From a Student at a School The "Equality Ride" is visiting.

[ochast]

The point has been made by a few posters already that some of the schools only forbid homosexual activity/practices, just as they forbid pre-/extra-marital sex or "unmarried cohabitation" or the like.

But what are "homosexual practices"? Does holding hands count?

If an unmarried same-gender couple can indeed do anything an unmarried mixed-gender couple can on these campuses, then why does the phrase "homosexual practices" need to be there? Just delete the phrase and everybody's happy. Keep it in, and the school is telling LGB students that they are clearly "less than."

Of course, same-gender couples do get married these days, in one state and a heck of a lot of churches. Who is the school to deny a marriage that has already been sanctified in the eyes of God?

[as an aside, I'm also really curious as to who on campus decides what constitutes "pre-marital sex" for any set of persons. I can just picture students arguing that they'd "only gotten as far as third base" so it wasn't really breaking the rules.]

[student1234]

As a student at Regent university where Equality Riders are planning on travelling to I want to express my regret at how Equality Ride has handled the situation. When I first heard about the group I went to your website to examine who you were and what the plans were for Regent.

As students, we received an email weeks ago telling us that Equality Ride was planning on coming and that the school was welcoming them, including multiple forums for dialogue and encouraging students to feel free to interact and talk with members of Equality Ride. However, throughout all of this your information regarding Regent University has never changed. Your site daily has stated (on the site with information regarding Regent):

"Regent University has refused dialogue thus far with the Equality Ride, but the riders are undeterred in their hope for dialogue with the school.

We have a full day of events planned and hope to meaningfully engage with students, professors and administration. Please sign up to learn more and lend your support."

This blatant falsehood is disappointing yet revealing. If Equality Ride's true mission is to "meaningfully engage," why the false statements regarding the University's response? I was truly looking forward to this unique opportunity and to personally hearing what the Equality Riders views were, however, due to Equality Ride's choices, we now understand that the forums for dialogue have been removed. I suppose this helps your leaders get more quotes in the media, and frankly, after Equality Ride's response, I am more convinced that all Eqaulity Ride is interested in is in arrests to make headlines calling Regent University "close minded" as one of your leaders did tonight on the Fox News website (don't worry I know all the jokes I'll get regarding Fox News

Equality Ride's decision to stifle discussion with the University is what prompted me to write this reply. I just wanted to express, as a student at Regent, my disappointment that a group claiming to have a desire to "meaningfully engage" and a hope to dialogue with students at my university would scuttle opportunities to dialogue just so they could get more press coverage. I hope that between now and Monday your leadership will change their minds and contact the University so that the students may truly have an opportunity to "meaningfully engage" with Equality Ride, instead of having to witness incidents that further isolate and sharpen rhetoric on both sides. Thanks for taking time to listen. I hope Equality Ride's leadership will provide our student body with that opportunity. Press releases are nowhere near as powerful as honest dialogue.

[dewdrop_world]

Originally Posted by Venari

You prove my point. Not all "right wing" Christians are in support of the marriage amendments now are all prone to stab someone. The point is we live in an entirely different world and another way needs to be found to bridge the gap between the "two sides" of this issue.

I hope you didn't take my stabbing example literally. My point with it is not that a sizable number of Christians actually want to do harm to gay people. I do think that more than you would like to admit stand by passively and allow the harm to be done by other people who claim to speak for Christians in general. How many of them would vote against a marriage amendment in their area even if their church tells them that voting for it is a way to protect marriage? How many of them say out loud, "James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, etc. do not speak for me on this issue"?

I do see your point about how these events might antagonize people who are sympathetic to the LGBT cause but living in unsympathetic communities. I wasn't involved in any decision-making process about this action, so I can't speak for the organizers. I believe them to be people of conscience who would take the time to weigh the risks. If I were in their shoes, I would consider at least these points:

- Historically, social change doesn't come about just from people sitting down and talking politely. There's always a catalyst--somebody does something dramatic that exposes the issue for what it is. There are people who are threatened by the issue coming to light, and they get angry. Then, people of conscience who never thought about the issue before get shocked, not only about the injustice but also about the extreme reactions. And minds start to change. The major disagreement here is your assessment of the likeliness of this happening, vs. the risk of alienating potential allies, is very different from Soulforce's. It may be necessary to agree to disagree. (I don't know which assessment is right.)

