Student Expelled For Coming Out

[Dash]

Well, I don’t feel like my hand’s been slapped.

I think the question of what makes violence is a good one to answer in this context. Right now, I’m in disagreement with the way it’s being defined. If annoying someone as a motivating purpose is spiritually violent, then much if not most of what we do is an illegitimate form of nonviolent protest. No one wants to be annoyed, and those opposed to us would like nothing more than for us to shut up, go away and otherwise be unseen. They are deeply annoyed by our very existence, to say nothing of our constant annoying cries of “How long” under the altar of God.

Since I don’t understand the definition that is being presented, I’m open to a clearer explication. For myself...I think of spiritual violence of which I’m sometimes guilty: calling names, belittling someone, or otherwise attempting to make their experience of less value. Other examples are banishment, denying place at a shared table, refusal to hear complaint...and many other things that can leave another soul broken, frightened, helpless, weak and outcast. This is exactly the spiritual violence that we face on a daily basis from many Church-taught people. It has been institutionalized to the point that it is almost inseparable from their society and individual personalities. In our frustration and anger we do sometimes yield to some of these tactics, but I don’t think that was happening here.

This thread originally generated an enthusiastic response from our young angels, and I saw nothing resembling the spiritual violence that I know. I was so proud to see them dashing off to comfort and defend their fallen family as well as confront the problem. But then it seemed they faltered...doubt clouded their hearts. While I admire their honest self-questioning, I genuinely feel their first spontaneous response was a good and right one.

I always want to avoid becoming what the opposing perspective wants us to be: silent, hidden, inactive...and yes, even straight or normal. I don’t want us to be changed into what “they’d like us to be.” It might make them more comfortable, but it won’t end the very real violence that is perpetrated against all who are not “normal.” For me, it seems the definition that makes our merely “annoying behavior” out to be “violent” effectively gags us, hides our light, and ties our hands.

[Zerbie]

Yes, Dash, this thread has gone off into theoretics.

Perhaps these last several posts should be spliced off into a new thread - Jamie?

There is wisdom in what you have to say - I loved reading your words from 2 or 3 posts ago! Beautifully said! I still agree with Joe about not calling the guy's personal phone, but it's absolutely correct that the means of persuasion used need to vary with time and circumstance.

There could be many situations in which crossing that "line" would be reasonable, and/or necessary.

But what we need to get back to seeing is- in this given situation, Jason's situation - what approach is more likely to *work*? Definitely the office phone thing. Now, perhaps if we didn't have that resource - if there were no office, no other way of reaching the prez, we would need to call the personal number to reach him. But there IS an alternative, it is appropriate, and it is the same exact medium (phone.) Why on earth take the risk of pissing off the person we want to persuade by crossing the barrier into his personal space? When we do not have to!!!!!

I don't want to follow a rulebook for ideology's sake. I don't want to be complacent. I don't want to be unnecessarily agitating. I want to do what is most likely to WORK. And that will vary with each situation.

[Joe Brummer]

Perhaps that is it true that I am too serious about nonviolence. I apologize if that comes off wrong.


Honestly I think calling and "annoying" this man falls into the catagory of bullying him. I find bullying an unfair play of power. Also, the end result isn't to inform or educate it is to annoy him. That is not a positive nonviolent outcome. Writing him letters or emails to educate and inform wouldbe good. It would also get the message across. If you want something more definte send him a telegram, even a singing telegram!

I believe and someone can correct me if I am wrong, but annoying someone isn't a way to win them over. Gaining their trust and having an educational dialog would gain their trust, lay out the facts and work towards a win-win reconciliation. Annoying them is just being a bully. It is saying "you will listen because I will make you listen" I don't believe that is nonviolence, I believe it is violence.

[Dash]

Singing telegrams! Perfect! hahah!! Now we really do need a new thread...one specifically for the composition of singing telegrams.

I really think it's a cool idea. Its humor fits into one of our unique powers as a community to transform bigotry into laughter.

[Joe Brummer]

and is completely nonviolent! annoys no one (unless the guy in the clown suit can't sing, then houston, we have a problem)

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

Annoying them is just being a bully. It is saying "you will listen because I will make you listen" I don't believe that is nonviolence, I believe it is violence.

I remember standing with those who sat in the streets (I did not want to get arrested- my personal preference) during the 80's (remember ACT-UP?) who used quite- and I mean quite vocal means to get their message across. Their tactics very confrontational. We all benefited from those tactics. Major changes were made in drug policy- the same policy that is keeping people alive today.

Was that "bullying"? Most definitely.

