[GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces
Richard
(USA) Stonewall type action. As I reflect on the matter, it would
become a MMOW and I see the wisdom of fighting many small battles
instead of putting time and energy into one major battle. Call it " a
thousand points of fire" for Bush the Sequel.
I have to admit that the Oklahoma tales was a wake up call too. Though
the idea of abandoning whole states to the hate mongers runs against my
grain.
But my thoughts regarding civil disobedience and disruption of churches
was criticized here (for the most part, respectfully challenged.) I
have done some more thinking on the ethics of disrupting sacred spaces.
My conclusions are that such acts ARE ethically sound though MAYBE not
the best strategy. First, the ethically sound discussion.
I am talking about USA Christian sacred spaces. I am pin pointing those
USA Christian sacred institutions and spaces that are used to:
1. Exhort and preach and teach the modern day applicability of Old and
New Testament scripture calling for the murder, exile, or punishment of
homosexuals.
AND
2. Raise money OR to funnel money to institutions such as Focus on
Family that lobby for legislation that discriminates against GLBT folks
AND/OR especially to educate constituents on the anit-GLBT stands of
candidates and to urge/guide/direct constituents to vote for anti-GLBT
referendums or candidates.
If a sacred space is used to only preach anti-glbt positions, then I
believe it is morally right to block and protest those sacred space
teachings when they are in a public context. The Rev. Phelps public
prophecy and preaching of anti-glbt positions seem appropriate and
morally correct targets for protest and blocks. But perhaps his actual
church services are not morally correct targets as long as they provide
moral teachings alone.
However, when the sacred space is used not only to preach the moral
positions of the institution, but also to raise funds to influence the
public political life of the community, then that sacred space becomes a
morally correct target of political civil disobedience and/or disruptive
activity. Mormon churches, Roman Catholic churches, and Southern
Baptist churches among many come to mind.
To argue the opposite makes no sense to me. The addition of prayer or
sacramental activity to an otherwise political fund raising event cannot
spare that event from political protest. It is a fact that the Mormon
church spent $600,000 in Alaska during the 1998 election cycle. Funds
were raised through the Mormon church and spent in the electoral cycles
in Hawaii and in California. Since the Mormon church chose, and chose
freely, to enter the political arena with active fund raising and
donations to election activities, then it becomes as morally correct to
attack the Mormon church as it is morally correct to attack the
Republican Party Convention for example. The pollution of the sacred
space with political activity was effected solely by the Mormons. No
glbt organization or individual to my knowledge
supported/encouraged/aided/abetted the Mormon church in its decision to
pollute is sacred space with anti-glbt political activity.
But to say that the fact that this or any church is sacred space and
thus exempt from protest is to ignore the primary financial laundry of
the anti-GLBT voices in the USA. And remember, the $600,000 spent in
the Alaska elections were TAX-FREE funds. Under current law, Mormons,
Catholics, Baptists and others are allowed to collect tax deductible
funds to form tax-free institutions to advocate/aid/abet/support sending
glbt youth to shock therapy, screw up glbt persons with professionally
disparaged reparative therapy, and to fully participate in elections and
referendum activities, including the maintenance of sodomy laws, marital
discrimination, glbt discrimination in all forms, and to encourage and
justify violence against glbt persons by members of the congregation who
take the Biblical exhortations to heart.
Some sacred spaces are truly sacred spaces. Unitarian Universalist
spaces come to mind as well as a host of others. I mention that the
United Methodist Churches misguided, but completely internal, struggles
with gay and lesbians ministers and pro-glbt activities is internal and
within sacred confines.
But the Mormons, the Roman Catholics, and the Southern Baptists have
passed the limitations of sacred space and polluted their sanctuaries
with political actions against us. It is therefore expedient as well as
morally correct to consider their "sacred" spaces political targets for
pro-glbt freedom.
But is it strategically time to do so? Probably not. The backlash is
predictable and probably counterproductive at this point in history.
Such activity would not bother me one bit. But with the comments on
gaynet, I can foresee massive criticism not only from the general public
but also from the glbt community.
And on the other hand, the civil rights movement of the 1960's would not
have succeeded without the strength and politicization of the Black
churches. The anti-slavery movement of the 1800's would not have
succeeded without the pulpits of the northern churches. And many
churches are inching their way toward pro-glbt freedom stances. So
disruption of Mormon, Catholic, and Baptist space is probably NOT good
strategy. But such activity against politically polluted sacred space
is morally right in my eyes.
Richard Seward
San Francisco
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<< Let me begin by saying I believe I was wrong in calling for a national
(USA) Stonewall type action. >>
No you weren't. But that's just my opinion.
<< My conclusions are that such acts ARE ethically sound though
MAYBE not the best strategy. >>
I think they'd be excellent strategies at this time! To simply acquiesce
every time some sort of church or another declares a "sacred space" is
to allow the bully to stampede all over us. And this potential for a
vengeful "stampede" by mad heteros, is what you fear, when you claim
"bad strategy". IMO, the only thing you need fear is fear itself.
<< If a sacred space is used to only preach anti-glbt positions, then I
believe it is morally right to block and protest those sacred space
teachings when they are in a public context. >>
Ah, but it's still "sacred space". In fact, no matter where a preacher
stands, it is de facto sacred space...in their eyes. In fact, this is God's
Country: all of Amerika...it is all Sacred Space that *must be flushed of
every homo that exists, in order to sanctify this ground for the presence
of Jesus, YHWH, Allah, or whatever.
<< However, when the sacred space is used not only to preach the
moral positions of the institution, but also to raise funds to influence the
public political life of the community, then that sacred space becomes a
morally correct target of political civil disobedience and/or disruptive
activity. >>
You are mostly preaching to the choir, here. However, you can argue
"definition" and "semantics" with these churches till the cows come
home, and you'll never gain the upper hand. We (gay men and women)
must become a force to reckon with...we must STRIKE whenever and
wherever the preaching of death and violence towards homosexuals
exists...REGARDLESS of this "sacred space" issue.
In a secular society such as ours, THERE IS NO SPACE FOR SACRED
SPACE.
(My apologies to Native Americans, for whom I suggest renaming
"sacred space" to "cultural deference", as it applies to their own value
system...in order to separate their issue from the one of bigoted
fundamentalists.)
<< Mormon churches, Roman Catholic churches, and Southern Baptist
churches among many come to mind. >>
There is another group that comes to your mind, but which--like so many
others--you quickly suppress...due to your fear of their known rapacity to
be violent (or so perceived). And it is a major religion presently acting
out its own jihad against known or suspected homosexuals, particularly
in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran...but not excepting most other nations
under this faith. We gays must STOP ignoring the need to extend a hand
of compassion to our own MUSLIM brothers and sisters. We must not
soley blame homophobia to Christian churches, just because they are
perceived as somewhat less excessively violent than another major
religion, which is equally guilty of anti-gay genocide and torture. Sure, it
takes guts to demonstrate before fundamentalist Christian and Catholic
churches...but no one dare speak the name of that church most feared:
ISLAM. We cannot afford to continue to ignore such mosques that
likewise preach death to gays. Why should they be the exception to our
outrage? If fear is the only reason, then shame on us!
<< But is it strategically time to do so? Probably not. The backlash is
predictable >>
Oh really? The only thing I see that's predictable is your own imagined
scenario born of fear. This "backlash" has already begun, with the
advent of DOMA...and this, without any upstart homosexual stirring the
pot. At this point, we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
<< and probably counterproductive at this point in history. >>
So while at the same time you espouse aggressive actions, you also
discourage them...and thus become an apologist for the far right.
<< And on the other hand, the civil rights movement of the 1960's would
not have succeeded without the strength and politicization of the Black
churches. >>
Yes, well, they were not addressing the problem of homophobia, right? In
our case, gay liberation must get along without the church...and thus,
without the traditional support other minorities easily gain. We have a
tough row to hoe, still, but what a great victory is ours in the long run!
For it has the potential for creating a whole new dynamic of the world,
very spiritual and personally liberating, yet free of religious dogma. So if
you expect more than a handful of churches to support the inevitable
Gay Victory, you are only fooling yourself.
We must look deeper into the True Source of our spirit, which source
most churches have rejected long ago (though claim to own). And I am
not talking of any particular deity or symbol or icon...but that initial spark
of consciousness that gave birth to us all, to the entire universe in
fact...the star dust out of which we are composed, and which is our
birthright. We are a part of that universe--a conscious part--that must
stand up and claim its right to exist, along with everyone else...no matter
how you choose to worship (or not) this Origin ("The Unknown God"?).
<< But such activity against politically polluted sacred space is morally
right in my eyes. >>
Again, the issue of semantics, an argument we could never win in a
society that is owned by religious dogma. We must simply do the right
thing by us, not by them (what "they" think is right). And you ought to
include MUSLIM along with the other churches you criticize...to be fair,
as well as accurate.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
Patrick Ferris
> But my thoughts regarding civil disobedience and disruption of churches
> was criticized here (for the most part, respectfully challenged.) I
> have done some more thinking on the ethics of disrupting sacred spaces.
> My conclusions are that such acts ARE ethically sound though MAYBE not
> the best strategy. First, the ethically sound discussion.
> I am talking about USA Christian sacred spaces. I am pin pointing those
> USA Christian sacred institutions and spaces that are used to:
It's always easier to behave in an ethical way towards your friends
than your enemies. That's why being an ethical individual is
difficult.
> If a sacred space is used to only preach anti-glbt positions, then I
> believe it is morally right to block and protest those sacred space
> teachings when they are in a public context.
I don't have any problem with protesting sacred space teachings. And
I've picketed churches. But you wanted to "disrupt church services".
> The Rev. Phelps public
> prophecy and preaching of anti-glbt positions seem appropriate and
> morally correct targets for protest and blocks. But perhaps his actual
> church services are not morally correct targets as long as they provide
> moral teachings alone.
Putting yourself in the position of trying to judge when a sacred
ceremony is or isn't engaged in "moral teachings alone" seems rather risky
to me. After all, Phelps would claim that opposition to homosexuality is a
moral teaching.
> To argue the opposite makes no sense to me. The addition of prayer or
> sacramental activity to an otherwise political fund raising event cannot
> spare that event from political protest. It is a fact that the Mormon
> church spent $600,000 in Alaska during the 1998 election cycle. Funds
> were raised through the Mormon church and spent in the electoral cycles
> in Hawaii and in California. Since the Mormon church chose, and chose
> freely, to enter the political arena with active fund raising and
> donations to election activities, then it becomes as morally correct to
> attack the Mormon church as it is morally correct to attack the
> Republican Party Convention for example.
No argument from me. But there are lots of ways to attack the Mormon
church without disrupting services or invading sacred spaces. You can
protest outside, they have administrative offices, you can attack them in
the public arena. Change can even happen from within. Even the Mormons
have moderated their racist proscriptions.
> But to say that the fact that this or any church is sacred space and
> thus exempt from protest
That wouldn't have been me. At least not "church" defined as an
institution.
> is to ignore the primary financial laundry of
> the anti-GLBT voices in the USA. And remember, the $600,000 spent in
> the Alaska elections were TAX-FREE funds. Under current law, Mormons,
> Catholics, Baptists and others are allowed to collect tax deductible
> funds to form tax-free institutions
A tax loop-hole that should have been closed long ago.
> Some sacred spaces are truly sacred spaces.
I don't think it's appropriate for me to make that decision for
others.
> Unitarian Universalist
> spaces come to mind as well as a host of others. I mention that the
> United Methodist Churches misguided, but completely internal, struggles
> with gay and lesbians ministers and pro-glbt activities is internal and
> within sacred confines.
I wouldn't be as charitable.
> But the Mormons, the Roman Catholics, and the Southern Baptists have
> passed the limitations of sacred space and polluted their sanctuaries
> with political actions against us. It is therefore expedient as well as
> morally correct to consider their "sacred" spaces political targets for
> pro-glbt freedom.
I think it is ethically dicey and politically stupid. It isn't that
hard to target the church's politics and still respect its practitioners'
religious devotions.
Patrick
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<<
I don't have any problem with protesting sacred space teachings. And
I've picketed churches. But you wanted to "disrupt church services".
>>
Church services are only as sacred as the teachings that apply. If some
churches preach hatred against gays, then I find it most appropriate
(and effective) for gay members of these churches to disrupt their
services, as a form of non-violent dissent.
They do not respect our own sacred spaces, as gay people: they bash
us, imprison us, and shut down our gathering places. That is because
they define "gay" as incapable of having any "sacred spaces"...yet they
feign outrage when gay upstarts--even of their own faith--speak out
within their own so-called sacred spaces.
For one, I'd like to see African-American lesbians and gays unite, in
order to oppose their own churches which continue to preach against
homosexuality (and there are many). They can attend as a united front,
and when the preacher begins to condemn gays...they can shout him (or
her) out, so that the service can no longer continue.
<<
But there are lots of ways to attack the Mormon church without
disrupting services or invading sacred spaces.
>>
As long as there are gay Mormons, I think it's quite suitable for pro-gay
dissenters to upset and even sabotage their "sacred" ceremonies. The
point of this would be: business as usual will NO LONGER be tolerated,
as long as intolerance of gays continues. You remember how Gandhi
stopped traffic, stopped business as usual, in order to be heard? Well,
stopping religious services is a most effective way of being heard. Once
the point is made, and is made over and over...then the churches will
finally give in to our heartfelt demands...and hammer out an agreement.
<<
I think it is ethically dicey and politically stupid. It isn't that hard to target
the church's politics and still respect its practitioners' religious
devotions.
>>
Yeah, I suppose so. But then, if we don't hit them where they live--as
they have to us gays (and continue to do with great evil)--then we will
never be effective in shattering their demonic anti-gay bigotry. You are
saying we should respect their sacred spaces, even while they shove
their vile shit into the faces of our own sacred reverence?
This is a double standard you propose; pure hypocrisy. I say that
planned, united attacks at the heart of our enemy would be very
effective. And certainly, these sacred spaces qualify as important
"heart" targets. Nibblng at their heels, as you suggest, will get us
nowhere. How do I know this? Because it has never worked yet, as our
difficult history shows.
We need our own hacker contingent that would rummage through
church dumpsters at night, to gather all the vital information we can. We
need hackers to sabotage the right wing's electronic networks (and to
gain sensitive data that can be used against them). We need our spies
to join these churches and operate from within.
We need coordinated, globally-networked strategies of dissent both
local and nationwide. This means media experts and connections on our
side. We are a very creative and dynamic people, with tons of smarts.
Let's put this all together for the sake of a Gay Victory. Let's end our
own internicine squabbles, such as racism, misogyny and classism.
Let's inculcate a more loving attitude towards one another, our gay
sisters and brothers.
We have only ourselves to fight this war...and we can do it. We *will win.
But we need to stop believing that *their sacred spaces are somehow
more sacred than our own...and should never be violated, even when
they are used to plot our demise. This is plain crap; get over it. We are a
NONSECTARIAN nation, not a religious one! Yet we gays are being run
over roughshod by church bigotry that is condoned by the highest law of
the land.
Most of us are still totally closeted...spread across Amerika. We are
therefore already invisible...thus perfectly set up for creating our spy
network. The only thing--and I do mean only--stopping us, is our own
walls of prejudice within the gay community. So the first thing we need
to do, is to chip away as rapidly as possible, such prejudices wherever it
may arise. This is the first major step in creating a truly unified
community.
We have very little time left, however. Fortunately, it only takes a small
number of concerned voices to start the process. Those who have ears
to hear, know what to do. It's a battlefield out there...but even if you stand
alone, your voice can empower. Have faith that you will not be so alone
forever, or even for very long. But each of us who has the courage to
make a change NOW, can inspire the later ranks to move forward, and
they likewise can inspire those behind them...and so on.
P.S.: As with any of my messages, I give permission for anyone to freely
disseminate my words w/o first asking. And if you think I can inspire
others you know, by all means send this letter onward. As the winged
feet of Hermes sped him on his way, my messages shall likewise fly!
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Natalie Davis
On Sat, 5 May 2001 Patrick Ferris said:
<<
I don't have any problem with protesting sacred space teachings. And
I've picketed churches. But you wanted to "disrupt church services".
>>
Church services are only as sacred as the teachings that apply. If some
churches preach hatred against gays, then I find it most appropriate
(and effective) for gay members of these churches to disrupt their
services, as a form of non-violent dissent.
There's the problem, Ezekiel. In order for it to be nonviolent, the people
disrupted have to see it as nonviolent. That's what the father of nonviolence,
Mohandas K. Gandhi, would say.
You see, disrupting a worship service IS violent. No, it's not hitting people
or shooting people, but it does violence to the spirit of those who do find
what's going on sacred, violence that many (including myself) would consider
far worse than physical violence. You know how it kills you at the core when
someone throws an antigay slur at you? Would you really want to make another
human being feel that? I hope not. Part of nonviolent protest is respecting
(even if they don't respect you; hell, ESPECIALLY if they don't) the feelings
of those you're protesting, seeing them as people of worth and treating them
that way. It doesn't mean backing down or giving in to your opponent--no way.
But it does mean utilizing the Golden Rule (and you don't have to be a believer
to do that) and letting it be your guide in a protest situation and always.
As to effectiveness, seems to me the most the old ACT-UP St. Patrick's protest
did (and I love ACT-UP) was make people even angrier--that anger still exists
among many in the Catholic community today. And I can't blame them one bit
for that. In their shoes, I'd feel the same way.
So no, I will never agree with disrupting a worship service. Neither will
I defend someone who does (although I must forgive them). I've picketed outside
churches, I've covered many of Soulforce's beautifully done nonviolent protests.
Picketing outside churches? No problem. Disrupting the United Methodist Conference's
2000 General Assembly? Cool beans. Disrupting worship, however, is a slap
in the face to basic decency toward other humans. Just because they're mean
to you doesn't make it right for you to be mean to them in return. (I learned
that back in kindergarten, didn't you?) And, unfair as this sounds, sometimes
to win respect you have to be the first to show respect to others. (As Mel
White would put it, you've got to love them until they give in, not hate them
into it.)