- In the end, no matter what you do, somebody is going to have a problem with it. So you have to weigh the pros and cons, make a decision, proceed forward with awareness and an open heart, and lovingly accept the static that comes your way.

Originally Posted by Venari

And to be completely forthright the fact you would willingly, and almost joyfully, accept all the people who show opposition to GLBT people to move to an island somewhere I find that right up the alley of hate speech.

I regret writing that so quickly, because I omitted some important points. Actually, if anti-gay Christians got fed up with the direction of the country and voluntarily moved themselves to an island, I would regret it because it would make it harder to bring about reconciliation. I mentioned it purely as a hypothetical, only to make the point that for the analogy to hold, anti-gay Christians would have to be doing no harm to gay people (just as the prodigal son was not threatening his father in any way while he was away).

For it to be hate speech, I would have to advocate forcibly sending them away as some sort of "solution." I don't believe my words implied that, and I certainly didn't intend it. I was sorry to see that you read glee into them. My sense is that your reading is as much the result of what you see in the words, as it is the words themselves. If my words startled you, I would have liked to see you ask me to clarify, rather than assume the worst.

If you don't want to answer, that's ok, but I would be curious to hear why it is that you assumed evil intent in what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Venari

So the illustration of the father and son is relevant, no matter how much someone else hurts you, there is always the need to be open and willing to welcome them back.

Of course. My door is always open to talk with anyone. But what kind of a father would he be if his son were not really repentent, but he came back, say, only to steal things for more drug money? If he didn't recognize what his child was really doing, if he didn't refuse to be taken advantage of, he would not be compassionate, he would just be a fool.

Sometimes, it is a loving thing to say, "No, this is wrong, and I will stand against it."

hjh

[Venari]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

I do see your point about how these events might antagonize people who are sympathetic to the LGBT cause but living in unsympathetic communities. I wasn't involved in any decision-making process about this action, so I can't speak for the organizers. I believe them to be people of conscience who would take the time to weigh the risks. If I were in their shoes, I would consider at least these points:

- Historically, social change doesn't come about just from people sitting down and talking politely. There's always a catalyst--somebody does something dramatic that exposes the issue for what it is. There are people who are threatened by the issue coming to light, and they get angry. Then, people of conscience who never thought about the issue before get shocked, not only about the injustice but also about the extreme reactions. And minds start to change. The major disagreement here is your assessment of the likeliness of this happening, vs. the risk of alienating potential allies, is very different from Soulforce's. It may be necessary to agree to disagree. (I don't know which assessment is right.)

- In the end, no matter what you do, somebody is going to have a problem with it. So you have to weigh the pros and cons, make a decision, proceed forward with awareness and an open heart, and lovingly accept the static that comes your way.

I completely agree that nearly all social change is the result of a catalyst. In this case I feel the catalyst has already occurred and repeating or trying to recreate another catalyst is the wrong decision. My view is our society has changed from the time of the Civil Rights movement. Our society is no longer as prone to shaking as we were in the 50's-60's. Mainly I think in the previous era we had just come out of the world war eras and had settled into a sedative, and I would say apathetic, sense of everything is ok in the world. Which lead to the necessity of drastic action to snap the population out of their “slumber” and pay attention once again.

Now 40's years later the world is in a different place. Our society is not as sedate and we have "larger" issues shaking the country then if colleges discriminate against GLBT students. I do not mean to down play anyone’s feelings but I feel on this matter but this reflects the current state of mind of the general population.

That said, I feel our current society has moved to a more litigious and bureaucratic nature where things are best achieved though debate and discussion and not "shock tactics." With actions like visiting schools who do not welcome the Equality Ride goes against this new "mind-set" as being an action to force an ideology upon people. Importantly this view leads to further the false ideology of a "gay agenda" that many conservative pundits propagate.

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

For it to be hate speech, I would have to advocate forcibly sending them away as some sort of "solution." I don't believe my words implied that, and I certainly didn't intend it. I was sorry to see that you read glee into them. My sense is that your reading is as much the result of what you see in the words, as it is the words themselves. If my words startled you, I would have liked to see you ask me to clarify, rather than assume the worst.

If you don't want to answer, that's ok, but I would be curious to hear why it is that you assumed evil intent in what I wrote.