Zerbie makes a most persuasive case when she asserts that 'the means of persuasion used need to vary with time and circumstance." I would add to that "place". The methods of ACT-UP were certainly of their time and place. Were they violent? No. Were they in your face loud? Yep. Is that violence? Good question. Could they have gotten things changed another, more 'peaceful' way? Having been there at the time, I would say no. It took what it took to get the job done. It was necessary for the time, the circumstance and the place.

I am willing to see that 'annoying' the president, in the case, is not the way to go. That said, a 'one size fits all' mentality does a disservice, not only to those who are eager to throw their backs into the work at hand, but to the work itself.

Trees bent in the wind. Shouldn't we?

There is so much passion here- it's amazing. It challenges and inspires me.

There is another thing that nags at me here. And that's the issue of anger (I'm deep into theoretics now Zerbie!) What is the role of anger in all this. Act-UP lived on anger. For a very long time. It got a lot done in it's anger. Does that make it bad? Invalid?

Jesus reportedly used those means in the temple, did he not? I mention this because I believe there is a strong reaction against anger in American life. Every politician on TV is grinning away even when they utter lies and hateful things. Why? Showing the face of anger is considered a no-no. Everything has to look right it seems. I wonder about that a lot. When is it alright to get pissed off and show it? Never?

I, for when , think this goes back to Zerbie's notion of time and circumstance. Perhaps the means have to fit the times.

[Joe Brummer]

You bring up a point that is well criticized in nonviolence. Anger! We get angry, it is human to be angry, it is healthy to be angry. Anger is at the heart of nonviolence. MLK was moved by his anger of injustice, Gandhi was moved by the anger of injustice and so was Christ. Christ is a great example. He saw a women about to be stoned for her sins. He was pissed. He stood up to the crowd and said let he without sin cast the first stone. He showed us what to do with our anger and that is to turn it into love.


We have two choices when we are angry.
1) lash out
2) respond in Agape love


When we turn that anger into love, we are taking our anger and agression and redirecting it at the problem and not the person. Nonviolence asks of us that we reserve our concerns and compassion for those we are angry with and turn those agressions and anger at the problem that caused the behavior. It forces us nd our opponet to deal with the underlying cause of the problem and not the people invovled in the problem.

I cannot claim to be a champion of this, but I try. It is easier to write about it than it is to do it. But it is essential that we try!

[Zerbie]

Yeah, that.

It is what you do with the anger that matters, not the anger itself.

The danger with expressing anger (in an angry way, confrontational, loud, frowning, whatever) is that anger gets denigrated as an irrational emotion. Everyone can look at the loud angry activist and point, "Look how angry those activists are." Subtext, look how irrational they are. Subtext, See, we can't take them seriously.

That is why it becomes ever more important that we mitigate the solely emotional expression of our anger whenever in the public eye. But the anger itself is not a bad thing. It is a good thing! It is the motivator - it is the signal that something is amiss, our rights, our selfhood, has been violated. We must use the anger, the only question is what kind of a tool we make the anger into.

I remember those ACT UP days as I was growing up then. It did seem like the only possible means at the time, as NO ONE was paying attention or caring, so it seemed. And lives were quite obviously and immediately at stake. When the stakes are lower, we can be choosier about the means we use.

[dewdrop_world]

Another part of the dynamic, which I sometimes overlook, is that if every one of the oppressed is "reasonable," then the people who disagree, whom we want to hear the message, perceive that reasonable-ness as an extreme position! Sometimes it takes more extreme means to wedge the door open... then, when the calm and rational spokesperson walks through the door, the oppressor is more likely to deal with her because her manner is easier to handle than the rabble.

To go back to the AIDS epidemic, if the only person talking about it says calmly but forcefuly, "It is not right to let so many gay men die," the response is, "Well, so what? They shouldn't be f***ing around like that."

When ACT-UP is staging die-ins outside and dumping ashes on the lawn of the White House, that same person is suddenly a beacon of good sense.

It goes back to intent. I can see little purpose in calling the University president's personal cell phone beyond, "I want to piss him off." It's no different from members of an anti-gay church in your neighborhood coming to your house and ringing your doorbell, one by one, every 10 minutes. They may claim to be expressing Christian love, but no one here would see it that way I'm sure.

But, a group of students could demonstrate outside his office with love in their hearts, and it could be a non-violent protest IF the intent is to stand up for a more loving principle, and not just to vilify the man who made the call.

It's tough. In activism, as in fashion, there's no one-size-fits-all answer.

hjh

[awediot]

To go back to the AIDS epidemic, if the only person talking about it says calmly but forcefuly, "It is not right to let so many gay men die," the response is, "Well, so what? They shouldn't be f***ing around like that."