Example: Jerry Falwell. I disagree with TONS of what he says. Of course. And
I am personally wounded by much of his antigay rhetoric. I was completely
hurt when, in 1999, he sat down with Soulforce and a group of GLBT people
of faith, but would not EAT with them because they were "unrepentant sinners."
(But he had no problem feeding the journalists. Imagine that.) I mean, slap
in the face, OK? Still. At no time did the Soulforcers show him any disrespect.
They disagreed with him, to be sure, but they behaved beautifully. (And frankly,
behaved better than Falwell and his crew.) Even I was respectful to him...
I hope this shows up. meandjerry.jpg
If not, you can see the photo, along with my article on the Soulforce/Falwell
gathering and cool photos of Fred Phelps and Co, at http://www.citypaper.com/1999-11-10/feature2.
html .
>They do not respect our own sacred spaces, as gay people: they bash
us, imprison us, and shut down our gathering places. That is because
they define "gay" as incapable of having any "sacred spaces".
Sadly, many of them do. And therefore, you should crash their sacred space?
Brings you down to their level, doesn't it? Even if I do not find something
sacred, I will respect it if someone else does. I won't recite any pledge
of allegiance or sing the US national anthem, but I will stand. It's respect,
not acquiescence. If they still choose to reject me and bash me, ultimately,
that's on them. I won't lower myself and behave in an inhumane fashion out
of revenge. Are you trying to achieve something or get back at them? Do you
want (eventual) results or do you want revenge? Do you want to get what you
deserve or just get attention?
..yet they
feign outrage when gay upstarts--even of their own faith--speak out
within their own so-called sacred spaces.
Speaking out within a sacred space is different from disrupting it. The Rev.
Mel White spoke out during the service at Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church,
but he did it respectfully, and what he said, though disagreed with by most
present, was accepted respectfully. And the packed to overflowing church saw
glbt folks behaving as themselves, and respectfully. That speaks volumes.
For one, I'd like to see African-American lesbians and gays unite, in
order to oppose their own churches which continue to preach against
homosexuality (and there are many). They can attend as a united front,
and when the preacher begins to condemn gays...they can shout him (or
her) out, so that the service can no longer continue.
Would that accomplish anything? I don't think so. It would just piss people
off and make them less likely to listen. A better approach would be picketing
outside of the church. Or much better: bringing up the topic at church meetings
and forums... starting discussions in parish-council meetings... sharing alternate
views of Leviticus in bible studies and discussions... being a member, refusing
to censor yourself or be closeted, and letting people know that you aren't
going anywhere... talking with the pastor and other church staffers on the
issue. Even picketing, if that is necessary. There are so many other avenues.
It seems to me that disrupting a service is not only disrespectful (and only
ends up making the disrupters look bad and the 'phobish churchgoers look like
victims), it's juvenile and dumb. I understand the sentiment behind it, I
really do. But ultimately it is probably the most INeffective protest measure
one can undertake.
Here's another measure, and I think this one is excellent. Soulforce is planning
a big campaign, whereby glbta people
withhold their tithes from unwelcoming churches to which they are members.
Don't disrupt the service, disrupt the CASH FLOW. Hee hee hee.
>You remember how Gandhi stopped traffic, stopped business as usual, in order
to be heard? Well,
stopping religious services is a most effective way of being heard. Once
the point is made, and is made over and over...then the churches will
finally give in to our heartfelt demands...and hammer out an agreement.
No. Gandhi would disagree because of the spiritual violence you would be committing
unto the church members. (And I know; I've discussed this with Gandhi's grandson,
Arun, who studied nonviolence at his grandfather's knee.) And I sincerely
doubt they would give in to anything. Why should they, to a band of disrespectful
people? And btw: A church is not a building; it's a collection of people.
Make it so they can't use their church? Big deal. That won't stop them from
meeting and worshipping. In my church, we used to joke that no matter how
bad the weather got, no matter how cold the building became, we'd meet and
have service at the local IHOP. And it's true. Because the sacred space is
the connection between the worshippers and the, um, worshipped. It is so fragile
and so strong all at once... if disrupted, yes, violence is done.
Personally, I beg you not to do it. For the benefit of those for whom you
protest, most of all, for your own long-term benefit, and, as Gandhi would
add, for the benefit of the souls of those whose minds you seek to change.
Find another way, one that does no violence. Or don't dare call it nonviolent.
PATRICK WROTE:
<<
I think it is ethically dicey and politically stupid. It isn't that hard
to target
the church's politics and still respect its practitioners' religious
devotions.
>>
Bingo.
EZEKIEL RESPONDS:
Yeah, I suppose so. But then, if we don't hit them where they live--as
they have to us gays (and continue to do with great evil)--then we will
never be effective in shattering their demonic anti-gay bigotry. You are
saying we should respect their sacred spaces, even while they shove
their vile shit into the faces of our own sacred reverence?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Makes you look like the
better person.
(Another note: Most of these folks are not evil at all. They believe it, they
really do. They are misguided, they are egregiously wrong, they are sinning
so badly against the body of Christ.... but most are NOT evil. Most do NOT
wish you harm. There's just a major disagreement, and right now, their side's
got the power.)
This is a double standard you propose; pure hypocrisy.
Baloney. He's proposing respect. What you suggest is revenge.
I say that
planned, united attacks at the heart of our enemy would be very
effective. And certainly, these sacred spaces qualify as important
"heart" targets.
True enough. Even "soul" targets. But if you rout your enemy through violent
means, he or she will always hate you and be on the lookout for a way to get
revenge on your revenge. That's no way to live. I don't believe the ends justify
the means here. I couldn't look at myself in a mirror doing what you propose.
I'd lose my OWN soul. That's too high a price. And frankly, it isn't necessary.
>e need our own hacker contingent that would rummage through
church dumpsters at night, to gather all the vital information we can.
We
need hackers to sabotage the right wing's electronic networks (and to
gain sensitive data that can be used against them). We need our spies
to join these churches and operate from within.
We need coordinated, globally-networked strategies of dissent both
local and nationwide. This means media experts and connections on our
side. We are a very creative and dynamic people, with tons of smarts.
Let's put this all together for the sake of a Gay Victory. Let's end our
own internicine squabbles, such as racism, misogyny and classism.
How? Do we use revenge? Do we infiltrate the men's bars, where anti-dyke jokes
reign supreme? Do we sneak poor queers into the hoity-toity set's fetes? Do
we sneak men into the lesbian-separatist potluck? Have hackers break into
the men's only online porn chat room for secret info? Come on! We can't even
agree on what constitutes a "woman" for the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival!
Please, let's be realistic. And adult. However nice it might be, we can't
just end our internecine battles any more than we can snap a finger and have
conservative Christians suddenly embrace us just because we broke up their
prayer service.
There are other approaches to solving the problems that exist within the glbt
community and to solving the problems that exist between us and the larger
society. Focusing on revenge and violence--this is NOT nonviolence that you
propose, quite the opposite--will only cause more problems and no real benefits,
except for the schmoes who get a kick out of hurting people. I hope you can
see that. Actually, I pray that you can. And I recommend that you read everything
on the Soulforce Web site (www.soulforce.org) before ever using the word nonviolence
again, because, with all due respect, you don't seem to understand Gandhi's
meaning of the word and what he really was all about.
Respectfully and in solidarity,
natalie
>P.S.: As with any of my messages, I give permission for anyone to freely
disseminate my words w/o first asking. And if you think I can inspire
others you know, by all means send this letter onward. As the winged
feet of Hermes sped him on his way, my messages shall likewise fly!
Oh, damn, it's about attention. I was afraid of that. Sorry, I shan't forward
it; it would be irresponsible of me to do so. You're very passionate and articulate
(and very young, I assume, based on what I've read in many of your postings;
old people such as me have been there, done that, spouted off, and eventually
grown up), and other young people might think you know of what you speak.
Too many people on both sides of the argument could wind up getting hurt,
and that would benefit no one.
A little advice, Ezekiel: It never hurts to be respectful. And sometimes,
you just might get respect in return. A lot of my work forces me to deal with
the religious wrong; learning that little bit, and recognizing the humanity
of my opponent, has helped make my job and life considerably better. Oh, I
still fight and agitate and get mad as hell, and justifiably so, given the
plight of queers in this society. But I won't be disrespectful anymore. Please
believe me when I tell you it only makes things worse.
Gawd, I'm thinking of the song: "I wish that I knew what I know now, when
I was younger. I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was stronger..."
*****************************************************************
The Armchair Activist - http://gratefuldread.net/act/
Visit the site, join the mailing list, work for a better world.
[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of meandjerry.jpg]
www.usQueers.com
superstitions are relics and playtime toys which do more harm than they've
ever done good. Therefore, there is nothing for them to respect or
disrespect except imaginery myths whose believers have already proven
themselves able to weather the disrespect of non-believers.
For some, there comes a time when non-violent protest is the only, best
choice. Regardless of what Ghandi is credited with having said and taught,
protesting of any sort is violent. Placing an immovable rock in the middle
of a smoothly flowing stream, so that the stream must flow around the rock,
is a violent act against the smooth flowing of the stream.
Killing or damaging your own body by not eating is a violent act, regardless
of the motive. Using such violence, directed at your own body, as a form of
protest cannot be called non-violent protest.
Both Ghandi and King protested social wrongs, they did not attempt to change
anyone's religious beliefs through protest.
Mel White has appropriated the "aura" of non-violent protest, using the
names of Ghandi and King, as a means to attempt to change his own former
religion to be more acceptable to him and other gays and lesbians. He only
protests churches, and his fight with churches has nothing to do with those
who do not believe in his religion. It is not a civil rights fight. He can
choose to be non-violent to the day he dies, having made a career of trying
to redeem himself by changing the minds of those with whom he knowingly
betrayed his "own people," Falwell, Robertson, and the entire
anti-homosexual cartel.
For some, there comes a time when violence is a valid choice. Those who
believe this make this choice themselves, and are responsible for that
choice themselves. They fight against those they have decided are enemies,
or who have convinced them they are enemies. If victorious or not victorious
over those enemies, they remain responsible for making the choice
themselves. Those who are not responsible will naturally join in the chorus
against violent actions. The fallout from those actions must be dealt with
by those who are responsible for them and by those who are not.
You believe that you need not respect or accept these facts or beliefs about
violence.
You must remember that there are those who believe them, and those who will
act on them, without looking for anyone's approval or respect, or for
attention. There is such a thing as simply targeting and taking out an
enemy.
The day is soon coming when you must begin to speak to them about why and
how long they should continue waiting, or at least begin to think about how
you will capitalize on denouncing their actions. There has not been a war on
U.S.A. soil since the Civil War, until the current religious war was begun
by religious people.
Gays were used by the religious (again) to build up their war chest with
guns, money and power, to take over the country as they already have. The
state to state, city to city, street to street, and house to house fighting
is already underway. Gays, and morals in general, are not the reason for
this war. Some, however, are tired of being used as cannon fodder while
waiting to see how this whole thing turned out. It's time for the ammo to
start choosing the targets which will be of maximum benefit. We are not
victims. We are targets. Some return fire when least expected.
Perhaps a photo opportunity will again arise for those who are interested in
that sort of thing, because it is certainly good for the careers of the
killers you smilingly pose with, like Jerry Falwell, or D. James Kennedy or
Pat Robertson or Bob Knight or Janet Folger or....
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<<
There's the problem, Ezekiel. In order for it to be nonviolent, the
people disrupted have to see it as nonviolent.
>>
I certainly agree, that therein lies the problem: homophobic
churches would insist on any disruption of their services by gay
activists as "violent". This, in order to demonize their cry for
justice. And you, too, Natalie, would demonize any gay person for
showing some courage in the face of very violent bigots.
<<
That's what the father of nonviolence, Mohandas K. Gandhi,
would say.
>>
Nonsense.
<<
You see, disrupting a worship service IS violent.
<<
No, I *don't see. If this is how you define violence, I'd say you are
playing the hand of the homophobes. You must be a right-wing
saboteur, posing as a gay activist. So what's new, Natalie? If
there is no physical damage to human being, in the act of
dissenting, then there is no violence. Plain and simple. Your
Orwellian double-speak is typical of homophobes who want to
denigrate gays who don't "know their place".
<<
No, it's not hitting people or shooting people, but it does violence
to the spirit of those who do find
what's going on sacred, violence that many (including myself)
would consider far worse than physical violence.
>>
Wow, you really don't want gays to have their equality, do you?
By your reasoning, gays who break up a religious service via non-
violent dissent, are not only guilty of commiting violence, but far
more horrible and criminal than our enemies, who bludgeon us to
a bloody pulp. And just because we are bashed in places
declared non-sacred. You are one twisted lady, Natalie. You talk
EXACTLY like a "loving" Xian, who attempts to declaw any form
of gay pride and dissent by hiding behind God's robe.
<<
You know how it kills you at the core when someone throws an
antigay slur at you?
>>
No, it does not "kill me to the core", you bloated bag of
homophobia. What does kill me to the core, is whenever a gay
brother or sister gets violently bashed or murdered by a
bigot...under the approving eye of The Supreme Court and
"Family Values".
<<
Would you really want to make another human being feel that?
>>
Damn right I would. Then we'd be more likely to gain sympathy
and compassion from the majority, instead of violence at worst,
and at apathy best. Homophobes are bullies, more than anything
else. And the only thing bullies respect is PAIN. This can be
administered in the form of prison sentences...but since our
government continues to drag its feet in its abysmal regard for
gays, we need to find our own way to exact justice. (And when I
say "we" I mean the truly united gay community; I certainly don't
include *you in my picture.)
If in using aggressive dissent--as in breaking up church services-
-we can give these homophobes a dose of the pain we live with
daily (terrorism, bludgeoning, exclusion even from family), without
shedding a single drop of blood in so doing...I believe we will
finally accomplish the respect due us as human beings.
<<
Part of nonviolent protest is respecting (even if they don't respect
you; hell, ESPECIALLY if they don't) the feelings
of those you're protesting, seeing them as people of worth and
treating them that way.
>>
These anti-gay bigots do NOT respect us at all. How could they
when they either do violence upon us gays, or approve of the
violence done? Respect must be earned...and these demons
certainly have not. Consideration of respect is no longer an issue
for our concern. How we survive through this, and what actions
we should take in order to see justice done against all this anti-
gay hatred and violence, is the matter of the day. The Religious
Reich has sorely abused words like "love" and "respect", by
claiming such traits, yet obviously doing quite the opposite.
I suppose you think that Jews in Germany lacked enough
"respect" for their Nazi overlords, and thus *deserved their end in
concentration camps. I suppose you think that learning to show
respect for Hitler and Mussolini, won the War for us and our allies.
Actually, what we allies did was to BASH BACK, with concerted
force and intelligent strategies. And this, my dear phony Natalie,
is precisely what the gay community needs to come to terms with.
We need our own "allied resistance", underground and
widespread. We can disrupt, we can sabotage, we can bring
these filthy overlords to their needs, and have all our demands for
freedom met...and we can do this all without shedding a drop of
blood...IOW, non-violently. Any definition of violence other than
physical damage to human bodies...is a distortion of the term, and
a way of demoralizing the troops into apathy and loss of faith.
I therefore charge you, Natalie Davis, with committing sabotage
on behalf of the Religious Reich. It is clear to me that you are a
plant to damage our cause, by seeing to it that we gays do not
unite, and that voices like mine are demonized in order to frighten
other gays from the truth about our noble cause. You are posing
as a gay activist, who filtered her way in some years
ago...seeming quite liberal, but once you gain a voice in one
group or another, you begin to sabotage any truly liberating
voices like mine.
Perhaps I am wrong in my assumption about you being a
saboteur. However, your denigrating proposals for effective
dissent by labeling them as "violent" really plays into the hands of
homophobic bigots. If this is your form of activism, girl, you gotta
go. Time to sweep away all the dead wood that's being clogging
up the arteries of Gay-Volution, and let some fresh blood take
over and lead us to victory.
<<
It doesn't mean backing down or giving in to your opponent--no
way.
But it does mean utilizing the Golden Rule (and you don't have to
be a believer
to do that) and letting it be your guide in a protest situation and
always.
>>
Bullshit. The Golden Rule only applies among civilized, non-
violent folk. The Golden Rule didn't work for Hitler, nor for
numerous other despots...so why should it suddenly take on an
aura of respectability for gay rights? The most violent, heinous
crimes of humanity have been against our homosexual
population. And you spew out "golden rule" pap?
<<
As to effectiveness, seems to me the most the old ACT-UP St.
Patrick's protest
did (and I love ACT-UP) was make people even angrier--that
anger still exists
among many in the Catholic community today.
>>
More of Natalie's bull dung! Those religious bastards really get
ticked off when gays don't know their place, don't they! You can't
blame ACT-UP for the arrogance of religious zealots. Just as you
can't blame a woman for being raped. It also remains to be seen
whether the Catholic community at large harbors any particular
hate towards ACT-UP, or whether gay activism has opened more
hearts than closed. But the anger of Catholics towards ACT-UP,
is every bit as cruel and maniacal as the anger against Jews
supposedly threatening the "purity" of the German culture...yet
one example of how the majority is often wrong.
<<
And I can't blame them one bit
>>
Of course you can't. We know whose side you're *really on!
>>
So no, I will never agree with disrupting a worship service.
<<
Thanks for the clarification. I'll remember not to invite you to our
demonstrations. God forbid you should soil any church with the
dignified struggle for equality, a God-given right to every
individual!
>>
Disrupting worship, however, is a slap in the face to basic
decency toward other humans.
<<
Maybe these violent-prone goons *deserve a slap in the face!