I do apologize for taking you out of context or too literal. That is an example of a major drawback of this medium of communication. With no voice one is left to interpret the words another types with ought hearing any emphasis you may have intended, but was missed.

But to explain I read you as literal, as I try to be as literal as possible when I write unless I specifically note otherwise. So in reading your words the image of rhetoric some people use about sending undesirables to an island, or the bottom of the ocean came to mind. I do apologize once again if I offended but I hope you understand why I read what you wrote as I did.

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

Of course. My door is always open to talk with anyone. But what kind of a father would he be if his son were not really repentent, but he came back, say, only to steal things for more drug money? If he didn't recognize what his child was really doing, if he didn't refuse to be taken advantage of, he would not be compassionate, he would just be a fool.

Sometimes, it is a loving thing to say, "No, this is wrong, and I will stand against it."

To best respond I guess I should digress and explain my theological view point. Not to plug a book but I think one of the best book written about Christian living and ethics in twenty years is The Irresistible Revolution. While the book at best only briefly addresses issues of homosexuality. I feel the over all message can be applied to any Christian life.

At the potential of opening a theological debate, I feel an important aspect of Christian living that if too often overlooked and more often ignored is, loving ones enemy and turning the other cheek. Within this discussion there need to be the clarification of pacifism and passivity. Passivity is where one does nothing pacifism is where one takes an action that results in less division, hate, violence and indifference.

The teaching of Jesus to love our enemies extends to when they take actions to hurt us, directly or indirectly. How we respond show the true character of a person. Do respond with equal force back or do we respond in a manner to let them know that no matter what we will still love them. Pairing with when Jesus was asked about how many times you should forgive someone, being you should offer endless forgiveness. Also turning the other cheek I view as when you turn the other cheek to the person who just struck you there is the opportunity to look the person in the eye so they know you do not hate them for what they are doing.

Taking a look at the actions of the Equality Ride and the schools involved. The Equality Ride asked to come to the schools to present/protest. Some of the schools, for their individual reasons refused. The leader of the Equality Ride decided to smear them to the media, and often present false hoods ... this is from my perspective. While I cannot comment on other schools I can comment on mine that faced with this smear of who we are we do not respond in kind... we reiterate that we care for the people who are coming yet we will not allow them to come onto our campus on their terms but are willing to meet half way.

I do not mean to present the Equality Ride in an unfavorable light but as I said before I am trying to present my view for discussion.

In closing I want to further respond to the comment by brucechris.

Originally Posted by BruceChris

Venari:

While there are more than one way of looking at any argument, one very basic fact seems to stand out: We are allowing, even inviting you to express your views in our space, but you very clearly do not want us to express our views in yours. Thoughts?

First, had my first post been deleted I would not have come back or posted anything further as you would have asked me not to return, and that still holds true. Second, I am here playing by your "rules" and I am respecting the guidelines set forth by the administrator. Finally the same extends to Soulforce and the Equality Ride, you are welcome as long as you meet us half way and agree to the rules we have in discussing.

So, I guess this is a perfect example. I am a guest here, and I will behave like a guest while presenting my dissenting point of view... we would ask that when you are a guest of ours you would show the same courtesy, which has not been extended so we continue to assert our right to host you.

I hope this addresses and concerns on this issue.

-Venari

[Venari]

Originally Posted by ochast

The point has been made by a few posters already that some of the schools only forbid homosexual activity/practices, just as they forbid pre-/extra-marital sex or "unmarried cohabitation" or the like.

But what are "homosexual practices"? Does holding hands count?

If an unmarried same-gender couple can indeed do anything an unmarried mixed-gender couple can on these campuses, then why does the phrase "homosexual practices" need to be there? Just delete the phrase and everybody's happy. Keep it in, and the school is telling LGB students that they are clearly "less than."

Of course, same-gender couples do get married these days, in one state and a heck of a lot of churches. Who is the school to deny a marriage that has already been sanctified in the eyes of God?

[as an aside, I'm also really curious as to who on campus decides what constitutes "pre-marital sex" for any set of persons. I can just picture students arguing that they'd "only gotten as far as third base" so it wasn't really breaking the rules.]