Why did you feel the need to throw the "Well so what?" part in there? Do you believe that is the average response? Other than that, I agree, "They shouldn't be f**ing around like that." Nor should straights. The pain of promiscuity and infidelity is a complex issue transcending homosexuality. The common ground blind-sided here is the root of this confusion.

[Zerbie]

Well now, look at me answering instead of James! James, please do speak for yourself, but in response to awediot's WHY question: It was my perspective during the early years of the AIDS panic that yes, that absolutely was the average response. It would be wonderful to learn I was wrong - as a child, my perspective was limited largely to what my family had to say about it. But my mother, who I then looked up to as a model of justice and compassion, told me I should not cry if a homosexual died of AIDS because by having sex he had "asked for it." The mainstream TV media gave me the strong impression that no one should care about the epidemic because it only afflicted "bad people," and I was treated by my own parents like something was terribly wrong with me for even caring.

Value judgment of dying persons before the value of their *lives.*

So from my (then very limited) perspective, what James described certainly was the attitudinal environment.

This "they shouldn't be f*cking around" statement holds no relevance to the argument being made, which is that they do not/did not deserve to die from a potentially treatable though deadly serious illness, nor did they deserve to have their lives dismissed with a collective wave of America's hand as if they were mosquitos.

Geez, why am I ranting about this? Time to go turn on the television, aka the narc box.

[Jamie McDaniel]

There is tension in this thread and that's probably a good thing. There has always been tension surrounding the concept of nonviolence in Soulforce. From hearing older activists talk, it is a passionate converation that has been going on in many different nonviolent organizations for a long time. So I doubt we'll produce all the answers when this thread is finished.

I remember the Soulforce action in 2002 at the Southern Baptist Convention. We had 38 people conduct an act of civil disobedience outside the convention and 12 people (6 male-female couples dressed in their Sunday best) inside the convention. When SBC president James Merritt delivered his speech, each couple would stand up and shout "God loves gay people", "My gay son is not sick!" etc. They would walk towards the pulpit in an attempt to reach Dr. Merritt and ask that they be allowed to address the convention (yeah, we thought big). They were arrested and then Dr. Merritt would continue and another couple would stand up, speak loudly, and walk towards the podium. Few were listening to Dr. Merritt because they were all looking around wondering where the next protesters would be.

This action caused lots of discussion four years ago. There is still a divide in Soulforce over whether it was the right thing to do. People I love and highly respect make good points on both sides.

The issue was that we had asked Dr. Merritt to do so little that year. We were willing to call off the entire demonstration if he would just come hear our testimonies for 30 minutes or if he would rebuke fellow Southern Baptist and Alabama Judge Roy Moore's horrible statement calling homosexuality "an inherent evil" and his adding that the state "carries the power of the sword ... to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution."

Dr. Merritt would not hear our testimonies and he would not rebuke Judge Roy Moore. So the leadership team decided to escalate our direct action.

Let me add another difficult one! There is the question as to whether the destruction of property can ever be a part of nonviolence. After all, Jesus did turn over the merchant tables AND release the merchandise. If it hadn't been Jesus, would we be more likely to criticize this action? And what about Matthew chapter 23? Was that non-violence?

Oh so many things to discuss! When the war broke out, I attended my first anti-war rally. I had been to several Soulforce actions and I quickly noticed a difference. I had a relatively tame sign that read "Here is one Christian who is Sermon-on-the-Mount-Serious about Peace." The guy I was standing next to was waving a huge American flag upside down. This was on main street and drivers were cursing him. I thought one might jump out of their vehicle and start a fight. Some of the war protestors yelled "polite" insults back.

That event made my head spin and I suddenly realized that nonviolence is not so black and white. I also hate to admit that I have not attended an anti-war rally since then. And I have to wonder if my desire for a certain level of "purity" in nonviolent action has actually contributed to the problem of my country still being in Iraq.

These are difficult questions, indeed.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

Oh so many things to discuss! When the war broke out, I attended my first anti-war rally. I had been to several Soulforce actions and I quickly noticed a difference. I had a relatively tame sign that read "Here is one Christian who is Sermon-on-the-Mount-Serious about Peace." The guy I was standing next to was waving a huge American flag upside down. This was on main street and drivers were cursing him. I thought one might jump out of their vehicle and start a fight. Some of the war protestors yelled "polite" insults back.

That event made my head spin and I suddenly realized that nonviolence is not so black and white. I also hate to admit that I have not attended an anti-war rally since then. And I have to wonder if my desire for a certain level of "purity" in nonviolent action has actually contributed to the problem of my country still being in Iraq.