Certainly such an action is like a mere sting of a gnat, when
compared with the gay bashing so strongly promoted by such
church-goers. Perhaps such a harmless sting will wake them up
to the kind of cruelty they put on gay people. Or perhaps it will
take several stings, including prison time for defamatory and
violent behavior. Sting, sting, sting!
<<
Just because they're mean to you doesn't make it right for you to
be mean to them in return.
>>
"Mean" to me? That's hardly strong enough to do their evil justice.
Violent bludgeoning and murder, is hardly a "mean" action...it is
an abhorrent evil that can only be properly addressed with harsh
sanctions and retaliation. This has always been the case
throughout history, for any oppressed minority that seeks
freedom. What I am proposing is to finally be truly *mean to these
bigots; give them no quarter in which to excuse their violence. I
propose aggressive actions against these demonic forces...short
of violence. However, this does not mean you shouldn't defend
yourself and even strike back, if you begin to get bashed. At least,
carry pepper spray as a from of legal weapon.
<<
(I learned that back in kindergarten,
>>
It seems that kindergarten is where you learned *everything. Too
bad you stopped there, and never moved on to the first grade.
<<
Sadly, many of them do.
>>
I am not saddened by this; I am OUTRAGED.
<<
And therefore, you should crash their sacred space?
>>
Indeedily doodily! Give 'em a taste of their own hell!
<<
Brings you down to their level, doesn't it?
>>
Not at all. Just as allied forces defeating the German army with
acts of sabotage and disruption, never lowered them to their level.
<<
Even if I do not find something sacred, I will respect it if someone
else does.
>>
Of course. Always put your best foot forward. But when your
adversary continues to stomp on that foot, showing respect must
come to an end, and you must take up aggressive measures, in
order to protect not just your individual freedom, but your very life.
<<
I won't recite any pledge of allegiance or sing the US national
anthem, but I will stand.
>>
Because you don't want people to *really see your dissent. It's a
half-assed ploy only to assuage your conscience, to fool yourself
into thinking you are a lot more progressive then you really are. I
would *never stand, but sit their quite firmly. Then *everyone in
the audience will witness my dissent. In your case, only people at
your immediate side will notice you not singing.
(Zeke said:)
> For one, I'd like to see African-American lesbians and gays
unite, in
> order to oppose their own churches which continue to preach
against
> homosexuality (and there are many). They can attend as a
united front,
> and when the preacher begins to condemn gays...they can
shout him (or
> her) out, so that the service can no longer continue.
<<
Would that accomplish anything? I don't think so. It would just
piss people
off and make them less likely to listen.
>>
I strongly disagree. I believe that many blacks would be
impressed, for they'd recall similar strategies used in the South, to
win equality. And *that is something to admire.
<<
A better approach would be picketing outside of the church.
>>
Nope. Time for shock tactics. Time to grab the demon by the
horns and shake him around. Time to get tough.
<<
Here's another measure, and I think this one is excellent.
Soulforce is planning a big campaign, whereby glbta people
withhold their tithes from unwelcoming churches to which they are
members. Don't disrupt the service, disrupt the CASH FLOW. Hee
hee hee.
>>
I'm all for economic clout, a la boycotting. But let's not stop at
that, or we'll make so little headway as to be ineffectual in the
long run. Besides, all these other forms of dissent that you
suggest (no disrupting services) are already defined as "violent"
actions by the enemy.
<<
No. Gandhi would disagree because of the spiritual violence you
would be committing unto the church members.
>>
Oh, sure; now you speak for Gandhi, unequivocally. Gandhi was
for peaceful acts of dissent and disruption; he did not define any
space in which to do this as "wrong"...and that goes for church
services. It is both vulgar and manipulative of you to define my
suggestions of aggressive dissent as violent, by changing the
meaning of violence to include non-physical actions if they are
described as "violent" by a bigoted majority.
<<
(And I know; I've discussed this with Gandhi's grandson, Arun,
who studied nonviolence at his grandfather's knee.)
<<
And of course I'm supposed to take your word for this, right?
What kind of fool do you think I, we, are, here on this GayNet list?
You have done a better job of denouncing yourself, than I could
ever do. As for Gandhi's grandson: blood relation does not imbue
one with sanctity. Just look at some of Martin Luther King's
relations who are quite homophobic...even though his surviving
spouse is very pro-gay, and claims that King would be all for gay
equality.
<<
Why should they, to a band of disrespectful people?
>>
Oh, yeah, those awful, disrespectful faggots...how dare they
disrupt our service, only because we have bashed those filthy
perverts? Why, even God says we should put them to death!
And pray tell, how does one "respect" the bashers/murderers of
our lovers, friends, brothers and sisters? So someone murders my
lover, and you come running up from left field, to preach to me
how I need to learn to respect the killer.
<<
That won't stop them from meeting and worshipping. In my
church, we used to joke that no matter how
bad the weather got, no matter how cold the building became,
we'd meet and have service at the local IHOP.
>>
Excuse me, but, if we gays could have such churches on the run,
I think we'd be accomplishing a lot. We can just hound them at
IHOP, or wherever they choose to go, to avoid us, their
conscience.
<<
For the benefit of those for whom you protest, most of all, for your
own long-term benefit, and, as Gandhi would
add, for the benefit of the souls of those whose minds you seek to
change.
>>
Ooops, I forgot, you are channeling the Great Mahatma. Dear,
you do NOT speak for Gandhi, or any other dead man or woman.
You are nothing but a name-dropper.
<<
Find another way, one that does no violence. Or don't dare call it
nonviolent.
>>
Well, when someone like you defines non-violence as violence,
then there is nowhere I can take this...that is, nowhere, if I actually
were foolish enough to consider you manipulative notions. I
believe I covered all ground in addressing your phony blather...so
I'll address just one more point of your pointless message:
(Zeke said:)
>P.S.: As with any of my messages, I give permission for anyone
>to freely disseminate my words w/o first asking.
<<
Oh, damn, it's about attention.
>>
Partly, yes. I have an ego, which I can't live without. You will
never find me guilty of false humility...of which you seem to be
more than amply supplied. I believe I have a gift of the spoken
word (and of speaking), which is to be used to help forward gay
liberation. So I am a little vain about it. However, don't doubt for a
moment that I am not wholly dedicated to The Cause, and eagerly
empower any gays who are open to my ideas...that I may bring
out their own great destiny free of my influence. I also celebrate
and acknowledge the gifts given by other gays, that advance our
cause...and give them full credit for their own good works. I never
steal.
<<
I was afraid of that.
>>
No you weren't. The only thing you're afraid of, it seems, is that
gays actually do fight effectively and win their rights!
<<
Sorry, I shan't forward it;
>>
Of course YOU wouldn't. You have no intention of assisting gays
in our liberation. You are set up as a roadblock, to distract us from
our lofty goal, with sweet-sounding ideas that would dull us into
complacency.
<<
You're very passionate and articulate (and very young, I assume,
based on what I've read in many of your postings;
>>
I'm 50 years old, and quite adept at activist notions and dealing
with all forms of anti-gay sabotage...both within Our Family and
without.
<<
Please believe me when I tell you it only makes things worse.
>>
It is obvious that, in believing I am young, you used guilt and
talking-down in an attempt to scare me away from doing the right
thing...IOW, you abused your power as an adult. You are a real
danger to any child within range of your influence. You'd train
them all to be sheep for the slaughter.
And lastly: I'm glad at least one other person is speaking out
against your pabulum.
P.S.: Gandhi beat his wife.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Eric Bohlman
>(Another note: Most of these folks are not evil at all. They
believe it, they
>really do. They are misguided, they are egregiously wrong,
they are sinning
>so badly against the body of Christ.... but most are NOT
evil. Most do NOT
>wish you harm. There's just a major disagreement, and right
now, their side's
>got the power.)
This, I think, is at the core of how Gandhi/King style
nonviolent resistance really works. There aren't enough
truly evil people in the world to pull off large-scale
atrocities all by themselves. Instead, they have to convince
the majority of people, who are basically good, that they're
really doing good when in fact they're helping to carry off
evil. IMHO, nonviolent resistance works by holding a mirror
in front of such people's faces until they can't help but
recognize the ugliness that they've acquired. At that point,
for all but the most hardcore fanatics, their basic decency
cuts in and they start to back out. And it's of the utmost
importance to support them as they do back out. Admitting
that you were wrong is psychologically painful for most
people. That means that you have to forgive (not excuse)
them. You have to resist the urge to take revenge on them,
even though they've hurt you. You can expect, or even
demand, that they do their part to help clean up the mess
that they made. But if you take out your anger on them, you
lose potential allies.
Troy Westerberg
you. But bitterness is a paralyzing trap. I haven4t been really following
this thread, but it seems that the topic is "Targeting Sacred Spaces" not
"Natalie Davis is a Spy for the Forces of Totalitarian Theocractic
Fascists". Perhaps, you could move back to the topic?
I'm not a christian in any sense. My personal feeling is that christianity
is a rather odd religion (I joke that I'm an anti-christ, which most
christians find very unfunny). ;-> However, coming into any church with the
sole purpose of disrupting the service probably falls under anti-trespass
laws and anyone who does that should be arrested and prosecuted. Such an
act is indeed violent and I'd add immoral and intolerant. And I can't
really see that demonstrating outside of the church would have much effect
either. Nothing is accomplished by attacking the religious beliefs of other
people - it just gives those people strength of resolve.
The real problem here is intolerance and every single one of us has it.
They don't tolerate Us, We don't tolerate Them. How can anyone demand
tolerance that isn't first willing to give it?
Enforce separation of church and state. Create a society where influence
peddling is taboo (this would solve so many problems). Be intolerant of
racism and discrimination. Practice your religion. Just don't expect
everyone else to do it too. Be agnostic or atheistic - just respect that
not everyone else is.
Secular government (or no government, but that's another thread).
Tolerance. Respect. Peace. Gee, sounds almost...christian?!
Troy Westerberg
Richard
disagree with her point of view on this subject, but I am interested in
the discussion and in understanding her point of view. I find personal
attacks on her objectionable and wrongly placed. I find insults to her
parenting to be reprehensible.
On the other hand, it would have been easier to "hear" Natalie's points
without the condensending remarks made about Zeke based on assumptions
about his age and development. But her wrongs do not make Zeke's bitter
attacks on her motives and parenting right in any sense.
I don't want to appear morally better than anyone (a little guilty
myself, eh Patrick?) But the discussion of strategic attacks on the
primary source of theory and funds used to hurt us in the political
arena (i.e. certain Christian churches in the USA) is too important to
be side tracked with personal attacks. Can we move past them?
Richard Seward
A young 49 here in San Francisco
Richard
show the majority where the minority has led them and then to help them
clean up the mess without bashing them. That makes sense to me.
Would it be bad strategy or spiritual violence to stand up at Mass
during the Prayers of the Faithful or at similar times in Mormon or
other sacred-spaces-used-for-political-purposes and pray aloud (very
loud) for each of the queers murdered since the death of Matthew
Shepherd blaming each death on the hatred preached by the church?
Richard Seward
Richard
discussing christian churches who used sacred space to preach and
prophesize against glbt freedom AND to raise and funnel funds to
political organizations and candidates and referendum to discriminate
against glbt freedom.
You have used your own sacred space and community in your posts. Does
your religious community preach against glbt freedom AND raise funds to
spend or funnel to organizations, candidates, or political referendum
that seek to destroy glbt freedom?
Richard Seward
PS A "yes" would shock me no end!
Richard
> The real problem here is intolerance and every single one of us has it.
> They don't tolerate Us, We don't tolerate Them. How can anyone demand
> tolerance that isn't first willing to give it?
>
> Enforce separation of church and state. Create a society where influence
> peddling is taboo (this would solve so many problems). Be intolerant of
> racism and discrimination. Practice your religion. Just don't expect
> everyone else to do it too. Be agnostic or atheistic - just respect that
> not everyone else is.
>
> Secular government (or no government, but that's another thread).
> Tolerance. Respect. Peace. Gee, sounds almost...christian?!
>
> Troy Westerberg
No Troy, I am afraid it does not Christian to me at all. Wiccan or
Buddhist perhaps, but not christian. At the center of the christian
faith is the exhortation to evangelize the unbeliever. The believers go
to heaven and the unbelievers go to the lake of fire that is never
quenched. So it is essential for the christian to bring the "good news"
to the unbeliever. Live and let live and tolerance is not possible
within the theology of traditional christianity. (Note: I have been a
faithful methodist and a converted roman catholic (parish council,
liturgy committee, the whole ball of wax) in my time. I quit the lot of
it when the bishop sent me the most hateful possible letter annulling my
heterosexual marriage AND asked me to pay $250 for the lessons of his
judgment upon me.)
But tolerance, respect and peace are not part and parcel of
Christianity. Ask a Baptist about tolerance of Roman Catholics, not to
mention queers. Ask a Mormon about tolerance of non-Mormans, not to
mention queers. Ask the Religious Reich if God should be left out of
government and laws, not to mention schools.
And at this stage in my life, "tolerance" is not acceptable to me. At
the core of tolerance is the deeply beheld belief that the one who
tolerates is better than the one being tolerated. I have no desire to
either tolerate or accept or live-and-let-live with those who use their
sacred spaces to raise funds to use in the political or non-sacred
institutions to bash and hurt queers. My desire is to block, stop,
erase their ability to hurt me and other queers.
One of the most interesting exercises I have recently pursued is to take
the quizzes at the Landover Baptist Church and at Fred Phellp's Westover
Baptist church and the Betty Bowers sites online. Rather interesting in
their presentation of biblical teachings on slavery, women, queers, and
disobedient children. I am fully aware modern theologians explaining
away many of the Old Testament and the gospels and the Pauline letters
judgments on slavery, women, queers and other biblical teachings. I
have to admit that at this stage in my life, I think that Fred Phellp's
is probably right in suggesting that God Hates Fags based on the bible.
I also think the Landover Baptist teachings on the subservience of women
is probably correct based on biblical teachings - Gospel and Pauline
and Old Testament. Anyway, both these sites are interesting regardless
of your beliefs.
Richard Seward
Troy Westerberg
non-violence.
Would it have been acceptable if someone had stood up at Matthew Shepherd's
funeral and started to pray very loudly for the redemption of his damned
queer soul? No, it wasn't even acceptable that there were protestors
outside of the funeral. I think this strategy is indeed spiritually
violent.
I was raised Mormon. My mother firmly believes that, unless I start
conforming to church doctrine, I'm doomed. I've long since given up trying
to argue or change her beliefs. I just refuse to let her church put it's
paws on my spirit. She even goes so far as to give the church my address
every time I move. Sometimes people even show up at my door. I invite them
in, offer them coffee (my own little joke), explain that I'm an open and
unrepentant homosexual, thank them for their time and hold the door open for
them as they flee the premises. No fuss, no muss (other than a few very
traumatized and confused 19 year old missionaries).
I remember going to my first gay pride celebration in Salt Lake City about
fifteen years ago. I was just beginning to find my way after leaving the
Mormon church (a process that nearly drove me to suicide). A group of
neo-nazis showed up. I was stunned and a little frightened. One by one,
people turned their backs on these people. Not a word was exchanged with
this group. It took about two minutes for them to leave. The police didn't
even have to escort them out.
That was so empowering and left a very strong impression. It always
disturbs me when I see people engage protestors in shouting matches - it's
just not effective.
Troy Westerberg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard" <sep...@pacbell.net>
To: "Eric Bohlman" <eboh...@earthlink.net>
Cc: <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces
> Thanks for this post on the rational behind non-violent protest, i.e. to
> show the majority where the minority has led them and then to help them
> clean up the mess without bashing them. That makes sense to me.
>
> Would it be bad strategy or spiritual violence to stand up at Mass
> during the Prayers of the Faithful or at similar times in Mormon or
> other sacred-spaces-used-for-political-purposes and pray aloud (very
> loud) for each of the queers murdered since the death of Matthew
> Shepherd blaming each death on the hatred preached by the church?
>
> Richard Seward
>
Eric Bohlman
>But tolerance, respect and peace are not part and parcel of
>Christianity. Ask a Baptist about tolerance of Roman
Catholics, not to
>mention queers. Ask a Mormon about tolerance of non-
Mormans, not to
>mention queers. Ask the Religious Reich if God should be
left out of
>government and laws, not to mention schools.
You're referring to Christianity in its most doctrinaire,
literalistic, and legalistic form. In most religions (and
Christianity is no exception here), ultra-orthodoxy
represents a movement that occurs relatively late in the
religion's history, and attracts only a minority (albeit an
extremely vocal one) of followers.
Eric Hoffer asserted that those who most aggressively
proselytize their faith are those who are the least secure in
that faith; they may not realize it, but the primary goal of
their "in your face" behavior is to convince *themselves*
that they're right.
I hope you're aware that Landover Baptist is a *parody* of
rigid, literalistic Christianity, and that Westboro Baptist
is not a "church" in the ordinary sense; it's a closed
organization whose membership is limited to the Phelps
family, in-laws, and a few personal friends, and exists
solely to cater to Fred Phelps' personal needs and wants
(particularly his desire for revenge against his perceived
enemies, who are a lot more than just gay people).
Richard
> I hope you're aware that Landover Baptist is a *parody* of
> rigid, literalistic Christianity, and that Westboro Baptist
> is not a "church" in the ordinary sense; it's a closed
> organization whose membership is limited to the Phelps
> family, in-laws, and a few personal friends, and exists
> solely to cater to Fred Phelps' personal needs and wants
> (particularly his desire for revenge against his perceived
> enemies, who are a lot more than just gay people).
Yep, fully aware of both points. Though the closed nature of Phelps'
church does not stop the tax exempt status of its organization. Just
imagine all the travel costs they can deduct from their 1040. Pretty
nifty scam. And the parody nature of Landover Baptist does not negate
the accuracy of its biblical quizzes.
And if push came to shove, I guess as I do acknowledge the continuing
revelation theological argument of most mainstream christian churches.