The funny thing is you hit the nail on the head. In the case of my school I have known a gay student who had the practice of having his boyfriend over and cuddling on his couch, in his dorm room, while watching a movie. The school seemed to tolerate that activity well enough. And yes the issue of what is sex and what isn’t often becomes, for lack of a better term, comical, on a Christian campus. But that is beside the point. But to simplify it has become an extremely complex situation. There is the administration laying the foundation of by making the rules then you have how the students interpret the rules. With the result being the a conflict arises when a student becomes too "liberal" in their interpretation of the rules laid down ... so sadly it, on some levels, becomes completely subjective.

-Venari

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by Venari

I completely agree that nearly all social change is the result of a catalyst. In this case I feel the catalyst has already occurred and repeating or trying to recreate another catalyst is the wrong decision. My view is our society has changed from the time of the Civil Rights movement. Our society is no longer as prone to shaking as we were in the 50's-60's. Mainly I think in the previous era we had just come out of the world war eras and had settled into a sedative, and I would say apathetic, sense of everything is ok in the world. Which lead to the necessity of drastic action to snap the population out of their “slumber” and pay attention once again.

Now 40's years later the world is in a different place. Our society is not as sedate and we have "larger" issues shaking the country then if colleges discriminate against GLBT students. I do not mean to down play anyone’s feelings but I feel on this matter but this reflects the current state of mind of the general population.

That said, I feel our current society has moved to a more litigious and bureaucratic nature where things are best achieved though debate and discussion and not "shock tactics." With actions like visiting schools who do not welcome the Equality Ride goes against this new "mind-set" as being an action to force an ideology upon people. Importantly this view leads to further the false ideology of a "gay agenda" that many conservative pundits propagate.

I am only going to address 2 points in your post. Really due to lack of time for me. I apologize I don't have time to talk more to the other points you have made, some of which I may or may not agree with. In my opinion, what you are saying reminds me of the original letter written to Dr. King from 6 Alabama clergymen. The 2 points raised here are similar. 1- It isn't time, and this is not the way. As for your first point that trying to create a new cataylst is wrong. Don't be fooled that America is awake. They are again in their happy slumber that everything is fine. I point out to you that we need this new catalyst to point out the injustice (the issues at the schools) The reason is so that a creative tension can exist to bring the issue to the table. As Dr. King said in his reply, freedom will never be given by an oppressor, the oppressed must demand it. In creating a new catalyst, we are demanding justice from these schools.

You ask that we should use the legislature and the courts rather than shock tactics. That would be fne except, 1- the courts take along time when you think about the suffering invovled for gays and lesbians. Are we to just sit and wait some more for the suffering to stop, or should we deman it stop now. 2 - There isn't that much support in the legislature, some maybe. Again, this is a matter of time. How long do we wait.

I remind you this is a campaign of non-violence and with any non-violence campaign there are the steps to follow. The gathering of information, Education, Purification, Negotiation, Direct Action and reconciliation.

In the case of this campaign those steps are being followed.

1 - Information has been gathered about these schools and about the Soulforce Riders. Both sides of the conflict need to have their information heard. The schools have gathered information about the Riders, and the Riders have gathered information about the schools. Most conflicts are settle in the step, but this conflict has not been.


2 - Education: Both sides of this conflict have exchanged information. It is necessary for both sides to offer all the information for the conflict to be resolved. The schools have offered their policies and stories of students. The SoulForce Riders have also offered their stories and information about the mission. While many conflicts are settled here in this step, this conflict has not been settled in this step.


3 - Purification. The Soulforce riders take this step often. It involves refocusing yourself on why you are doing what you are doing, and foucsing on how non-violence can be used to solve the issue. It is preparing yourself for moral battle. All of the principles of non-violence need to be in this step.

4- Negotiation. Soulforce has tried as a group, the students have tried as individuals to negotiate with the schools. These negotiations may have made some dent into the conflct, but they have not brought the conflict to a resolve. A true non-violence campaign is looking for a win-win solution to the issue. One where all parties win and are brought into the Beloeved community. Since this hasn't happen, the Riders have moved to the next step.