These are difficult questions, indeed.

Jamie, I know you don't place responsibility on yourself personally for the war - do you mean that statement collectively? IE: I didn't engage as much as I could have because I was uncomfortable with fellow activists/tactics (whatever), and maybe others stayed home for the same reason? Because I suspect there is a reticence in our society nowadays to engage in political actions, rallies, demonstrations. Like that stuff is an artifact of the 60s that does not belong today.

I DO know what you're talking about as far as not involving yourself anymore, largely because of that incident. I have visited activist groups once or twice and then left for similar reasons. I do not easily associate with groups. I know this will come as a huge shock to fellow forumites, but I am opinionated - and tend to be an individualist first and foremost. I will occasionally identify with a group if and only if its collective character is something I am willing to be associated with, and even then, involvement is usually temporary. I am not willing to stand in seeming support next to a guy who is doing something that I deem unnecessarily disrespectful and potentially counter-productive.

We each have to decide for ourselves what we are willing to associate with. If a group you have been supporting begins to move in a direction where you cannot or will not follow, it is time to re-examine whether that is the place for you. Sounds like the anti-war group was not the group for you, Jamie. Obviously, this one seems to fit. If you are clearly made for something then that is where you should be. Nice ta seeya home.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

There is tension in this thread and that's probably a good thing.

This action caused lots of discussion four years ago. There is still a divide in Soulforce over whether it was the right thing to do. People I love and highly respect make good points on both sides.

Jamie- about the action you relate. Not having been there, can you elaborate on this a bit more? What I'm getting at is this: what was the nature of the debate? What made for the divide you refer to? This seems to be much in the order of a koan.

ko·an (k?'än') n. A puzzling, often paradoxical statement or story, used in Zen Buddhism as an aid to meditation and a means of gaining spiritual awakening.

[Jamie McDaniel]

When I read the small article last Saturday, I was afraid this story was going to get sidelined in the media. I'm very pleased to see that is not the case. It's on the front page again today! And yesterday there was a strong editorial calling for the Governor to veto the $11 million in state funds that was being given to the Baptist school.

Front Page of Herald-Leader (pdf)

Full story:
Gay and Christian: Expelled Cumberlands Student

Yesterday's Editorial
Attacks on fairness, Veto funds for Cumberlands' pharmacy school

[Jamie McDaniel]

This is a blended thread and I looked at separating it by creating a new one. However, there is more than one thread regarding nonviolence at the moment and it is almost certain that future threads, especially those dealing with a specific incident or event, will generate more conversation around the concept of nonviolence.

Perhaps I could create a thread called "The Ongoing Discussion Surrounding Nonviolence" and make it a sticky (a thread that stays at the top regardless of when the last post was made.) Then when a conversation in another thread grows to a certain level, members might consider taking it there. Or we could continue to let those conversations intermingle. Thoughts? (adding another discussion to this thread. )

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Jamie, I know you don't place responsibility on yourself personally for the war - do you mean that statement collectively? IE: I didn't engage as much as I could have because I was uncomfortable with fellow activists/tactics (whatever), and maybe others stayed home for the same reason?

Yes, collectively. Any post of mine made after midnight often needs clarification the next day. However, when making the statement my own, I would change the phrase "could have" to "should have." But then that might again throw the balance regarding personal responsibility.

Originally Posted by Daniel

Jamie- about the action you relate. Not having been there, can you elaborate on this a bit more?

2002 was the third year Soulforce demonstrated at the Southern Baptist Convention. We had over 200 people and Gandhi's grandson led the nonviolence training.

The leaders in the Southern Baptist convention are hardcore anti-gay. The denomination had always been conservative, but they took a sharp turn to the right in 1979 when fundamentalists gained power and the moderate minority left.

Soulforce was concerned that we were just being "too polite" by vigiling and asking the messengers to look at our materials. By the third year, too many of our conversations were going the route of "well, we will just have to agree to disagree." The problem with that, of course, is that the oppressor remains the oppressor and the oppressed remains oppressed. Injustice is never threatened by people who merely disagree with the injustice. There has to be some action taken.

So there was a concern that though our vigils were indeed action, that we weren't properly conveying the seriousness and urgency of our message that Southern Baptist anti-gay teachings kill GLBT people. Mel White knew the funerals he had preached of gays that had committed suicide, he knew all the letters of anguish he had received from readers of Stranger at the Gate, and he saw that the people who were killing gays so often quoted anti-gay religious teachings.