I do note that the continuing revelations of most christian churches
seem to have finally decided that slavery is not such a hot idea, but
women have a ways to go, and queers are still out in the cold.
Richard Seward
Natalie Davis
>For some, there comes a time when violence is a valid choice.
Tis true. I am a complete pacifist, but I understand that I am in the
minority on that and, as always, I believe in respecting those who hold
different viewpoints.
> Those who believe this make this choice themselves, and are responsible
> for that
>choice themselves. They fight against those they have decided are enemies,
>or who have convinced them they are enemies. If victorious or not victorious
>over those enemies, they remain responsible for making the choice
>themselves. Those who are not responsible will naturally join in the chorus
>against violent actions. The fallout from those actions must be dealt with
>by those who are responsible for them and by those who are not.
The human condition, I'm afraid.
>You believe that you need not respect or accept these facts or beliefs about
>violence.
I don't need to accept them, no, but I must respect those who do believe them.
>You must remember that there are those who believe them, and those who will
>act on them, without looking for anyone's approval or respect, or for
>attention. There is such a thing as simply targeting and taking out an
>enemy.
Never having had training in miliatary thinking or violence, I wouldn't
know that, so you're right, I hadn't considered it. Thank you for expanding
my worldview.
>The day is soon coming when you must begin to speak to them about why and
>how long they should continue waiting, or at least begin to think about how
>you will capitalize on denouncing their actions. There has not been a war on
>U.S.A. soil since the Civil War, until the current religious war was begun
>by religious people.
I've not asked anyone to wait. I've only said I think violent acts, such as
disrupting worship services, are wrong. Which is my right.
>Gays were used by the religious (again) to build up their war chest with
>guns, money and power, to take over the country as they already have. The
>state to state, city to city, street to street, and house to house fighting
>is already underway. Gays, and morals in general, are not the reason for
>this war.
Of course not, it's about power and control. But, for example, when I was
in an abusive marriage, violence was the problem, not the solution.
> Some, however, are tired of being used as cannon fodder while
>waiting to see how this whole thing turned out.
Understandable. I am, too.
> It's time for the ammo to start choosing the targets which will be of
> maximum benefit. We are not
>victims. We are targets. Some return fire when least expected.
OK.
>Perhaps a photo opportunity will again arise for those who are interested in
>that sort of thing, because it is certainly good for the careers of the
>killers you smilingly pose with, like Jerry Falwell, or D. James Kennedy or
>Pat Robertson or Bob Knight or Janet Folger or....
I was there. It was more than a photo-op. A whole lot more than
picture-taking went on. I only shared my photo because I thought it was
amusing. And still do.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
www.usQueers.com
Regarding your photo with Falwell, you'll have to excuse me but if you are
working for the notoriety or for attention only, you've failed miserably
with me. I had to look at the pic for some time to figure out who you were,
and which woman was Falwell's wife.
It's not a good idea to provide P.R. photos like that for people like
Falwell, though I think I understand what such photos mean to you and the
Soulforce people who are trying to change Falwell's religious beliefs (yes,
I'm aware you wouldn't put it in those words).
I would not want a photo of me to exist that showed me being friendly and
with my arm around, say, Namibian president ("no criminals, gays and
lesbians in Namibia") Nujoma, regardless of the circumstances. I wouldn't
find such a picture amusing unless Nujoma had a shocked look on his face
because I had just told him to hurry up and die. Falwell is such a person as
Nujoma.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Natalie Davis" <nata...@well.com>
To: "www.usQueers.com" <your...@usqueers.com>; <gay...@queernet.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces
> At 05:13 AM 5/6/01, you wrote:
<snipped>
>
> >Perhaps a photo opportunity will again arise for those who are interested
in
> >that sort of thing, because it is certainly good for the careers of the
> >killers you smilingly pose with, like Jerry Falwell, or D. James Kennedy
or
> >Pat Robertson or Bob Knight or Janet Folger or....
>
> I was there. It was more than a photo-op. A whole lot more than
> picture-taking went on. I only shared my photo because I thought it was
> amusing. And still do.
**********
Natalie Davis
>On Sun, 06 May 2001 Natalie Davis wrote:
><<
>There's the problem, Ezekiel. In order for it to be nonviolent, the
>people disrupted have to see it as nonviolent.
> >>
>
>I certainly agree, that therein lies the problem: homophobic
>churches would insist on any disruption of their services by gay
>activists as "violent". This, in order to demonize their cry for
>justice. And you, too, Natalie, would demonize any gay person for
>showing some courage in the face of very violent bigots.
Baloney. Disagreeing with someone and saying so is NOT the same as
demonizing. I refuse to demonize the religious wrong. Why would I want to
demonize people on my side?
><<
>That's what the father of nonviolence, Mohandas K. Gandhi,
>would say.
> >>
>
>Nonsense.
Not at all.
><<
>You see, disrupting a worship service IS violent.
><<
>
>No, I *don't see. If this is how you define violence, I'd say you are
>playing the hand of the homophobes. You must be a right-wing
>saboteur, posing as a gay activist. So what's new, Natalie? If
>there is no physical damage to human being, in the act of
>dissenting, then there is no violence. Plain and simple. Your
>Orwellian double-speak is typical of homophobes who want to
>denigrate gays who don't "know their place".
Please. I see, your goal is to demonize me because I hold different beliefs
than you. That being the case, we have no basis for reasonable discourse
and my talking with you is a waste of my time.
><<
>No, it's not hitting people or shooting people, but it does violence
>to the spirit of those who do find
>what's going on sacred, violence that many (including myself)
>would consider far worse than physical violence.
> >>
>
>Wow, you really don't want gays to have their equality, do you?
Of course I do! But I won't be party to violence.
>By your reasoning, gays who break up a religious service via non-
>violent dissent, are not only guilty of commiting violence, but far
>more horrible and criminal than our enemies, who bludgeon us to
>a bloody pulp.
I didn't say that. You ought to put down your club and go into politics.
You seem a dishonest, hate-filled person, which is sad.
> And just because we are bashed in places
>declared non-sacred. You are one twisted lady, Natalie.
Pot, meet kettle.
><<
>You know how it kills you at the core when someone throws an
>antigay slur at you?
> >>
>
>No, it does not "kill me to the core", you bloated bag of
>homophobia. What does kill me to the core, is whenever a gay
>brother or sister gets violently bashed or murdered by a
>bigot...under the approving eye of The Supreme Court and
>"Family Values".
That's the same thing. And I thought namecalling was not allowed here.
><<
>Would you really want to make another human being feel that?
> >>
>
>Damn right I would. Then we'd be more likely to gain sympathy
>and compassion from the majority, instead of violence at worst,
>and at apathy best. Homophobes are bullies, more than anything
>else. And the only thing bullies respect is PAIN. This can be
>administered in the form of prison sentences...but since our
>government continues to drag its feet in its abysmal regard for
>gays, we need to find our own way to exact justice. (And when I
>say "we" I mean the truly united gay community; I certainly don't
>include *you in my picture.)
Of course you don't. Every good person thinks like you.
>If in using aggressive dissent--as in breaking up church services-
>-we can give these homophobes a dose of the pain we live with
>daily (terrorism, bludgeoning, exclusion even from family), without
>shedding a single drop of blood in so doing...I believe we will
>finally accomplish the respect due us as human beings.
Yes, you do.
><<
>Part of nonviolent protest is respecting (even if they don't respect
>you; hell, ESPECIALLY if they don't) the feelings
>of those you're protesting, seeing them as people of worth and
>treating them that way.
> >>
>
>These anti-gay bigots do NOT respect us at all. How could they
>when they either do violence upon us gays, or approve of the
>violence done? Respect must be earned...and these demons
>certainly have not. Consideration of respect is no longer an issue
>for our concern.
For *your* concern. Have you polled the entire GLBT community?
> How we survive through this, and what actions
>we should take in order to see justice done against all this anti-
>gay hatred and violence, is the matter of the day. The Religious
>Reich has sorely abused words like "love" and "respect", by
>claiming such traits, yet obviously doing quite the opposite.
Of course that's true. I believe that's exactly why we shouldn't stoop to
their level. I'm all for giving 'em hell. I'm all for aggressive dissent.
But I don't believe it should take place in the middle of someone's
worship, whether they're worshipping Jesus or Allah or Pagan gods. You keep
saying that a violent protest will gain us respect and sympathy. I think
you're very wrong. I respect your view, though, so I won't retaliate by
calling you names.
I must ask, though, when did homophobe start to mean "one who disagrees
with Ezekiel"?
>I suppose you think that Jews in Germany lacked enough
>"respect" for their Nazi overlords, and thus *deserved their end in
>concentration camps.
Now, that's just stupid. But of course you'd sling that one to demonize me
before an audience of my peers.
> I suppose you think that learning to show
>respect for Hitler and Mussolini, won the War for us and our allies.
First of all, I believe war is completely immoral and don't align myself
with any country. What started, sustained, and ended the war was violence,
nothing more, nothing less. Hitler started it; the United States ended it.
Following that logic, I can see why you'd feel you'd have to stoop to
Falwell et al's level. I can't, however.
>We need our own "allied resistance", underground and
>widespread. We can disrupt, we can sabotage, we can bring
>these filthy overlords to their needs, and have all our demands for
>freedom met...and we can do this all without shedding a drop of
>blood...IOW, non-violently. Any definition of violence other than
>physical damage to human bodies...is a distortion of the term, and
>a way of demoralizing the troops into apathy and loss of faith.
Oh I see, agree with you, violate my principles, and I am an acceptable queer.
>I therefore charge you, Natalie Davis, with committing sabotage
>on behalf of the Religious Reich. It is clear to me that you are a
>plant to damage our cause, by seeing to it that we gays do not
>unite, and that voices like mine are demonized in order to frighten
>other gays from the truth about our noble cause. You are posing
>as a gay activist, who filtered her way in some years
>ago...seeming quite liberal, but once you gain a voice in one
>group or another, you begin to sabotage any truly liberating
>voices like mine.
You read too many spy novels, I suspect. And you enjoy hurting people. Is
that a prized trait in a soldier?
I am all too happy to get behind anything I can support with my principles
intact. I am all too happy to dispel the lies perpetrated by the Religious
Wrong. I am all too happy to work to change the hearts and minds of
political and religious leaders. But I will not stoop to the level of
demonization (and I'm really tired you slandering me publicly by saying
that I demonize people--I do not and take great pains not to demonize any
human being). Imagine if we won on that basis... I'd finally be equal and
free and still have to kill myself because I'd be unable to live with myself.
>Perhaps I am wrong in my assumption about you being a
>saboteur.
Yes, you are as wrong as it is possible to be.
>However, your denigrating proposals for effective
>dissent by labeling them as "violent" really plays into the hands of
>homophobic bigots.
I said what I believe. Period. You and I disagree on what makes for
effective dissent.
> If this is your form of activism, girl, you gotta go.
I'll wait for the pink slip before I turn in my toaster oven.
>The most violent, heinous crimes of humanity have been against our
homosexual
>population. And you spew out "golden rule" pap?
Um, the atrocities that have been committed against various human groups
have all been heinous. There's a contest for who had it worst? And we
queers were voted number one? wow. Sorry, but in my mind the atrocities
suffered by queers, Jews, women, Christians, pigmentiational and ethnic
minorities, etc. are equal in importance. (That might have something to do
with me being a queer, Christian of Jewish descent, brown-skinned female.)
If anyone has a reason to want to lob malatov cocktails, it's me, all
around. But I don't appprove of that and can't condone it. Why do I spew
that Golden Rule pap? Because I truly believe it, no matter how you
demonize me publicly (following the example of those Religious Reich
bullies with whom you seem to have a lot in common) for it.
><<
>As to effectiveness, seems to me the most the old ACT-UP St.
>Patrick's protest
>did (and I love ACT-UP) was make people even angrier--that
>anger still exists
>among many in the Catholic community today.
> >>
>
>More of Natalie's bull dung! Those religious bastards really get
>ticked off when gays don't know their place, don't they! You can't
>blame ACT-UP for the arrogance of religious zealots.
No, I love ACT-UP. I just think they were wrong to disrupt someone's
worship. In war, isn't it considered bad form to bomb someone on a
religious holy day?
> Just as you can't blame a woman for being raped.
I don't liken this to rape by any means; I've been there. But this I know:
I would not commit violence or disrespect toward the man who raped me.
> It also remains to be seen whether the Catholic community at large
> harbors any particular
>hate towards ACT-UP, or whether gay activism has opened more
>hearts than closed.
I don't think it's particular hate against ACT UP, and anger is often not
hatred at all. I think a lot of Catholics just see "gays" as being
disrespectful worship disrupters. That is changing, however. This year, for
the first time, the Maryland Catholic bishops council stayed out of the
antidiscrimination bill (covers glbs, not ts) debate, and the bill became
law. I'm just saying, though, that perhaps the bishops council stayed in
the fray for as long as it did because of lingering resentment. I know I
heard about that resentment from Catholics (I am a recovering Catholic) and
still do. A few years back, Baltimore's Lesbian Avengers staged a
magnificent protest at the big Good Friday service at our cathedral. Wow,
the Catholics were pissed. The Cardinal was outraged and frightened that
what took place at St. Patrick's would happen at Mary Our Queen. But
everything took place outside of the church... it was masterful! NO service
disrupted, but the point SO got across. That was aggressive dissent that
did not cross over into worship disruption and spiritual violence. And it
worked.
>What I am proposing is to finally be truly *mean to these
>bigots; give them no quarter in which to excuse their violence.
It is not necessary to return evil to give them no quarter in which to
excuse their violence.
> I propose aggressive actions against these demonic forces...short
>of violence.
Are the little blue-haired old ladies and men demonic too? They bought into
the claptrap theology passed down by generations and that makes them in
league with Satan?
> However, this does not mean you shouldn't defend yourself and even
> strike back, if you begin to get bashed. At least,
>carry pepper spray as a from of legal weapon.
A lot of people do that. Ideologically, however, I can't. My parents are
stunned. After I was attacked, my parents got me pepper spray and I told
them that I couldn't ever harm another person. You think me evil. They
think me naive. Truth is, I am a committed pacifist. Why believe something
if you refuse to follow it?
>It seems that kindergarten is where you learned *everything. Too
>bad you stopped there, and never moved on to the first grade.
You have a limited imagination if all you can do is insult people.
>I am not saddened by this; I am OUTRAGED.
I am too.
>Indeedily doodily! Give 'em a taste of their own hell!
That will give you joy? What a sad existence you must have. I want
equality, yes. But I do not wish to give anyone a "taste of hell." As a
misfit in amerikkka, I know hell. I would not want any other human to
experience it.
><<
>Brings you down to their level, doesn't it?
> >>
>
>Not at all. Just as allied forces defeating the German army with
>acts of sabotage and disruption, never lowered them to their level.
Oh right, you buy war. I can't buy that logic because I don't support any
of that.
><<
>Even if I do not find something sacred, I will respect it if someone
>else does.
> >>
>
>Of course. Always put your best foot forward. But when your
>adversary continues to stomp on that foot, showing respect must
>come to an end, and you must take up aggressive measures, in
>order to protect not just your individual freedom, but your very life.
>
><<
King said if you're not willing to die for what you believe, you're not
worthy to live. I believe in honesty, equality, justice, and peace. If that
gets me killed, so be it, but I won't raise a hand, literally or
figuratively, against anyone in violence--or at least I'll try.
>I won't recite any pledge of allegiance or sing the US national
>anthem, but I will stand.
> >>
>
>Because you don't want people to *really see your dissent. It's a
>half-assed ploy only to assuage your conscience, to fool yourself
>into thinking you are a lot more progressive then you really are. I
>would *never stand, but sit their quite firmly. Then *everyone in
>the audience will witness my dissent.
It's not about them witnessing my dissent. It's about me--for me, and only
me--not pledging fealty to a stupid piece of cloth or singing a song to a
land mass. I'm not in it for attention.
>(Zeke said:)
> > For one, I'd like to see African-American lesbians and gays
>unite, in
> > order to oppose their own churches which continue to preach
>against
> > homosexuality (and there are many). They can attend as a
>united front,
> > and when the preacher begins to condemn gays...they can
>shout him (or
> > her) out, so that the service can no longer continue.
>
><<
>Would that accomplish anything? I don't think so. It would just
>piss people
>off and make them less likely to listen.
> >>
>
>I strongly disagree. I believe that many blacks would be
>impressed, for they'd recall similar strategies used in the South, to
>win equality. And *that is something to admire.
King never did such a thing. He considered disrupting worship to be
inherently violent.
><<
>Here's another measure, and I think this one is excellent.
>Soulforce is planning a big campaign, whereby glbta people
>withhold their tithes from unwelcoming churches to which they are
>members. Don't disrupt the service, disrupt the CASH FLOW. Hee
>hee hee.
> >>
>
>I'm all for economic clout, a la boycotting. But let's not stop at
>that, or we'll make so little headway as to be ineffectual in the
>long run.
I'm all ears. Anything that does not violate my beliefs I am happy to help in.
><<
>(And I know; I've discussed this with Gandhi's grandson, Arun,
>who studied nonviolence at his grandfather's knee.)
><<
>
>And of course I'm supposed to take your word for this, right?
I'm taking your word for quite a bit. You're expecting others to take your
words as gospel. I don't lie. You don't believe me, that's your problem.
> >As for Gandhi's grandson: blood relation does not imbue
>one with sanctity. Just look at some of Martin Luther King's
>relations who are quite homophobic...even though his surviving
>spouse is very pro-gay, and claims that King would be all for gay
>equality.
Good point. His daughter, Yolanda, claims the same thing her mother does.
But I assure you (not that that means anything) that Dr. Arun Gandhi, who
speaks out on pro-gay issues and has protested and been arrested with
Soulforce, is a good man who believes in the equality of all and speaks
often of the things he learned from his grandfather.