5 - Direct Action. This is the Equality rides. This direct action is create tension on this issue, apply pressure to the schools to bring them back to step 4. All of the principles of non-violence must be present here. I believe for these riders that is true. This was displayed best when the Riders were arrested. It showed the world that this is a serious matter enough they are willing to be arrested for it. They are willing to experience redemptive suffering to bring justice. They did. Will that action bring Jerry Falwell back the table to negotiate. I am not sure. I hope it will. He didn't look good in the press when he said he would rather see Liberty University burn to the ground than allow gay students. This direct action creating a new catalyst that brings the injustice of these schools policies to light, where they can be dealt with and resolved.

6 - Reconciliation: True reconcilation is the win-win. Where the Schools "truth" and the Riders "truth" can become a new "Truth" One that brings us all into the beloved community. I cannot tell you what that is, but I know it can be reached. It may not be next week, or next year, but I know it will someday happen.

You stated in your post

That said, I feel our current society has moved to a more litigious and bureaucratic nature where things are best achieved though debate and discussion and not "shock tactics."

This from MLK answers that when it was said to him. I think it does a better job than I could ever do.

Originally Posted by Martin Luther King

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation [debate]. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action [shock tactics] seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

I hope I have shed some light on why we need Shock tactics, and why this is the time. One more day for people to suffer, or injustice to stand, is one day too many.

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

I am only going to address 2 points in your post. Really due to lack of time for me. I apologize I don't have time to talk more to the other points you have made, some of which I may or may not agree with. In my opinion, what you are saying reminds me of the original letter written to Dr. King from 6 Alabama clergymen. The 2 points raised here are similar. 1- It isn't time, and this is not the way.

...

I hope I have shed some light on why we need Shock tactics, and why this is the time. One more day for people to suffer, or injustice to stand, is one day too many.

Joe,

I appreciate your feed back. But I believe the use of shock tactics, are more or less situational. Once again I can only speak for my school.

But let’s take a look at my school...

We wrote a letter of condolence to Calpernia Addams over the death of Barry Winchell.

We wrote a letter to Fred Phelps asking him not to come to our state and admonishing him to change his path.

We, as often as student can gather food and supplies to donate to a food shelf for HIV+ homeless and low income people.

Many of us actively discuss and gather of how to support GLBT rights in our state. With many of us are standing against our states "Marriage Amendment."

Many of us have participated in the local AIDS walk and were trying to organize a formal school team for this year.

A few of us rose our voice asking the administration not to have chapel speakers who promote the "radical" ex-gay view and to invite speakers who demonstrate a more tolerant and accepting view.

There are many other small things that occur everyday on the individual level. But I ask are these the actions of a student body that needs a shock to awaken us, or is it one that is ripe for creating an cooperation biased on understanding?

-Venari

[Joe Brummer]

Well I appreciate all of things. The school still has a bad habit of kicking out students for being gay. The student body may in fact be very gay friendly, but the school administration is not. And as long as the students are not speaking our about the anti-gay poilicies, they are in a silent approval.

WHenever we see injustice and we are silent of it, it is a form of approval.

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

Well I appreciate all of things. The school still has a bad habit of kicking out students for being gay. The student body may in fact be very gay friendly, but the school administration is not. And as long as the students are not speaking our about the anti-gay poilicies, they are in a silent approval.

WHenever we see injustice and we are silent of it, it is a form of approval.

Originally Posted by Venari

A few of us rose our voice asking the administration not to have chapel speakers who promote the "radical" ex-gay view and to invite speakers who demonstrate a more tolerant and accepting view.

Joe,

We are raising our voices and speaking out as in the instance above.

-Venari

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by Venari

Joe,

We are raising our voices and speaking out as in the instance above.

-Venari

I happy to here this news and I thank those who spoke out, but has the administration changed its policies against gays?

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

I happy to here this news and I thank those who spoke out, but has the administration changed its policies against gays?

Be best answer is they have begun to. But due to the actions of Soulforce and the Equality Ride there is the beginning of a backlash by the more "conservative" regent and board members. Which is why, despite their best intentions, the members of the Equality Ride have the high potential to permanently, or cause long term, damage to the progressive steps my school has taken.

I know Soulforce claims the debate is over, but sadly that does not make it true. For many people on the "conservative" side there are too many questions they do not have or know the answers to. So they need the debate and discussions to answer their questions. More often then not when people are forced to choose between some thing new, that challenges the familiar, or the familiar they inevitable choose the familiar.