So there was a strong feeling that year that we weren't doing enough to stop the suffering. Add that to Judge Roy Moore's less-than-veiled reference to execution as a possible solution to the "inherent evil" of homosexuality and you had a very interesting moment for Soulforce.

The debate centered around Soulforce going inside the convention with the intent of taking our message to the floor of the SBC's annual meeting. These twelve volunteers dressed up to "fit in" with Southern Baptists and went in as male-female pairs. They attended several hours until Dr. Merrit gave his address. Then every two minutes, one of the couples would stand up in the crowd and begin proclaiming "God loves gay people!" or something very similiar. The activists were jailed for 10 hours and booked on a felony charge. The felony charge was later dropped. Those who were arrested on the outside spent 4 hours in jail and had to pay a $250 fine. (Remember, only those who choose to be arrested participate in the civil disobedience if there is one. Not wanting to scare would-be activists off with this story.)

Those who felt this was not the best thing for Soulforce to do made a case that fear was at the heart of Southern Baptist beliefs on homosexuals and that our going inside elevated that fear and was therefore counterproductive and not in step with methods of nonviolence.

[Zerbie]

Interesting question Jamie, about the action. We may never know if it was "right." Logic on both sides.

I can't believe - a felony charge? What on earth was the felony? It sounds like a disorderly conduct to me, but I thought that was a misdemeanor. Er, trespassing??? Totally confused and boggled.

Jamie - to answer your question about intermingling and drifting threads, let's leave it alone. Things progress organically, so let them. I thought perhaps you might want to splice off into a new thread because you've done so before to keep conversations more orderly and on topic. But there is a spontaneity and authenticity to immediate responses like these that can't be recreated if we all detour around to post in the 'correct' place. So that's my vote.

[Joe Brummer]

I think this thread has been both educational and thought provoking for all sides, I hope that it continues. I do also think having a "Sticky" thread about nonviolence would give not only us a place to talk and learn about nonviolence but it would give our vistiors a place to see what we are about.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

Those who felt this was not the best thing for Soulforce to do made a case that fear was at the heart of Southern Baptist beliefs on homosexuals and that our going inside elevated that fear and was therefore counterproductive and not in step with methods of nonviolence.

Jamie- thanks for relating the circumstances of the SBC action. Wow. Sounds like what took place was very Act-Uppity. Ain't that interesting? I see similarities in both that action and the telephone matter. Both have, if I can put it this way, a fear factor.

If the issue is one of fear- and not wanting to engender fear, then, of course, this makes sense to me. I probably would have been one of those who would have argued for it! I sense the same dynamic at work here with the presiden't phone matter. Both are dynamically instrusive. And electricfying.

What I am learning perhaps from this discussion it that the 'ground' one walks on in these matters is as important as the issue before one. And I can see why JoeB is so intent on matters of 'technique'. Working in the arts, I can appreciate that.

Though something about this story and the phone thing still sticks with me and made me think of this: there is nothing more terrifying than being offered something which will demand that you give up something else.

Take away a kids bottle and you gotta put something back in its mouth. How to do that without them screaming their head off, is, perhaps, the trick. You gotta be quick.

Those SBC'er are getting a lot of juice out of their stuff. I don't think they wanna give it up yet. They're hanging on with both hands. How to get them to? That's my koan.

I don't know. What do you do with a kid?

Distraction?

[awediot]

It seems there are so many extenuating circumstances, we can at best hope calmer heads prevail as the challenges shift. Guess that is why nonviolence is practiced when its not needed... A couple thoughts...

I don't know. What do you do with a kid?

...depends on if its just drowning out the TV or about to hit it's sister with a sharp toy...

If the issue is one of fear- and not wanting to engender fear,

... if it's gonna clobber it's sister again, put the fear of God into it. (I know, topic unto itself, but it'll save his sister in the mean time) Fear is a tool we loathe to use, but it is called for at times.

there is nothing more terrifying than being offered something which will demand that you give up something else.

...unless it is better, and worth it.

If it is the world at large we want to make better, we share alot of moral belief and outrage with our adversaries. Big, genuine agreements as to the evils of promiscuity and cheating, shared pain in seeing our kids numbed by entertaining violence, the change in the political atmosphere, corporate power and coruption and the scourge of addiction et al.... Two words: COMMON GROUND. It is not a tactic or contrivance or distraction and we'll likely find they are about as normal as they are surprised to find us. Bypass thier misguided bigotry for the moment as they bypass your misguided urges and agree to disagree, knowing the topic will arise again, but now between 'friends'.

If it is our gay world set for improvement, it does seem the extent one uses self-defense hinges on the damage being done, and whether we just want the action stopped reguardless, Now!, or we have time to win hearts and minds to our side...