><<
>Why should they, to a band of disrespectful people?
> >>
>
>Oh, yeah, those awful, disrespectful faggots...how dare they
>disrupt our service, only because we have bashed those filthy
>perverts? Why, even God says we should put them to death!
Many supposedly religious people believe that, true. But most that I know
do not. They'd never call anyone a "faggot," don't see us as "filthy
perverts," don't want us "put to death." The problem is that some really
dig having married heterosexuals having a privileged place under law and
others really believe God doesn't want us "behaving" certain ways. I tell
them they are only a couple of steps away from Fred Phelps and they get
upset about it (to me a sign that there's hope for them). But you painting
all religious people with the same broad brush only worsens the problem.
>And pray tell, how does one "respect" the bashers/murderers of
>our lovers, friends, brothers and sisters? So someone murders my
>lover, and you come running up from left field, to preach to me
>how I need to learn to respect the killer.
I'd say the same thing to the folks in Oklahoma City.
><<
>That won't stop them from meeting and worshipping. In my
>church, we used to joke that no matter how
>bad the weather got, no matter how cold the building became,
>we'd meet and have service at the local IHOP.
> >>
>
>Excuse me, but, if we gays could have such churches on the run,
>I think we'd be accomplishing a lot. We can just hound them at
>IHOP, or wherever they choose to go, to avoid us, their
>conscience.
>
><<
>For the benefit of those for whom you protest, most of all, for your
>own long-term benefit, and, as Gandhi would
>add, for the benefit of the souls of those whose minds you seek to
>change.
> >>
>
>Ooops, I forgot, you are channeling the Great Mahatma. Dear,
>you do NOT speak for Gandhi, or any other dead man or woman.
>You are nothing but a name-dropper.
No. I am someone who has studied his work a lot and spoken with his
grandson on the subject. Insulting me doesn't make what I say untrue. But
don't take my word for it: Study. Read. Then get back to me.
><<
>Find another way, one that does no violence. Or don't dare call it
>nonviolent.
> >>
>
>Well, when someone like you defines non-violence as violence,
>then there is nowhere I can take this...that is, nowhere, if I actually
>were foolish enough to consider you manipulative notions. I
>believe I covered all ground in addressing your phony blather...so
>I'll address just one more point of your pointless message:
>
>(Zeke said:)
> >P.S.: As with any of my messages, I give permission for anyone
> >to freely disseminate my words w/o first asking.
>
><<
>Oh, damn, it's about attention.
> >>
>
>Partly, yes. I have an ego, which I can't live without. You will
>never find me guilty of false humility...of which you seem to be
>more than amply supplied. I believe I have a gift of the spoken
>word (and of speaking), which is to be used to help forward gay
>liberation. So I am a little vain about it. However, don't doubt for a
>moment that I am not wholly dedicated to The Cause, and eagerly
>empower any gays who are open to my ideas...that I may bring
>out their own great destiny free of my influence. I also celebrate
>and acknowledge the gifts given by other gays, that advance our
>cause...and give them full credit for their own good works. I never
>steal.
I'm supposed to take your word for that?
OK, I will. I'm not like you.
>I'm 50 years old, and quite adept at activist notions and dealing
>with all forms of anti-gay sabotage...both within Our Family and
>without.
Oh cool! I thought you either had to be very young or a good bit older than
me. (I'm 40.)
>It is obvious that, in believing I am young, you used guilt and
>talking-down in an attempt to scare me away from doing the right
>thing...IOW, you abused your power as an adult.
Sorry, I can't see where you were talking about doing anything that would
count as "the right thing." I only saw you talking about doing (what I
consider) the violent thing, which, IMO, is always wrong. And when I
thought you were young, I was thinking early 20s; I was talking to a fellow
adult.
> You are a real danger to any child within range of your influence. You'd
> train
>them all to be sheep for the slaughter.
I have two kids, and my mom has said the same thing. "You've got to teach
them to hit back." Nope, can't do it. (And who listens to their parents
anyway? My 13-year-old will drop anyone who looks at her the wrong way;
you'd probably like her. Told off Fred Phelps at the age of four and stood
up in her sixth-grade civics class last year to speak in favor of same-sex
marriage. My 5-year-old is another story. He's as rough-and-tumble as any
kid, but he's so in tune with respecting other people. He refuses to be
mean to the class bully as the other kids do, for instance, because he
figured out on his own that the reason Robert is a bully is because no
one's nice to him. I mean, wow... a pacifist's dream come true! My kids are
very different from each other, but they're the greatest. I think I had a
part in that.)
>P.S.: Gandhi beat his wife.
I have heard that and suspect it's true. Being violent gives one good
insight, I think, in what constitutes violence. Having been a physically
and emotionally beaten spouse myself, I was horrified when I first heard
that about Gandhi. But I believe in forgiveness (but not forgetting)
always. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Bill Clinton, Jack Kennedy, and
other presidents were adulterers. None of us are perfect. And none of us
are totally bad. Not even me.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Natalie Davis
>5/6/01 12:52:21 AM, Natalie Davis <nata...@well.com> wrote:
>
> >(Another note: Most of these folks are not evil at all. They
>believe it, they
> >really do. They are misguided, they are egregiously wrong,
>they are sinning
> >so badly against the body of Christ.... but most are NOT
>evil. Most do NOT
> >wish you harm. There's just a major disagreement, and right
>now, their side's
> >got the power.)
>
>This, I think, is at the core of how Gandhi/King style
>nonviolent resistance really works. There aren't enough
>truly evil people in the world to pull off large-scale
>atrocities all by themselves. Instead, they have to convince
>the majority of people, who are basically good, that they're
>really doing good when in fact they're helping to carry off
>evil.
Yes!
> IMHO, nonviolent resistance works by holding a mirror
>in front of such people's faces until they can't help but
>recognize the ugliness that they've acquired. At that point,
>for all but the most hardcore fanatics, their basic decency
>cuts in and they start to back out. And it's of the utmost
>importance to support them as they do back out. Admitting
>that you were wrong is psychologically painful for most
>people. That means that you have to forgive (not excuse)
>them.
That's exactly the strategy, and a quite humane one.
> You have to resist the urge to take revenge on them,
>even though they've hurt you. You can expect, or even
>demand, that they do their part to help clean up the mess
>that they made.
Which is why, for example, I now expect my mom to do PFLAG stuff, and she's
grown to love and embrace it.
> But if you take out your anger on them, you lose potential allies.
And we need all the allies we can get. Knowledge and truth have power, and
ultimately, because we've got knowledge and truth on our side, we will be
victorious. Violence might get us there faster, but that victory would be a
hollow one, I think, one I couldn't live with.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Natalie Davis
>Wow, Ezekiel, you seem very angry and bitter and I can't say that I blame
>you. But bitterness is a paralyzing trap. I haven4t been really following
>this thread, but it seems that the topic is "Targeting Sacred Spaces" not
>"Natalie Davis is a Spy for the Forces of Totalitarian Theocractic
>Fascists". Perhaps, you could move back to the topic?
roflmao
>I'm not a christian in any sense. My personal feeling is that christianity
>is a rather odd religion (I joke that I'm an anti-christ, which most
>christians find very unfunny). ;->
This MCC Christian finds it VERY funny.
> However, coming into any church with the
>sole purpose of disrupting the service probably falls under anti-trespass
>laws and anyone who does that should be arrested and prosecuted. Such an
>act is indeed violent and I'd add immoral and intolerant. And I can't
>really see that demonstrating outside of the church would have much effect
>either. Nothing is accomplished by attacking the religious beliefs of other
>people - it just gives those people strength of resolve.
The (outside) church protests I've witnessed and participated in did, I
believe, accomplish some good. The main tangible thing I can point to is
the Maryland Catholic Council (no relation to MCC, as in Metroplitan
Community Church) backed down from opposing the state antidiscrimination
bill, which finally passed and becomes law soon.
>The real problem here is intolerance and every single one of us has it.
>They don't tolerate Us, We don't tolerate Them. How can anyone demand
>tolerance that isn't first willing to give it?
Excellent point!
>Enforce separation of church and state. Create a society where influence
>peddling is taboo (this would solve so many problems). Be intolerant of
>racism and discrimination. Practice your religion. Just don't expect
>everyone else to do it too. Be agnostic or atheistic - just respect that
>not everyone else is.
Yes!
>Secular government (or no government, but that's another thread).
>Tolerance. Respect. Peace. Gee, sounds almost...christian?!
Yep. When Christianity is practiced correctly. All too often it is
practiced in the most un-Christlike fashion. But it's amazing to see
folks--especially pro-GLBT Christian groups working inside xian
denominations such as More Light Presbyterians, Affirmation (United
Methodist Church), Dignity (RC), Integrity (Epsicopal), Soulforce
(multidenominational), etc.--do it right. To see a band of Methodists stand
up before their denomination's quadrennial conference and be carted off to
jail for insisting their belief that God welcomes all his creations--gay,
bi, het, trans--and demanding their rightful place at the table of full
membership was painful but beautiful and soooo inspiring. They did it
respectfully, but in no wishy-washy fashion. It was poetry.
And, in fact, some of the most Christlike people I know come from the
school of nonbelievers. That is beautiful and inspiring, too.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Troy Westerberg
>
> > You have to resist the urge to take revenge on them,
> >even though they've hurt you. You can expect, or even
> >demand, that they do their part to help clean up the mess
> >that they made.
>
> Which is why, for example, I now expect my mom to do PFLAG stuff, and
she's
> grown to love and embrace it.
Oh, I'm envious. I'd love to see my parents at a PFLAG function. I've
always been a big fan of PFLAG.
>
> > But if you take out your anger on them, you lose potential allies.
>
> And we need all the allies we can get. Knowledge and truth have power, and
> ultimately, because we've got knowledge and truth on our side, we will be
> victorious. Violence might get us there faster, but that victory would be
a
> hollow one, I think, one I couldn't live with.
During anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City, I read
numerous interviews with people (from non-gay organizations - the Green
Party being one of them) that mentioned gay rights as part of their cause.
Gay people have allies. That's something to tap into. But the issues are
broad. These are people demonstrating for more than a single issue.
Troy Westerberg
Troy Westerberg
positive (non)religious experience. I found the it amazing.
Troy Westerberg
Natalie wrote:
> Yep. When Christianity is practiced correctly. All too often it is practiced
in the most un-Christlike fashion. But it's amazing to see folks--especially
pro-GLBT Christian groups working inside xian denominations such as More Light
Presbyterians, Affirmation (United Methodist Church), Dignity (RC), Integrity
(Epsicopal), Soulforce (multidenominational), etc.--do it right. To see a band
of Methodists stand up before their denomination's quadrennial conference and
be carted off to jail for insisting their belief that God welcomes all his
creations--gay, bi, het, trans--and demanding their rightful place at the
table of full membership was painful but beautiful and soooo inspiring. They
did it respectfully, but in no wishy-washy fashion. It was poetry.
>And, in fact, some of the most Christlike people I know come from the school
of nonbelievers. That is beautiful and inspiring, too.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Richard
In reply to Zeke's: If this is your form of activism, girl, you gotta
go.
Natalie posted: I'll wait for the pink slip before I turn in my toaster
oven.
Laughing Out Loud!!
Richard Seward
Natalie Davis
>On the other hand, it would have been easier to "hear" Natalie's points
>without the condensending remarks made about Zeke based on assumptions
>about his age and development.
When I re-read my posting it occurred to me that I had allowed anger and
hurt to color some of my statements to him. Mea maxima culpa. I apologize
to Ezekiel, especially, and to everyone for that. Unfortunately, I too am
only human.
................................................................................................
Enjoy kind sounds 24/7 -- rock, blues, reggae, folk, country,
world, jamrock and more -- on GRATEFUL DREAD RADIO
http://radio.sonicnet.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=gratefuldread
................................................................................................
Natalie Davis
>Would it be bad strategy or spiritual violence to stand up at Mass
>during the Prayers of the Faithful or at similar times in Mormon or
>other sacred-spaces-used-for-political-purposes and pray aloud (very
>loud) for each of the queers murdered since the death of Matthew
>Shepherd blaming each death on the hatred preached by the church?
Prayers of the faithful--I'd imagine every church does it
differently--permits folks to stand and speak. I think praying for those
murdered is entirely appropriate. I'd also pray for those blinded by the
teachings of clerics who've gotten Jesus' message all wrong and for those
clerics.
Have you ever heard of the Rainbow Sash movement? I love that. Pro-gay
folks attend Catholic masses wearing rainbow-colored sashes, which
symbolize the discrimination queers face in the Church. The sashes
certainly get the message across, and when some churches deny sash-wearers
communion, as often happens, that gets it across even more plainly. I think
that's an effective, and respectful, in-church action.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Natalie Davis
>Natalie, I am curious. When this discussion began, we were specifically
>discussing christian churches who used sacred space to preach and
>prophesize against glbt freedom AND to raise and funnel funds to
>political organizations and candidates and referendum to discriminate
>against glbt freedom.
>
>You have used your own sacred space and community in your posts. Does
>your religious community preach against glbt freedom AND raise funds to
>spend or funnel to organizations, candidates, or political referendum
>that seek to destroy glbt freedom?
My religious community is the Metropolitan Community Church of Baltimore.
We're all about glbt freedom.
I was raised and educated in the Roman Catholic church. I was a catechist
and religious educator. I worked very hard to fight the prejudice from the
inside of the church, but at some point, I realized I was exacting a toll
on myself that would be irreparable if I didn't get away and focus on my
own nurturing. So I went to my pastor, told him I was done with
Catholicism, told him why--and specifically noted the Vatican's approval of
a US bishop's statement that discrimination is bad but that discriminating
against glbts might be for the public good. That was the camel's
back-breaking straw for me. I love and respect the Catholics who can stay
within the ranks and fight for the cause. For myself, and perhaps this is a
failure, I needed the support of a welcoming church, and thank God I found MCC.
I still have relationships within the Catholic church; most of my family is
Catholic. I call myself a recovering Catholic because much of it never
leaves you (I retain the good stuff [pacifism, social justice, work ethic]
and sneer at the rest--mandatory fish on Fridays, the second-class
treatment of women, the fund-raising from the pulpit, the antigay bull, the
anti-choice crap, the institutional pigmentationism, enforced celibacy of
clergy, the church hierarchy that puts its own perpetuation before even
God, etc.). My social-justice heroes are two pro-gay Catholic nuns (have
you heard of Sr. Jeannine Grasmick?) and one progressive ex-priest. I
travel in the Catholic world sometimes. I am always out and in the open. I
still want, in my heart, to be a priest but realize, ultimately, I'll have
to settle for being a Protestant or interfaith minister, which is still
great because I'll get to preach Jesus' word as it's supposed to be
preached and not the Falwell/JP2 way. But I doubt I'll ever be Catholic
again; my spiritual home is at MCC.
>PS A "yes" would shock me no end!
As it should. But so many glbt people ARE in churches that preach against
them. I visit a lot of churches of a lot of faiths, and I've heard it
myself. I've seen many of them try to challenge it only to fail and be hurt
by their so-called spiritual homes. Talk about a holocaust to the soul. I
encourage every queer I meet who is a member of an anti-gay church (many
queers may be in anti-gay denominations but members of
pro-gay/affirming/dissenting churches) to find a church that will nurture
and uplift them. And if they're determined to stay and tough it out, I
encourage them to then go for it... to speak out and withhold tithes.
Bottom line, it seems to me as if too many church leaders (not necessarily
their members, who often are true believers) are mostly about the business
of it--money; that's certainly true in many Catholic parishes. I'm all for
hitting them where they live by denying 'em cash. But it's important to
respect the people in the pews. Ultimately, they're the ones that need to
be convinced.
Neat story I'll share. There's an Episcopal church in Cleveland that, over
the years, has changed its stance radically. This once conservative church
started getting an influx of glbt people and allies, became very outspoken
in its new progressive direction adn pro-gay affirming status, and recently
hired an out lesbian with a life partner as rector. (She was ordained by no
less than Bishop John Shelby Spong, who is, in my book, a hero.) Anyway,
several longtime, conservative members left--respectfully--but others,
trying to learn from the winds of changed, stayed. That was cool.
Churches--and by that, I mean their memberships--can change with the right
inspiration, and that can lead denominations, over time, to also grow and
change. If you look at what's going on--particularly in American Protestant
denominations, you can't doubt that the movement is gaining ground, even
after witnessing tragic losses, such as what took place at the Methodist
conference last year. I doubt disrupting worship would have had the same
effect.
And exiting can have good effect too--I think of Jimmy Carter leaving the
Southern Baptist denomination when it decided last year that women could no
longer be ordained. The message he sent to progressive people--and
old-school biblical literalists, too--was powerful. (Although I wish he'd
split over the issue of how the denomination treats queers. Oh well.)
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
outrageously insulting to the Gay Cause, I have decided to reply
further:
On Sun, 06 May 2001 01:52:21 -0400 Natalie Davis
<nata...@well.com> wrote:
<<
At no time did the Soulforcers show him any disrespect. They
disagreed with him, to be sure, but they behaved beautifully. (And
frankly, behaved better than Falwell and his crew.)
>>
Soulforce reminds me of the efforts of Neville Chamberlain to stop
the Nazi rampage: attempting respect and reason proved utterly
futile. But he did prove that a velvet hand caressing the demon
never works...and the troops were finally sent in. And that is likely
what Soulforce will prove: that we gays *must become aggressive
with no space for tolerating bigotry from these churches.
Homophobia is on a steep and rapid rise--in the U.S. and
worldwide: and I'm sure Soulforce's actions have helped this
along, considerably. *Any form of dissent by gay people will raise
the hackles of the Religious Reich. Yet you would blame such evil
reactions *only to gay activists who are *defined as violent (even
when they're not). News flash: groups like Soulforce are also
regarded as violent, by definition of fundamentalists: for in so
being homosexually active they do violence onto theirselves, and
society's "family values". Conclusion: they must be killed, it's in
The Good Book.