As another student noted, it took the regents and board YEARS of debate and discussion to finally allow us to have dvd players in our dorm rooms, and when one student was caught with a rated-R move thy immediately took away allowing us to have dvd players in the dorm rooms. We change but the change is slow, and when something drastic happens we seem to emulate the snail and retreat into our shells where it’s safe and familiar.

Granted I will make a distinction between schools, like Liberty, where the administration has a notable track-record of oppression and seeking to strip GLBT people of their rights. But, the more moderate or progressive schools should not be given the same treatment. So if they do not allow the Ride onto school grounds because we perceive a threat and shrink into our shells. The riders should not further the image of that threat by trespassing as it will only cement the perceived threat as a real threat.

You need to remember the students and the administration are two separate "bodies" within the school. The students being the ones that push forward, while the administration being the one that slowly moves the line allowing us to make further gains.

A perfect example is a student recently wrote their senior thesis dramatically challenging the Assemblies of God's stance on homosexuality. Form reading it I will describe it as a "theological back-hand slap." Meaning they pull no punches in sating how the AG needs to change, they have even begun a movement to change and if possible completely re-write the AG position paper on homosexuality. I should note he received an A for their work, not because the school agreed but because they wrote it so well and defended it the school could not argue back their position. (I intentionally use their and they so offer additional protection to the student.)

But the point is this student is a future leader within the AG. But they know, as I am trying to argue here, the Equality Ride offers a real danger to the progressive efforts of many students.

I hope this better illustrates the precipice the Equality Ride is placing students, staff and others within the AG who also wish change.

-Venari

[Joe Brummer]

I just want to put 2 pieces of information on the table for you.

Debate: assumes someone has the truth and it right. Seeks to have one winner.

Argue: assumes that someone will win the argument. also seeks to have a winner and a loser.

non-violence: repsects that both parties hold the truth and though eduacation and collecting of facts it is possible for both parties to take their truths and form a new truth that is a win-win situation for all invovled.

Perhaps in this case, the school administration needs to be pressured from its own students to change the policies, but it can't be done by debating and arguing with the admin. nor cannot it be done by debating. The school admin must see that the policiy is unjust and therefore wants to change it. Debates will not do that. Arguments won't do that.

I also remind you we are not talking about DVD players. We are talking about people. WHen you are talking about people suffering, saying that it is a slow process is the same as saying plesase suffer while we try and fix the problem slowly. Non-violence demands that the problem be solved and now.

It doesn't need to be slow, people just have to want to change the policies so GLBT students no longer suffer. Taking that process slow agress with the suffering because it doesn't race to stop the suffering.

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

I just want to put 2 pieces of information on the table for you.

Debate: assumes someone has the truth and it right. Seeks to have one winner.

Argue: assumes that someone will win the argument. also seeks to have a winner and a loser.

non-violence: repsects that both parties hold the truth and though eduacation and collecting of facts it is possible for both parties to take their truths and form a new truth that is a win-win situation for all invovled.

Joe, I agree that to debate and argue as you present them results only in a winner and a loser. There is another system that is not adversarial where the debate involves presenting your opposing ideas discussing the merits of each to find commonality and building upon that. Which is what I am here for, to find the common ground between up and create an understanding ... so I know where your coming from and you know where I am coming from so there will not be an "Us vs. Them" situation. Which is the manner in which the AG and my school teaches students to debate.

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

I also remind you we are not talking about DVD players. We are talking about people. WHen you are talking about people suffering, saying that it is a slow process is the same as saying plesase suffer while we try and fix the problem slowly. Non-violence demands that the problem be solved and now.
...

Taking that process slow agress with the suffering because it doesn't race to stop the suffering.

I offer apologies if you took my meaning to equate a person with a machine. I was using that to illustrate the slow process in which even trivial decisions are made to show how long a major decision may take.

As to the suffering, sadly because of the position I am in I cannot offer the explicit reason why, despite claims, does not cause GLBT students to suffer.

What I can offer is what I have before. From knowing the students who have been dismissed they were dismissed for the same reasons a heterosexual person would be, and has been, dismissed for. My school accepted and tolerated the few students who have come out and not ushered them into "ex-gay" therapy, I can personally testify to this. I have seen them also tolerate, non-sexual, dating relationships by these students.

