliefs such as my own without seeming offensive, but I assure you I do not mean to be offensive. And once again, I do not support, condone, or believe in hatred of others based upon anything. Everyone should be respectful of everyone else, whether they agree on things or not. I suspect I have nothing else to say on this forum, therefore this is most likely my last post.

Thanks and God Bless

Simple Man

[NathanATX]

If you notice, the Equality Riders aren't campaigning for a change in the law as it relates to what private schools can do or not to. We might take that up later.

What we are doing is engaging these schools in a one-on-one conversation about the effects of their heterosexist and anti-gay policies. We are asking them to consider the trauma, the violence and the heartbreak they cause. We are asking them to change their policies.

And when the communication breaks down and the schools refuse to even hear our requests, we initiate a non-violent action to bring attention to their very violent actions.

These people are not our enemy. The misinformation, the lies and the violence is the enemy.

We seek restoration. We seek relationship. We seek peace. We seek to be with all of our brothers and sisters and celebrate the "beloved community."

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Scott:

Woolworth sit-in was in a private place, but as a restaurant, Woolworth's served the public. When your business is "open to the public" based upon nothing other than them choosing your restaurant in which to dine, it's a different issue of private vs. public. If you own a business open to the public you forfeit some, but not all, private property rights. A college inherently has an application process, and thus it is selective by nature, where as a restaurant is not. I hope that clears some of that up.

Also, thank you for your kind words. I have also appreciated the interaction on this board.



Simple Man

Again, No private sphere is entitled to discriminate against a minority while serving others.

The attempt here is to distinguish between a college campus and a restuarant. This claim is a retreat into a smaller and narrower refuge with using rule changes to defend it.

Where prohibiting a minority from attending a college is "not a civil rights violation" while in a restuarant prohibiting a minority from dining is a civil rights violation, does not hold up. Blacks were also prohibited from attending colleges as well using the same argument. This was a civil rights violation that was defeated also. Furthermore if any student receives federal or state financial aid then the college is publically subsidized with my tax dollars!

You do clear up one thing. Not the law but the people enforcing the law are the subscribers to this misconception. When that happens, Civil Disobedience must follow. These enforcers of the law actively enlist themselves into the role of the oppressor, an archtype in a classic struggle. Without them the change would proceed less rapidly. Their sacrifice is essential and appreciated. Oppression cannot win against Civil Disobedience.

I am reminded of STAR WARS. "You cannot win. If you strike me now Darth, I will be more powerful than you can imagine"

--O. B. 1 Kenobe

At 13 I thought this was pathetic surrender. It was not until later that I saw that it was art reflecting oppression's fate when faced with civil disobedience.

It is because the world is changing. Those who cannot change with it are going to have the most difficult time living in it.

To make this change, a change to a kinder, world Civil Disobedience makes people take a look, think, argue and make changes.

[dsdrane]

S.Man brings up an interesting point, though something that affects "straight" people wrestling with their own views on sexual morality than "us".

Personally, I do not believe sex out of wedlock is a sin. (I actually think it absolutely necessary before marriage/civil union/monogamous commitment/etc., but that is another discussion.)

The minute this particular rug is ripped out from underneath the "we're just treating all students the same" argument, the discrimination is laid bare.

I find it curious that we don't approach arguments from this point of view...unless it is because, were gay marriage legal, many of our conservative-leaning brothers and sisters would sign onto this "no sex before marriage" idea.

So, Forum Friends, what do y'all feel about the above? S.Man may have put down his mouse/keyboard, but I feel he may have triggered an interesting side-angle on the larger debate.