<<
A better approach would be picketing outside of the church. Or
much better: bringing up the topic at church meetings
and forums... starting discussions in parish-council meetings...
sharing alternate views of Leviticus in bible studies and
discussions
>>
You make the gay issue sound like a picnic outing...that nothing
more than a few angry words were expressed by bigoted church-
goers. You don't seem to have *any sort of rational and emotional
connection with the fact that these "religious" folk are bludgeoning
and killing gay people. We are at war here, not a picnic.
Unfortunately, your being an active church-member yourself, you
have allowed Fundamentalist brain-washing to poison your
perception of gay rights.
<<
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Makes you
look like the better person.
>>
We are talking murder here, and outright violence and
suppression...not a walk in the park. Again, I use the example of
the concentration camps of WWII: I can just see you as a visiting
therapist from the Nazi front, advising the Jewish/Gay/Gypsy/etc.
prisoners to "turn the other cheek" and "obey the Golden Rule
(even if you don't believe it yourself)", even when marching unto
your death, to the gas chambers. How very empowering...NOT!
<<
(Another note: Most of these folks are not evil at all. They believe
it, they
really do. They are misguided, they are egregiously wrong, they
are sinning
so badly against the body of Christ.... but most are NOT evil. Most
do NOT
wish you harm. There's just a major disagreement, and right now,
their side's
got the power.)
>>
Well, by the same token you must regard *anyone who espouses
or commits grievous violence as not truly evil, just misguided. So
that's what Hitler really needed: a good therapist to unravel his
difficult upbringing! Actually, I don't believe the religious leaders
really think homosexuality is wrong: they just scream this in the
pulpit, for the sake of wealth and notoriety. But as a result, many
of their flock are too gullible to challenge such tomes of vitriol.
This is a matter of marketing: what sells, sells...and homophobia
is still a tried-and-true method to drum up supporters who will give
generously from their thin wallets.
But in the final decision, evil is evil, whether or not the
perpetrators are conscious of their acts. And thus, such acts must
be regarded as evil, and fought back with all intensity, as if your
very life depended on it...for indeed, it does. I believe that Hitler
was ultimately just another disturbed person, yet he gave us no
choice but to regard the results of his actions as evil, and move
ahead appropriately.
Gays are not being wrist-slapped by these evil-mongers, they are
being BRUTALIZED. I don't care whether or not the bashers are
truly evil; we must regard them as such, for deeds speak louder
than words. ZERO TOLERANCE for homophobia, must be the
way to go.
As for your phrase "sinning so badly against the body of Christ": I
couldn't care less. It's a lousy metaphor that you elevate to
pseudo-sanctity. We abused gays ARE the body of Christ, upon
which these sinners molest. But it is time for our liberation, thus
the yoke of prejudice must be lifted...and the great gift God has
given us gays, is the dignity of doing it all ourselves. No outside
help from "well-meaning" but misguided straights, or confused
lesbian church-goers like yourself.
<<
Baloney. He's proposing respect. What you suggest is revenge.
>>
I seek vengeance on behalf of all my gay sisters and brothers
who've been bashed, murdered, and excluded from the process of
democratic freedom heteros enjoy so freely, and take for granted.
I am not afraid of the word "revenge" or "vengeance"...not when it
is so RIGHTEOUS. I mean this in the same sense that Jews seek
vengeance for the crimes of Nazis...and do everything they can to
track them down and drag them to justice.
<<
But if you rout your enemy through violent means, he or she will
always hate you and be on the lookout for a way to get revenge
on your revenge.
>>
Ah, but there's your flaw: in no way am I promoting violence. Your
attempts to color my proposals as violent, is shameful and
manipulative.
<<
I couldn't look at myself in a mirror doing what you propose.
<<
Cowardice is nothing to be proud of.
<<
I'd lose my OWN soul. That's too high a price.
>>
Utter garbage. You've already SOLD your soul to the devil, by
your manipulations against the struggle for gay equality, and your
acquiescing to the enemy's demands. At best, you might nip at
their heels or give the occassional wrist slap. You sound like
those "lukewarm" followers so sharply denounced by Jesus
Christ.
(Zeke said:)
> Let's put this all together for the sake of a Gay Victory. Let's
end our
> own internicine squabbles, such as racism, misogyny and
classism.
<<
How? Do we use revenge? Do we infiltrate the men's bars, where
anti-dyke jokes
reign supreme? Do we sneak poor queers into the hoity-toity set's
fetes? Do
we sneak men into the lesbian-separatist potluck?
>>
I resent your stereotyping gays and lesbians, when I am speaking
of courage and dignity in our struggles. Your lack of faith in the
gay community as a body politic speaks mountains of your failure
to truly inspire. How can you touch hearts and give hope to a
people when you don't even see them as capable of any kind of
valorous achievement? I choose a different tact: I expect
greatness from our gay community, for I can see beyond the veil
of superficial squabbles, and touch the spark of greatness within
each person. At least, I do my damned best at this. (And when
you hold high expectations for people, you give them dignity, and
the inspiration to strive forward towards victory.)
I would *never make statements like you do: that gays are
incapable of uniting when the time calls us to take a stand. I have
nothing but admiration for our fine history, our struggles to thrive
under such incredibly persecutory odds! You can't get more like
Christ than this, dear! We do shine, even without our Victory,
which I assure you is well on the way to becoming fulfilled, and
will be accomplished by much aggression and brilliant strategies,
worldwide.
Again, I say "shame on you" for denigrating the very people you
claim to support, and even be part of. Seems to me you have far
more alliance with Christian dogma, than with the Gay Spirit.
<<
Even if I do not find something sacred, I will respect it if someone
else does.
>>
Then try, for a change, respecting what I (and many others)
regard as sacred space: Gay Dissent. You seem to show little, if
any, respect for my call to becoming more aggressive in the face
of a rising tide of prejudice. You seem to have no belief that gay
people have our own sacred space, which is constantly run over
by the very bigots you keep saying I should respect. Well, you
have violated *my sacred space, by belittling me and stereotyping
gays; by accusing me of violence when I preach non-violence,
and by attempting to derail ideas of effective activism to win our
rights.
<<
A little advice, Ezekiel: It never hurts to be respectful.
>>
I am not here to avoid being hurt. I am willing to take a stand,
even if it should bring violence and persecution upon me. Did not
your savior hold the same attitude? He stood in utter defiance of
the status quo...he never preached "respect" to these evil powers
that controlled people's lives. You are like so many false
Christians: softening the message of Christ into pabulum, to feed
the sheep into submission and apathy. The life of Christ is far
more imitated by gay people around the world, than you'd ever
care to acknowledge.
Getting back to your outrageous comment:
<<
You see, disrupting a worship service IS violent. No, it's not hitting
people or shooting people, but it does violence to the spirit of
those who do find what's going on sacred, violence that many
(including myself) would consider far worse than physical
violence.
>>
That kind of thinking is parallel to the Religious Reich claming that
two men kissing is a worse crime than even murder...than even
raping and bludgeoning a woman. So your claim that non-violent
gay dissent (in the form of disrupting a religious service) is a
crime worse than physical violence...pretty much tells us where
you're at. You have bought into Xian dogma to the point where
you allow their prejudices to shape gay political action...to
spineless ineffectuality.
<< The Armchair Activist - http://gratefuldread.net/act/ >>
The Armchair Apologist
>Visit the site, join the mailing list, work for a better world.
Visit the site, join the brainwash list, be dulled into apathy.
Happy IHOP'ing!
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Natalie Davis
>Troy Westerberg wrote:
> > Secular government (or no government, but that's another thread).
> > Tolerance. Respect. Peace. Gee, sounds almost...christian?!
>
>Buddhist perhaps, but not christian. At the center of the christian
>faith is the exhortation to evangelize the unbeliever. The believers go
>to heaven and the unbelievers go to the lake of fire that is never
>quenched. So it is essential for the christian to bring the "good news"
>to the unbeliever. Live and let live and tolerance is not possible
>within the theology of traditional christianity. (Note: I have been a
>faithful methodist and a converted roman catholic (parish council,
>liturgy committee, the whole ball of wax) in my time. I quit the lot of
>it when the bishop sent me the most hateful possible letter annulling my
>heterosexual marriage AND asked me to pay $250 for the lessons of his
>judgment upon me.)
Oh my goodness.... Reminds me of a time when I went to confession for the
first time in eons (this was back in the mid-80s at St. Patrick's in New
York, interestingly). I walked into the confessional, said the requisite,
"Forgive me father, for I have sinned, and it's been two years since my
last confession." The priest grunted, "You've been with a man, haven't
you?" I said, "Actually, no, I've been with a woman, and that isn't
something I need confess because it's not a sin. And you're not worthy of
giving me absolution for the sins I have committed." And walked out. He
hurt me deeply. I suspect I hurt him, and I'm sorry for that, but I said
and did what I thought had to be said and done. I'm so sorry that happened
to you. It really incenses me when people do what Jesus wouldn't and then
have the audacity to do it in his name.
You're probably right that it is more Wiccan or Buddhist. I am not thrilled
with the evangelization thing either. I know my nonbelieving and/or
non-Christian friends are *at least* as worthy and decent as me. I wouldn't
dare try to change what they believe, which is totally worthy of respect
and emulation. At the same time, there are Christians who are on your side,
Richard, and have more in common with Wiccans and Buddhists than with
Falwell and his ilk. We may be the minority, but we're gaining momentum.
You're right--what we want is not possible within Christianity as
(mis)taught by most in charge. But, as Bishop John Shelby Spong says, the
teaching of Christianity must change or it will die a deserved death. More
and more people are working toward that change, and that is heartening. At
the same time, I can't disrespect those who buy into the "bad"
Christianity. I can (and do) tell them I believe they're wrong, that
they're committing sin, that what they practice tears at the very fabric of
the human family. But isn't that evangelization of another sort?
>And at this stage in my life, "tolerance" is not acceptable to me. At
>the core of tolerance is the deeply beheld belief that the one who
>tolerates is better than the one being tolerated. I have no desire to
>either tolerate or accept or live-and-let-live with those who use their
>sacred spaces to raise funds to use in the political or non-sacred
>institutions to bash and hurt queers. My desire is to block, stop,
>erase their ability to hurt me and other queers.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. We may disagree on methods, but yes, I
agree that their ability to hurt us must stop.
>One of the most interesting exercises I have recently pursued is to take
>the quizzes at the Landover Baptist Church and at Fred Phellp's Westover
>Baptist church and the Betty Bowers sites online. Rather interesting in
>their presentation of biblical teachings on slavery, women, queers, and
>disobedient children. I am fully aware modern theologians explaining
>away many of the Old Testament and the gospels and the Pauline letters
>judgments on slavery, women, queers and other biblical teachings. I
>have to admit that at this stage in my life, I think that Fred Phellp's
>is probably right in suggesting that God Hates Fags based on the bible.
On a misinterpreted bible, yes. On a purely literal (read: nonsensical and
out of context) reading of the bible, yes. (The beauty of Betty Bowers, for
example, is that in the guise of a christofascist, she skewers their
groundless beliefs masterfully and exposes their interpretation of the
bible as bullshit.) I've taken those quizzes, too, and have spoken with
Phelps and his family at length. Scary bunch. And they are so wrong, but
they really believe it! I love debating Leviticus and Romans with them;
they have it SO wrong and they can't bear hearing others refute them with
solid evidence. (The sins of Sodom & Gomorrah were inhospitality and the
threat of forced rape. The exhortations against "men lying with men" has to
do with temple prostitution and with heterosexual people going against
their natures. And sex for procreation's sake? Why were Adam and Eve given
genitals and yet not told to be fruitful and multiply until AFTER the fall?
I see nothing that prohibits me from having a loving, monogamous
relationship with any human I truly love.)
>Anyway, both these sites are interesting regardless of your beliefs.
True. Knowledge is powerful. Know your adversary--thoroughly.
You rock, Richard, but I think I've told you that before. :)
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Troy Westerberg
"You make the gay issue sound like a picnic outing...that nothing
more than a few angry words were expressed by bigoted church-
goers. You don't seem to have *any sort of rational and emotional
connection with the fact that these "religious" folk are bludgeoning
and killing gay people. We are at war here, not a picnic.
Unfortunately, your being an active church-member yourself, you
have allowed Fundamentalist brain-washing to poison your
perception of gay rights."
Then you go on to say:
"Ah, but there's your flaw: in no way am I promoting violence. Your
attempts to color my proposals as violent, is shameful and
manipulative"
I say:
This is the weekend that Holland commemorates Occupation/Liberation during
1940-1945. I'm not sure you know what "war" is (and I'm not sure I do
either). There was an article in the Dutch paper "de Volkskrant" that
talked about how WWII is becoming history to an increasing degree. It
talked about how young people (who have never experienced war) might be
slipping into a sense of apathy.
You mention Hitler and the genocide his ilk perpetrated on the world. You
wear it like a flag. I find this, frankly, disgusting. You say "we are at
war" then you say that you are non-violent. You can't have both.
There may come a time when non-violence has no choice but to give way to
violence. And war is violent, after all. (I think Perry Farrell said that.
;-0).
If you're serious about war - you'll need an army. Without one, you're just
a psycho mass murderer.
If you're non-violent, drop the war talk.
Troy Westerberg
(I know I'm supposed to quote you in your entirety (at least according the
your rules). But, frankly, your post was huge and unwieldy. To post it in
it's entirety violates accepted rules of netiquette. Go back through your
archive if you're confused.)
Natalie Davis
> > > You have to resist the urge to take revenge on them,
> > >even though they've hurt you. You can expect, or even
> > >demand, that they do their part to help clean up the mess
> > >that they made.
>
> > Which is why, for example, I now expect my mom to do PFLAG stuff, and
>she's grown to love and embrace it.
>
>Oh, I'm envious. I'd love to see my parents at a PFLAG function. I've
>always been a big fan of PFLAG.
Me too. But only be half envious. My dad is a completely different story.
>During anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City, I read
>numerous interviews with people (from non-gay organizations - the Green
>Party being one of them) that mentioned gay rights as part of their cause.
>Gay people have allies. That's something to tap into. But the issues are
>broad. These are people demonstrating for more than a single issue.
That's the difficulty. You've got the socialists, the pro-choicers, the
anti-death penalty folks, the Democrats, the Greens, tree-huggers. A lot of
gay people don't agree with those things. Luckily for me, I do and network
like crazy with progressive folks of all stripes here in Baltimore. I show
up at protests for minimum-wage and death-penalty moratoria, and they show
up to protest the Boy Scouts and Dr. Laura. I don't like quid pro quo-ing
on its face, but the folks I've met really believe in our cause, and I
really believe in theirs, so it works.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Natalie Davis
>And not to mention the Unitarian/Universalists who provided me with my
>single positive (non)religious experience. I found the it amazing.
Oh yees!!!! Forgive me, UUs! I SO love them... if I ever decide to leave
MCC, it'll be to join the Unitarian/Universalists. Every now and then, I
visit our local UU church--the pastors are like family to me--and it is
always such a great experience. THERE is real Christianity and decency in
action.
Troy Westerberg
> >always been a big fan of PFLAG.
>
> Me too. But only be half envious. My dad is a completely different story.
And my dad is a completely different story, too. He's still mostly absent
in my life, but he's much more supportive than my mother. We've had some
frank and honest conversations about my homosexuality and he's been nothing
but respectful to my boyfriends.
>
> >During anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City, I read
> >numerous interviews with people (from non-gay organizations - the Green
> >Party being one of them) that mentioned gay rights as part of their
cause.
> >Gay people have allies. That's something to tap into. But the issues
are
> >broad. These are people demonstrating for more than a single issue.
>
> That's the difficulty. You've got the socialists, the pro-choicers, the
> anti-death penalty folks, the Democrats, the Greens, tree-huggers. A lot
of
> gay people don't agree with those things. Luckily for me, I do and network
> like crazy with progressive folks of all stripes here in Baltimore. I show
> up at protests for minimum-wage and death-penalty moratoria, and they show
> up to protest the Boy Scouts and Dr. Laura. I don't like quid pro quo-ing
> on its face, but the folks I've met really believe in our cause, and I
> really believe in theirs, so it works.
I understand. I don't buy into all of it myself. Some of what the Green
Party advocates is just plain stupid. For me, it's important that something
is said. I don't have to swallow it all.
Troy
Naomi Himmelhoch
tolerance" are being treated as synonyms by some of the people in this
argument. I personally do not see them this way. I think that some of the
authors of arguments in this thread do not see them this way, and some of
them do.
It would be interesting to me if there could be an agreement on how the two
terms are used, to clarify the discussion. Am I the only one who seems to
think this?
Naomi Himmelhoch
Redwood City
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Natalie Davis
> > >Oh, I'm envious. I'd love to see my parents at a PFLAG function. I've
> > >always been a big fan of PFLAG.
> >
> > Me too. But only be half envious. My dad is a completely different story.
>
>And my dad is a completely different story, too. He's still mostly absent
>in my life, but he's much more supportive than my mother. We've had some
>frank and honest conversations about my homosexuality and he's been nothing
>but respectful to my boyfriends.
So I, then, am envious of you! In fairness, my dad has improved a lot, but
he still has miles to go.
> > >During anti-WTO demonstrations in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City, I read
> > >numerous interviews with people (from non-gay organizations - the Green
> > >Party being one of them) that mentioned gay rights as part of their
>cause.
> > >Gay people have allies. That's something to tap into. But the issues
>are
> > >broad. These are people demonstrating for more than a single issue.