What becomes key is when these students decide to cross the line and either engage in sexual relationships, something prohibited to all un-married students, or they violate some other rule that can result in dismissal. (And I want to note I refuse to discuss if the school will or will not accept a married same sex couple as it has never happened and will only be conjecture at this point. But I will note I have know AG pastors to dedicate the baby of a same-sex couple and offer family communion to a married same-sex couple and their children. So the issue is too open to fully discuss or comment.)

In the case of my school, I will state there is no suffering caused GLBT students by the administration. In fact we often several discussion forums about homosexuality each semester for students to come and ask questions and at each they are told they can come to any faculty or staff member and freely discuss and feelings they have ... and I have yet to hear of a case where a student has gone and been referred to "ex-gay" therapy.

So the suffering is not universal to every school.

-Venari

[Joe Brummer]

Just to have rules like this on the books is demeaning, dehumanizing and wrong even if the rules are never enforced. It doesn't matter that gay students are thrown for the same as straights. What matters is an injust and demeaning policy exists at your school.

As a gay man I would be very humiliated if I went to look at a school to attend and read they didn't accept me, even if that rule isn't enforced. Just its existience is wrong and immoral. I have a choice to speak out against that or remain silent. To remain silent is to silently approve of the injustice.

While I understand what you are saying, and I can see what you are trying to do it good. I can also see that people are suffering, even if just spiritually from the existience of these policies. The students should be pressing the AG Admin to do away with the ban. No long and slow processes of slowly changing minds. They can have a change of heart later, after the injustice has been corrected.

Do you think that everyone's minds were slowly instantly changed the minute Rosa Parks was allowed to sit next to a white guy? How do you think the white guy felt being forced to sit next a black person in 1955? How do you think it feels now in 2006? Reconciliation is the slow process, but the correction of injustice shoule be swift as to stop suffering.

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

What matters is an injust and demeaning policy exists at your school.
...
Reconciliation is the slow process, but the correction of injustice shoule be swift as to stop suffering.

Joe,

We seem to be circling the same subject. What I am stating is there is no explicit policy to ban or one geared to directly, or indirectly, discriminate against GLBT students at my school, also there is no policy to coerce GLBT students into conversion therapy. So I do not see how "unjust and demeaning" policies even exist. I will postulate the "unjust and demeaning" rules only exist to some because the leaders of the Equality Ride say they do.

This goes back to a previous point. Some schools do have such rules and they are the ones which need to face stronger correction. While some schools are looking for further reconciliation yet are turned off by the tactics the Equality Ride is using. I can speak for my school that when the Equality Ride comes if they stay off school grounds and allow people to come to them a lot will be achieved. But the moment they decid to come onto school grounds, or in the case of Liberty block school entrances, they will only be living up to the image of "radical gay" trying to force us to accept their agenda ... and not a group of people trying to fight for a just cause.

So unless you can specifically find school rules which are "unjust and demeaning" I think the reiteration of that claim proves to be false in some, not all, cases of the schools involved. This is why many of the schools, from what I know, are rejecting the Equality Ride under the claim of accademic freedom. Because how can academic freedom be maintained or achieved when the accusation against us is a lie or at the very least a "dramatic embellishment" of what is really going on.

So the more moderate schools are forced between several rocks and several hard places. Finally as I said I think regressing into a stronger "anti-GLDT" stance may be more likely in the schools where their new policies are less then a few years old.

-Venari

[Joe Brummer]

Please check pages 53, 54, 55 of your student handbook, gather the information you find. Let me know what you think, and how you feel about what you read.

[Joe Brummer]

Can you also tell me more about the student group called "cutting edge" I am not familiar with what they do, but it does seem to "reach out the homosexual" That could mean a million things, but could you tell me?

[Joe Brummer]

okay I just found a different website that explains to me, I may have the wrong Assembly of God college. SO the page numbers must be off. I will now read the main one, from this Assembly of God Colleges and University website and see what I learn. I apologize for jumping to the conclusion I had found your school online.


There seems to be about 20 colleges, one right near me, I had no idea there was even a school there.....anyway you will have to tell me which one is yours and I will read more about it.


I will add, sorry to keep doing that, if you are the Southwestrn Assembly of god college than the page numbers are correct, if you are...let me know....

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Venari,

Before going further, I wanted to say how much I appreciate (and enjoy!) your gracious responses throughout.