> >
> > That's the difficulty. You've got the socialists, the pro-choicers, the
> > anti-death penalty folks, the Democrats, the Greens, tree-huggers. A lot
>of gay people don't agree with those things. Luckily for me, I do and network
> > like crazy with progressive folks of all stripes here in Baltimore. I show
> > up at protests for minimum-wage and death-penalty moratoria, and they show
> > up to protest the Boy Scouts and Dr. Laura. I don't like quid pro quo-ing
> > on its face, but the folks I've met really believe in our cause, and I
> > really believe in theirs, so it works.
>
>I understand. I don't buy into all of it myself. Some of what the Green
>Party advocates is just plain stupid.
Well yeah, that's true. <g> Sometimes you have to pick your battles.
> For me, it's important that something is said. I don't have to swallow
> it all.
Especially at these mass progressive-radical protest gatherings. Leslie
Feinberg, the author and activist, is involved in a lot of ones I hear
about. Thousands of issues and even more bodies. But if the call for glbt
equality is shouted loudly (and if Leslie is involved, it damn sure is),
I'm there.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Troy Westerberg
everyone brings their own values to church and shares with other people -
christian, jew, atheist, humanitarian, wiccan, taoist, buddhist. The big
thing for me, initially, was that my boyfriend and I could go to church and
be treated like a couple, no questions asks. Appreciation for the rest came
later.
Troy Westerberg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Natalie Davis" <nata...@well.com>
To: "Troy Westerberg" <twe...@euronet.nl>
Cc: <gay...@queernet.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces
> At 03:57 PM 5/6/01, Troy Westerberg wrote:
> >And not to mention the Unitarian/Universalists who provided me with my
> >single positive (non)religious experience. I found the it amazing.
>
> Oh yees!!!! Forgive me, UUs! I SO love them... if I ever decide to leave
> MCC, it'll be to join the Unitarian/Universalists. Every now and then, I
> visit our local UU church--the pastors are like family to me--and it is
> always such a great experience. THERE is real Christianity and decency in
> action.
>
>
Natalie Davis
>Ahh, but U/U'ism isn't christian for me. It's interesting, though, that
>everyone brings their own values to church and shares with other people -
>christian, jew, atheist, humanitarian, wiccan, taoist, buddhist.
Exactly. That's why I love it. Why should we deny ourselves (or lie to
ourselves that our "wisdom" is somehow better than) the wisdom of other
beliefs? It's why I'm considering interfaith ministry. The Wiccans,
Buddhists, Atheists, Jews, et al, make way too much moral sense to me, and
it's wonderful.
>The big thing for me, initially, was that my boyfriend and I could go to
>church and
>be treated like a couple, no questions asks. Appreciation for the rest came
>later.
A lot of folks have said similar things to me. I'll admit that my first
visit to an MCC church, where same-sex couples held hands and weren't
shamed did my Catholic-ruined soul SUCH good.
I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until
there shall no longer be a doubt that all ... are created free and equal.
--Abraham Lincoln
Bruce Garrett
In response to "Natalie Davis" <nata...@well.com>...
>> ...if I ever decide to leave MCC, it'll be to join the
>> Unitarian/Universalists. Every now and then, I visit our local UU
>> church--the pastors are like family to me--and it is always such a great
>> experience. THERE is real Christianity and decency in action.
TW> Ahh, but U/U'ism isn't christian for me. It's interesting, though,
TW> that everyone brings their own values to church and shares with other
TW> people - christian, jew, atheist, humanitarian, wiccan, taoist,
TW> buddhist.
Could someone here explain to me the basic difference between
Unitarianism, and Unitarian Universalism? I get a sense that this
difference is here, in the seen or perceived commonality between
faiths, but I've never had it explicitly explained to me before. This
is probably off topic for this list, so let me hear it in email...
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
I would rather live and love where death is king
than have eternal life where love is not.
-Robert G. Ingersoll
Natalie Davis
>That photo-op crack wasn't only for you, Natalie.
>
>Regarding your photo with Falwell, you'll have to excuse me but if you are
>working for the notoriety or for attention only, you've failed miserably
>with me.
Well, cool, 'cause I wasn't going for that at all.
> I had to look at the pic for some time to figure out who you were,
>and which woman was Falwell's wife.
Really? Now that's funny!
>It's not a good idea to provide P.R. photos like that for people like
>Falwell, though I think I understand what such photos mean to you and the
>Soulforce people who are trying to change Falwell's religious beliefs (yes,
>I'm aware you wouldn't put it in those words).
I guess ultimately I would like to see his beliefs change, but that's
neither here nor there in terms of what's really important. I want equality
under law, and what he believes doesn't really matter. This isn't a PR
photo--it's one I took for me; my editor twisted my arm to publish it. To
my knowledge, Falwell has never seen it. And anyone who saw the shot in
context--meaning, they read the article--would see the photo for what it
was and as what it was intended to be.
>I would not want a photo of me to exist that showed me being friendly and
>with my arm around, say, Namibian president ("no criminals, gays and
>lesbians in Namibia") Nujoma, regardless of the circumstances. I wouldn't
>find such a picture amusing unless Nujoma had a shocked look on his face
>because I had just told him to hurry up and die.
I can't wish death on anyone. Anyone. To do so, IMO, would diminish me as a
human being. I still feel guilt for the time someone mentioned Jesse Helms
and I blithely remarked, "He's *still* not dead? Damn." I have to forgive
myself for that. Doesn't mean I support Helms in any way, but I must
respect his humanity even if he disrespects mine. I suppose you can't
understand that, and strangely, I can understand why. (Why else could I
instinctively make such a hideous Helms joke or giggle at the notion of you
telling Nujoma to hurry up and die?) But it is my reality.
Falwell's arm was around me, and it didn't happen until just before the
shutter went off. I set up the camera, stepped into the shot, then felt the
arm, went, "Urk," then flash.
What I found amusing was the expression on my face. It is obvious to most
people who see it, or that's what I've been oft-told, that I am not
thrilled to be there.
> Falwell is such a person as Nujoma.
I know.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
D Stephen Heersink
liturgies, and make a nuisance of one's self is among the most
counter-productive tactics every envisioned.
It's one thing to stand outside a place of worship in silent
presence, to hand out leaflets, or to offer quit song, the disruption
of a sacred liturgy only creates outrage.
Nine-out-of-ten people who hold a bad opinion of Act-Up, for
example, do not cite some of its many tactics, but do remember their
disrupting Mass at St. Patrick's in NYC, including sacrilegious and
profane behavior than can only be described as "scandalous."
The purpose of advocacy is to argue for change, not to create
an image of an ogre that has no sense of personal decorum or the
rights of others. Gays would hardly welcome a bunch a straights
bulldozing themselves into a gay bar or bath and start turning on
lights, yelling and screaming "fags," and acting out some other
loathsome behavior. What makes a church any different?
If one doesn't see a parallel, then I regret your lack of
critical thinking and sense of propriety and decorum that most of us
have had. It's your bad behavior that makes the strides others of us
have made a very bad thing. Decency requires that we only do those
things which we would make into a universal law for everyone to do. If
barging into and screaming into "sacred" space is something everyone
should do, then watch your own backyard.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
Richard
christofascists screaming and harassing. (Fairbanks Alaska 1984) I have
seen 500 people gathered at a school board meeting at 2:00 AM stand up
and applaud their invasion of that bar and the harassment of the
patrons. I remember the quote that brought the crowd to its feet "When
we called out to them the good news of Jesus, they gnashed their teeth
and turned away towards their sin." It was the first and only time I
had heard "gnashed their teeth" outside of a reading of the bible.
I still believe that the disruption of sacred space used to raise funds
to spend or to funnel to anti-glbt political activity including
anti-glbt institutions, is morally correct.
I believe it may not be the most effective tactic, but I am now asking
myself this:
There have literally been hundreds if not thousands of street protests
against various christofacists since 1980 in the USA. I really recall
the specifics of only three - ACT UP against the Catholic Church during
Mass, the "angel wings" against Fred Phelps at Matthew Shepherd's
funeral, and the utterly brilliant fund raising Phelps marathon
recently. I do not see others in the general media and I honestly
don't recall the specifics of any others. I do recall in general terms
the actions of Soul Force here and there, but only in the most general
terms. But the ACT UP attack against the Roman Catholic Church's
raising funds and using those fund to the detriment of glbt people?
That one I remember. And Phelps is Phelps.
And I do NOT remember ACT UP because it was so horrible. I look on the
participants (unknown individually to me) as heroes and extremely brave
persons.
The backlash was pretty brutal. But one of the effects of aggression
against the RC's years ago MAY BE the RC sitting out the glbt
discrimination fight in Maryland this year. I am not sure, but my gut
tells me there is a long term historical causal relationship.
I grew up in the South of the USA. I grew up with white-only bathrooms
and drinking fountains. I listened to my parents and friends very
carefully those years. I am convinced that MLK alone would have failed
to bring civil rights based on race to the USA. It took the riots in
the cities; the violent and warlike riots, and the Black Panthers in
conjunction with MLK to bring the civil rights act to passage. I am
convinced of that as I remember the Southern white folks changing their
attitude through those years.
I am further convinced that San Francisco would not be to queers what it
is today without the riots; without setting police cars on fire and
bashing in the windows of City Hall. Without thousands of queers
filling Castro Street and chanting "Go Home" at the police intent on
busting a few heads. Sure it took the brilliant New Years Eve Ball
where religious leaders witnessed police harassment first hand. And of
course it took ongoing voter registration and precinct door to door
activity (or coffee shop to coffee shop activity in this city). But the
riots were an essential ingredient in the history of gay rights in San
Francisco. Just as the violence was a necessary ingredient in the
1960's civil rights movement.
So at this moment in time, I am not certain that disruption of sacred
space for christofacist political fund raising activities (Sunday
Service) is a good strategy at this time. But I keep thinking about it.
Richard Seward
Natalie Davis
> Could someone here explain to me the basic difference between
>Unitarianism, and Unitarian Universalism? I get a sense that this
>difference is here, in the seen or perceived commonality between
>faiths, but I've never had it explicitly explained to me before.
In all my experiences with Unitarian churches, they've espoused the same
beliefs as UUs and been just as welcoming to everyone. Upon closer
investigation all of them have turned out to be UU. Again, that describes
the Unitarian churches, I know... YMMV.
But there are differences between strict Unitarian and Universalist
thinking: "Unitarian" stems from the oneness of God. "Universalist" stems
from the belief that each and all of us will be saved, meaning none of us
are damned by God to burn in eternal hellfire. Historically, there were
Unitarian and Universalist churches, both largely seen as heretical, as
their members refused to follow traditional Catholic or Protestant
teachings (which say that if we're bad, we'll burn, based on predestination
and the sin of Adam and Eve). Unitarianism got started in Europe, although
much of its philosophies were developed on these shores as its members
battled Calvinists/Puritans; Universalism's tenets of embracing and
evangelizing the marginalized was developed in the US. Universalist
minister Thomas Starr King was credited with defining the difference
between the two when he said, "Universalists believe that God is too good
to damn people, and the Unitarians believe that people are too good to be
damned by God." Both, historically, have been in the forefront of the
social-justice movement. Both have been persecuted by the religious
mainstream for their beliefs that people can and should make their own
religious and life decisions (and still are--see the Boy Scouts of
America). Both believe that one can be religious without believing in God
and that no one religion has a monopoly on truth.
In 1961, the two Us merged, and now we have Unitarian Universalists.
Hope that helps.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
Natalie Davis
>Ahh, but Stephen, I have had the only gay bar in my town invaded by
>christofascists screaming and harassing. (Fairbanks Alaska 1984)
And I remember raids in Baltimore bars long ago; I've certainly heard tales
of raids pre-dating my existence from elderly bargoers. When I read
Stephen's original posting, I thought... does he remember Stonewall? And
more recently, bars have been targeted in a number of areas near here. And
don't forget that awful gay-bar blast in England. Absolutely, some thinking
they're working for Jesus have invaded, sometimes in the worst way, queer
sacred or safe space. And I've witnessed religious wrongers applauding it.
Turns the stomach.
>I still believe that the disruption of sacred space used to raise funds to
>spend or to funnel to anti-glbt political activity including
>anti-glbt institutions, is morally correct.
And I have to respect that.
>I believe it may not be the most effective tactic
And I agree with that.
>There have literally been hundreds if not thousands of street protests
>against various christofacists since 1980 in the USA. I really recall
>the specifics of only three - ACT UP against the Catholic Church during
>Mass, the "angel wings" against Fred Phelps at Matthew Shepherd's
>funeral, and the utterly brilliant fund raising Phelps marathon
>recently. I do not see others in the general media and I honestly
>don't recall the specifics of any others. I do recall in general terms
>the actions of Soul Force here and there, but only in the most general
>terms. But the ACT UP attack against the Roman Catholic Church's
>raising funds and using those fund to the detriment of glbt people?
>That one I remember. And Phelps is Phelps.
Fred is unforgettable. In the worst way.
>And I do NOT remember ACT UP because it was so horrible. I look on the
>participants (unknown individually to me) as heroes and extremely brave
>persons.
As do I, and many are or were (many are gone now) dear friends and comrades.
>The backlash was pretty brutal. But one of the effects of aggression
>against the RC's years ago MAY BE the RC sitting out the glbt
>discrimination fight in Maryland this year. I am not sure, but my gut
>tells me there is a long term historical causal relationship.
You may be right. People may have reevaluated earlier thoughts. But in
terms of the Maryland situation, I believe what made the difference were a
number of things: the 1990s Lesbian Avenger protest (where it was big and
loud and dramatic but steered clear of disrupting Good Friday Mass);
relentless lobbying by many groups including the Free State Justice
Campaign and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Community Center
of Baltimore and Central Maryland; the strong support of the governor
(whose brother died of AIDS); and the findings of the governor's commission
on sexual orientation, which took testimony throughout the state and
determined that discrimination does take place in Maryland--along with the
publication of a study showing more and more people believe it's just wrong
to discriminate against glbs in employment, housing, and public
accommodations (the ts were ignored deliberately). And I definitely believe
ACT-UP laid much of the groundwork. As much as I disagree with disrupting
churches, ACT-UP did way more than bust things up at St. Patrick's over the
years. Those folks ARE heroes in my book. My disagreement with one action
in no way lessens the admiration and love and gratitude I feel
for ACT-UPers and the solidarity I feel with them.
>I grew up in the South of the USA. I grew up with white-only bathrooms
>and drinking fountains. I listened to my parents and friends very
>carefully those years. I am convinced that MLK alone would have failed
>to bring civil rights based on race to the USA. It took the riots in
>the cities; the violent and warlike riots, and the Black Panthers in
>conjunction with MLK to bring the civil rights act to passage. I am
>convinced of that as I remember the Southern white folks changing their
>attitude through those years.
I agree with that wholeheartedly too. I don't like much of what the
Panthers did, but I can't and won't deny them their "props."
>I am further convinced that San Francisco would not be to queers what it
>is today without the riots; without setting police cars on fire and
>bashing in the windows of City Hall. Without thousands of queers
>filling Castro Street and chanting "Go Home" at the police intent on
>busting a few heads. Sure it took the brilliant New Years Eve Ball
>where religious leaders witnessed police harassment first hand. And of
>course it took ongoing voter registration and precinct door to door
>activity (or coffee shop to coffee shop activity in this city). But the
>riots were an essential ingredient in the history of gay rights in San
>Francisco. Just as the violence was a necessary ingredient in the
>1960's civil rights movement.
I don't condone violence. At all. I won't resort to it; I'm not sure if it
was necessary. Many people are still paying the price for their (and
others') violent acts. But I won't argue with their intentions. And I
understand that people get to a breaking point where they can stand no
more. (And I'm totally cool with telling cops to "Go home!" Sign me up for
that; I'm perfectly willing to go to jail.)
>So at this moment in time, I am not certain that disruption of sacred
>space for christofacist political fund raising activities (Sunday
>Service) is a good strategy at this time. But I keep thinking about it.
As should we all. Whatever my beliefs, if I close my mind to even thinking
about something and considering it thoroughly before making a decision, I
am in the wrong. Because you're right--as the Unitarian Universalists
believe, no one group has all the answers. 'we need the radicals, we need
the mainstreamers, we even need the freaks in between. And my
rainbow-colored freak flag flies high.
********************************************************************
GratefulDread.net. New and improved!
News, Commentary, Music, Activism, Grooviness.
http://gratefuldread.net
Mouthing off for the masses:
FANDO LOG http://fando.blogspot.com
**********
www.usQueers.com
lock the door on them and seize the church and all its assets, in case you
lose track in the following story.
New Zealand Herald, 7 May 2001
PO Box 32, Auckland, New Zealand
(Fax: +64-9-373-6421 ) (E-Mail: let...@herald.co.nz )
( http://www.nzherald.co.nz )
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=187488&thesection=news&th
esubsection=general
Gay row sends worshippers down the road
By JO-MARIE BROWN and LIBBY MIDDLEBROOK
A row over gay clergy left 300 members of a Methodist congregation
holding their service yesterday under a makeshift marquee.
While regular worshippers attended the Tongan Methodist Church in
Otahuhu, the rebels -- the bulk of the congregation -- assembled in front of
a house around the corner.
Tarpaulins and rusty steel poles transformed a garage and driveway to
make a place of worship for the faithful, who were locked out of the church
in February.
The group members are now demanding that the church let them back in
and have taken their fight to the High Court at Auckland.
Tension within the Otahuhu congregation stems from a vote last year
to leave the Methodist Church of NZ because of the appointment of homosexual
minister the Rev David Bromell in 1997 to a key leadership position in
Christchurch.
The appointment sent tremors through the 120,000-strong Methodist
movement, NZ's fourth-largest Christian denomination.
The bulk of the Otahuhu congregation, disgusted with the church's
gay-friendly attitudes, was subsequently locked out by Methodist leaders in
February after threats were made.
Yesterday, Sione Vaka's driveway was filled with fellow worshippers
dressed in crisp white shirts and lace dresses.
Hymns written on large pieces of cardboard were held aloft while
ministers preached from the open garage doorway of Mr Vaka's home.