I liked what you had to say about the difference between pacifism and passivity. "Turning the other cheek," however, is an interesting choice of example. Everybody with any kind of Christian upbringing is familiar with the usual interpretation, which is that Jesus admonishes us not to resist adversity and to place love above immediate self-protection. Not too long ago I encountered a reading informed by the customs of Jesus's time. Roman citizens would put a slave or a conquered subject in his place by slapping him with the back of his right hand, on the left cheek. Jesus is saying, if that happens, present your right cheek--in other words, do not simply submit, but put the oppressor in the awkward position of having either to punch you in the face (which would put him in trouble, since he would be doing impermissible violence rather than simply exercising authority), or he would have to walk away and lose his own face, which is a small victory for the oppressed.

Similarly for going the extra mile. Roman law prohibited centurions forcing civilians to carry their packs for longer than 1 mile. Jesus says, insist on going further, don't take no for an answer. Force the centurion to break the law and produce what must have been a hysterical spectacle: a centurion begging a Jew to stop carrying his stuff! "No really, put it down, I'll be in BIG TROUBLE if you keep this up!"

Just an aside, not immediately relevant to this topic--when I discover things like this, it makes me realize what was missing from my religious upbringing. I understand they taught us the best they knew how, but so much of it was simply not well-informed and ended up distorting the real message. It makes me kind of sad that I had to get into my thirties to learn what was really going on.

Thanks again for being here!
James

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

I will add, sorry to keep doing that, if you are the Southwestrn Assembly of god college than the page numbers are correct, if you are...let me know....

Joe,

I apologize that I cannot discuss my school by name along with my name they are the only two things I cannot bring to this discussion. With that, below is the community standards form my school, in respect that I was not asked to discuss the name of the college I have edited out the name with "______". I apologize but due to the position I am in I cannot freely give that information, but if one were to read all the student handbooks they would easily find this information.

In closing I will offer the note that because of the actions of Soulforce there has been gathering support to explicitly label marriage below as "heterosexual" and not leave it open, as it now stands.

-Venari

We realize that not all Christians may share these expectations. However, because of our educational calling and life together at ______University, we know that these issues are important. Therefore, we will work together as a Community to establish this covenant as a standard in our lives.

We believe that learning and our minds are gifts from God.

We strive for excellence, diligence, integrity and truth in our studies and academic work.
We exercise caution in the types of things that we allow to fill our minds.
We do not practice cheating or plagiarism in any form.

We believe our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.

We promote the well-being of our bodies, minds and emotions.
We abstain from illegal drugs, the abuse of prescription drugs and the use of narcotics.
We abstain from using or possessing alcoholic beverages and tobacco in any form.
We believe that sex and other forms of intense sexual behavior have been set aside for marriage.
We do not view or possess pornography or other degrading material in any form.

We believe that we have been called to love our neighbors as ourselves.

We recognize that we are here to edify and encourage one another; our words and actions will reflect this.
We strive to work through problems or disagreements and approach relationships with honesty.
We promote the acceptance of those in need and will act with sensitivity towards them.
We accept all members of the community regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or disability and view discrimination in any form as unacceptable.
We treat our neighbors and community with respect and godly love.

We believe in the discipline of stewardship.

We know that resources are a gift from God, therefore we value the wise use of time, money and possessions. We will not gamble in any form.
We are a community that gives to each other when needs are present.
We take care of our own and others’ property and will not practice vandalism.

We believe in the importance of the fellowship of the believers.

We value spending time with each other and understand the importance of developing accountability with those around us.
We see daily chapel as important and necessary and will attend and participate.
We believe that weekly church attendance is essential to our growth and we will make finding a church home a priority.
We see the value of activities at ______University to promote community and we will participate whenever possible.

We believe that personal discretion is necessary to live a Christ like life.

We believe that exercising discretion in our thoughts and actions honors God. We will strive to make choices that are pleasing to Him.
We know that certain types of leisure activity and entertainment are not beneficial for the community or ourselves. We will exercise discretion in activities such as music, theater, dance, television, and film.

We believe that our attitude reflects our relationship with Christ.

Knowing that attitude is important as action, we will please Christ with our attitude in all areas of our lives.
We know that our attitudes are reflections of Christ and ______University and we will uphold the highest standard in maintaining the right attitude.