Meanwhile, at the church, about 100 parishioners attended the regular
Sunday service led by church secretary David Maka.
He said the argument over homosexuality was upsetting and had divided
families.
"I believe that the issue of homosexuality is a personal and private
one. If a man wants to be homosexual then let him be.
"It's between him and God."
Mr Maka said all reconciliation efforts had failed and the dispute
was now focused on church ownership.
Lawyer Rodney Hooker, who represents the breakaway group, will seek
an injunction on June 5 to stop the Methodist Church of NZ from deciding who
can use the property.
The group has requested keys to the church as well as $200,000 in
damages for being excluded from the building.
In court documents they argue that the congregation was responsible
for raising money to buy the property in 1993 and for repaying a further
$580,000 borrowed from other Methodist congregations to build the church in
1996.
Former church secretary William Palu, who was locked out with other
congregation members, said the group was hoping to regain access to the
church soon.
"When we first came here there was no rain but now the weather is
starting to change.
"If it's not sorted out by winter we might start looking for some
other place to use, but we still hope we can go back to the church."
Richard
>
> I am just noting that it seems the verbs "to tolerate" and "to have
> tolerance" are being treated as synonyms by some of the people in this
> argument. I personally do not see them this way. I think that some of the
> authors of arguments in this thread do not see them this way, and some of
> them do.
>
> It would be interesting to me if there could be an agreement on how the two
> terms are used, to clarify the discussion. Am I the only one who seems to
> think this?
>
> Naomi Himmelhoch
> Redwood City
>
what is the difference you see?
Richard Seward
Richard
are inside the church and the anti-glbt freedom folk are outside the
church.
Richard
www.usQueers.com
me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard" <sep...@pacbell.net>
To: "www.usQueers.com" <your...@usqueers.com>
Cc: "Non-Borgified Queers" <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<<
Targeting sacred spaces as a place to hold rallies, disrupt
liturgies, and make a nuisance of one's self is among the most
counter-productive tactics every envisioned.
<<
A "nuisance"? I hardly think disrupting religious services of
homophobic churches for the sake of effecting our liberation, as
mere nuisance. Of course, I'm sure King George perceived those
upstart colonialists who dumped tea into the Boston harbor as a
"nuisance".
<<
It's one thing to stand outside a place of worship in silent
presence, to hand out leaflets, or to offer quit song, the disruption
of a sacred liturgy only creates outrage.
>>
We are opposing the bashing and murder of our brothers and
sisters, by these very churches...a heinous matter which
absolutely *demands far more aggressive action than standing
around on the sidewalk, distributing paper. Their "sacred space"
is only by their own definition...at their own whim in order to win
their arguments...a very subjective stance, at best. Yet these
bigots think nothing of violating our own sacred spaces, such as
the funeral of Matthew Shephard.
Only those within their sect, need see what is deemed "sacred
space". To expect, and demand, that everyone else abide by their
dogma, is coercion of the democratic process and freedom of
speech. Their gatherings are not sacred space to anyone outside
of their limited circle, particularly anyone not of fundamentalist
Xian faith. These assholes do not abide by our wish for them to
leave us alone, in our own sacred spaces...so we need to show
them that two can tango. Let's disrupt their services until they stop
preaching violence against gays. They have absolutely no right to
receive protection from anyone's God, when they abuse the
concept of "sacred space" by preaching anti-gay violence.
<<
Nine-out-of-ten people who hold a bad opinion of Act-Up,
>>
Like you really didn't make up that number, to suit your point. How
objective..NOT.
<<
for example, do not cite some of its many tactics, but do
remember their disrupting Mass at St. Patrick's in NYC, including
sacrilegious and profane behavior than can only be described as
"scandalous."
>>
You have a stereotype image of gay people, even though gay
yourself. I can easily conceive of a gay activist disruption of a
religious service, with complete dignity and righteous anger...w/o
one whit of lewd behavior. Yet *you seem to believe that gay
people are incapable of dignity. How pathetic.
<<
The purpose of advocacy is to argue for change,
>>
Dissenting at church services would prove to be a very
persuasive argument...one that would grab the media's attention,
and reveal just how violent are many church goers.
<<
not to create an image of an ogre that has no sense of personal
decorum or the
rights of others.
>>
I beg your pardon: but a bunch of upstarts fighting for equality,
are hardly ogres. You've twisted this all around, to make the real
ogres--homophobes--out to be the innocent ones. This is not
better than arguing with a gay-hateful Fundamentalist. Likewise
for Natalia, and some others! You are using the same arguments
that homophobes make: "sacred space", "homosexual dissent is
violent", "all gays are lewd", and so on.
And then when Natalie claims my proposal for vocal dissent in
churches is somehow violent...well, that is so much like a right-
wing homophobe, I am amazed that most gay people still listen to
her, let alone don't complain about her remaining on our mailing
list! She then describes me to others as "preaching violence", w/o
giving any details what *she decides to call violent...thus
defaming me to others before I even get a chance to speak to
them. Ms. Davis has decided to put her own subjective spin on
what "violence" means, and as if that wasn't enough, has the
hubris to claim to also speak for Gandhi, claiming that he sides
with her. She couldn't debate her way out of a paper bag, and has
only degraded her own value as a gay spokesperson. Reminds
me of that trite but true saying: "With friends like her, who needs
enemies?".
To persist in defining an outspoken, non-violent demonstration as
"violence" worse than even the bludgeoning of gay people...well,
that is not only arrogance of a high degree, but utter defaming of
the Gay Ideal, and a betrayal to our community. She is a traitor,
and no less...who ought to be stripped of not only her toaster, but
of all recognition, position, and connections that she presently
has in any way, to speak for gay rights. She has placed a very
subjective definition of what violence means--which no dictionary
would ever agree with--then claims that Gandhi would say the
same thing! Gandhi, a wife beater, whose violence in his personal
life ought to make one reconsider the supposed "sanctity" of
many things he is quoted for. Likewise for Natalie's supposed gay
representation, when she demands a new definition of violence--
blaming a peaceful gay action no less, just like a homophobe--
that only right-wingers would agree to. Yet she calls herself a
pacifist, and me a violence-promoter! I *am a pacifist, who
promotes aggressive tactics in order to be heard and made visible
to the media, which would otherwise ignore us. In no way, do I
promote violence. Ms. Davis is a highly arrogant, and
manipulative lady...who is a shame to The Cause, and to lesbians
and women, and African Americans.
<<
Gays would hardly welcome a bunch a straights bulldozing
themselves into a gay bar or bath and start turning on
lights, yelling and screaming "fags," and acting out some other
loathsome behavior. What makes a church any different?
>>
It happens, fool, it happens. What about the recent funerals of our
gay heros, violated by the likes of Rev. Phelps? What about how
often gays are threatened, and live in fear of being found out,
across most of this country? Straights don't *have to overrun our
bars and other hangouts, because there are hardly any, anywhere
except in a few major cities. They have already condemned us
into terrorized silence. Considering how absolutely thorough and
evil is their accomplishment to bury the Gay Spirit, I think one of
the most effect ways of striking back and ensuring ultimate
victory, is to strike at their very hearts: their "sacred spaces" so to
speak.
<<
If barging into and screaming into "sacred" space is something
everyone should do, then watch your own backyard.
>>
We already need to watch our backs, by virtue of living in a
virulently homophobic society. This horrid situation already exists-
-and has for centuries--without anyone speaking out. Like Natalie,
you have said nothing that makes any sense!
With dizzy, malicious minds like yours (and Natalie's), I'd say
you've made the Religious Reich very happy, because you make
their evil works so much easier! Who needs spies, when we have
so many turncoats in our midst already, ready to jump upon gay
activism and label it "violent".
Perhaps we gays need to create our own churches, with sacred
spaces to keep the homophobes out. And to create an ideology
that heteros are sinners, and evil spurn of Satan. Officializing this
as a bona fide religion will then allow us gov't and community
funds, and tax exempt status to fight fire with fire.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Naomi Himmelhoch
difference. "To tolerate," to me, means to put up with something that I am
not pleased with, but which I feel I have no right to change. To have
tolerance for means to see a difference, but not consider the difference to
be one I make a value judgement about. Hmmm, maybe I am wrong about there
being a difference, I am having a hard time finding a concrete example of
what I mean. How about, I tolerate biggots, but I have tolerance for
different cultures? Well, I gave it a stab.
Naomi Himmelhoch
Redwood City
P.S. The argument seems to have taken another path, anyway, so now this
seems pretty off topic.
>
>
>Naomi Himmelhoch wrote:
> >
> > I am just noting that it seems the verbs "to tolerate" and "to have
> > tolerance" are being treated as synonyms by some of the people in this
> > argument. I personally do not see them this way. I think that some of
>the
> > authors of arguments in this thread do not see them this way, and some
>of
> > them do.
> >
> > It would be interesting to me if there could be an agreement on how the
>two
> > terms are used, to clarify the discussion. Am I the only one who seems
>to
> > think this?
> >
> > Naomi Himmelhoch
> > Redwood City
> >
>
>what is the difference you see?
>
>Richard Seward
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
**********
Naomi Himmelhoch
friend enjoys gaynet so much, perhaps he should join, and see the rebuttals
you aren't so proud of.
Naomi Himmelhoch
>From: "Ezekiel J. Krahlin" <ezek...@runbox.com>
>Reply-To: ezek...@iname.com
>To: gay...@QueerNet.ORG
>Subject: Re: [GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces
>Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:03:14 -0700
>
>I have some friends who enjoy reading some of my comments on
>GayNet and other groups. Here is one person's response to a
>copy of Natalie's original rant in rebuttal to my proposal for non-
>violent, but agressive, strategies:
>
>---begin message
>
>Zeke-
>
> Thanks a million for forwarding me this conversation with
>Natalie.Your points are excellently made and well argued. This
>woman is a typical "liberal" in the well-set middle class. Your
>responses to her non-violent spiel are exactly what all Gandhians
>in general have trouble with--namely, if your enemy can not be
>persuaded with civil disobedience, and will kill you, rather than
>really share power, then violence may, sometimes, be a last
>resort.(Your point about WWII being fought against Hitler was well
>made.)
>
> If you read about India these days, most Indians are proud to
>be entering the 21st century and feel more secure with the atomic
>bomb in their arsenal. Ironic...these are "Gandhi's people".
>Personally, I agree with non-violence to a point, and am against
>proliferating nuclear weapons, but, these issues remain highly
>complex and demand intelligent conversation.
>
> Obviously you are attuned to this fact and Ms. Natalie is not.
>
> Good work.
> -Paul
>
>---end message
>
>---
>Lavender-Velvet Revolution
>http://surf.to/gaybible
>
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<twe...@euronet.nl> wrote:
<<
Wow, Ezekiel, you seem very angry and bitter and I can't say that
I blame you.
>>
Of course I am angry, though not particularly bitter. I am in touch
with my anger, and am channeling towards ideas of creative
dissent. I have thus turned this bitter draught into my elixir of
inspiration. I am proud not to stifle my anger, but to recognize it
for what it really is: RIGHTEOUS OUTRAGE. I wake up every
day, outraged at the horrid gay-hatred in our country, that
permeates almost every aspect of our society. I am PROUD of my
rage.
I don't know of any civil rights movement that was not based on its
justified anger, and used it to harness their fights, and eventual
victory.
And I am DOUBLY OUTRAGED by assimilationist ass-lickers like
you and Natalie, who would twist my ideas of peaceful resistance
into acts of violence. What an injustice you serve, what a vulgar
manipulation!
<<
I'm not a christian in any sense.
>>
Yes you are: you defend their silly notions of sacred space, when
these same spaces are used to preach violence.
<<
However, coming into any church with the sole purpose of
disrupting the service probably falls under anti-trespass laws and
anyone who does that should be arrested and prosecuted.
>>
Aren't you the happy fascist: "business as usual". The Civil
Rights Movement of the 60's involved a lot of demonstrations that
not only trespassed, but took over, our institutions of higher
learning and other "sacred spaces". And yes, many paid the price
of arrest and prosecution...for the sake of their ideals. Well, when
the war against homosexuals really breaks out, I'm sure I'll be
seeing you...from the other side. I can see you now: crisp, clean
brownshirt setting off that handsome short mustache of
yours...with an attack dog at your heel, to silence any gay
dissenter who might not want to shower up.
<<
Such an act is indeed violent and I'd add immoral and intolerant.
>>
What a dippy remark! There is *no violence in peaceful dissent,
*no sacred space outside of a subjective definition by one
particular group, and *no immorality or intolerance in confronting
the grave injustice of preaching and commiting violence against
our innocent gay citizens.
Gee, why am I having such an argument in a supposedly-GAY
list? How many right-wing zealots have taken over, in the guise of
"radical" queers?
<<
Nothing is accomplished by attacking the religious beliefs of other
people - it just gives those people strength of resolve.
>>
Nonsense. I am not proposing an "attack", I am proposing
confrontation activism. You cannot espouse violence against any
group of people, and justify it by virtue of some sort of "religious
belief". Certainly, we do NOT allow such beliefs against blacks,
women, or any other group...yet under the hypocritical guise of
"free speech", Amerika encourages violent acts and violent
speech against gays.
<<
The real problem here is intolerance and every single one of us
has it.
They don't tolerate Us, We don't tolerate Them.
>>
My, you DO oversimplify! It is not only WRONG, but INSANE to
tolerate any belief in killing others. You do stretch the intent of
tolerance to accommodate Nazi reasoning...which is shameful,
and downright stupid.
<<
Enforce separation of church and state.
>>
Yes, and dissenting in churches is a very good way of pushing
back at religious dogma's usurpation of our society. They have
invaded our public and private spaces thoroughly, so we should
now invade their sacred spaces. All's fair in war and war.
You CANNOT be fair and reasonable to Nazis. Remember the
lesson of Neville Chamberlain. Stop caving in to their demands.
Fight back, bash back.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
Patrick Ferris
> Homophobia is on a steep and rapid rise--in the U.S. and
> worldwide:
I don't agree. Homophobia has been in a steady decline for 40 years.
What has risen is a more organized opposition to the gay rights movement,
an opposition that has been invigorated by our steady gain in rights and
the increasing acceptance of gay people. Maybe my memory's inadequate, but
25 years ago, gay marriage was not on our political radar -- it was
literally inconceivable. Now several countries permit gay marriages and
domestic partner benefits are increasingly available.
Patrick
Bruce Garrett
EK> This woman is a typical "liberal" in the well-set middle class.
Natalie! You're well set! And middle class to boot! Hey...let's
have a Tupperware party sometime...
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Ex-BETAMAX Ministries: If Sony can change,
so can you
Richard
tolerate" versus "to have tolerance for" I use them interchangeably.
Richard Seward
Richard
>
> Ahh, Richard <sep...@pacbell.net>, who writes:
>
> >Ahh, but Stephen, I have had the only gay bar in my town invaded by
> >christofascists screaming and harassing. (Fairbanks Alaska 1984)
>
> that the fascists where Christian? And that the same Christians then
> hold the same views now? There has been a stunning amelioration of
> views and attitudes by many Christians, and the evangelicals, who
> don't know what their talking about anyway, wouldn't benefit from your
> invasion of their space. They'd simply find some biblical verse to
> condemn homosexuals further. Great effort, if you really want to make
> it.
>
> As for the school board, et alia, THESE are the places to take a
> stand. The thing that makes a school board different from a place of
> worship is that it is IN the common domain -- places of worship are
> not. Moreover, it is public domain, where all views should at least be
> heard, even the paltry and pitiful ones. But don't loose sight of
> which venue is which, and why they're different. THEY ARE different,
> and the difference is important.
>
> ________________________
> D. Stephen Heersink
How do I know they were Christian? They said so. As did some 500+
others that July 3 and 4. The School Board Meeting was about whether or
not to keep "A Way of Love, A Way of Life" in the school library. The
President of the Board, Gene Redden, decided to hold a public meeting
and to let it run until all public testimony was given. It began at
about 7:00 PM on July 3rd and ended at about 8:00 AM on July 4th. The
testimony was 99:1 in favor of censoring the book and running all queers
out of town. At about 2:30 or 3:00 AM several people testified that had
gone to "Michael's" the gay bar and testified from their car window and
seen the gnashing of teeth. My friends who were at the bar that night
confirmed the christians statements. At break times I was surrounded by
angry men and women and prayed over.
Did these christians change over the ensuing decades? I don't think
so. Their invasion of the bar and the bar's parking lot to preach and
harass drove customers away and the bar closed in the mid-1980's. No
one could get the funding to open a bar after that. So the nearest gay
bar until I left in autumn 1999 was in Anchorage, about 500 miles away.
That left a dirty book store near the military base as the only public
venue that tolerated homosexuals.
And the difference between bars and churches and school Board Meetings?
Oh yes, I know the difference, and I have respected the difference. But
the Mormons of Fairbanks Alaska and the RC's of Fairbanks and the
Hamilton Acres Baptist Church and many others did not respect the
difference. Public testimony was used to pray for the School Board or
the City council or the Borough Assembly to see the sin of homosexuality
and to put/keep the sinners in their place. Public testimony was used
to read "focus on the family" type of reports citing "scientific
evidence" that we queers are diseased and emotional cripples etc. ad
nauseum. These well orchestrated prayer meetings and propaganda
broadcast at public meetings were designed and arranged during Sunday
Services within their sacred spaces. And when the press did not report
on the christian citizens testimony to their satisfaction OR when the
press had the audacity to fairly report on pro-glbt-freedom positions,
then the Baptists in particular took out their vengeance on the
afternoon talk shows and letters to the editor and organized boycotts
etc. All organized during Sunday Morning and Wednesday Evening
spiritual time. And paid for with tax-free tithes.
So I do understand the difference between public and private. Between
gay bars and school board meetings and city council meetings and church
services. I did not blur the lines. The lines have been blurred by
certain christian churches that use their sacred to organize opposition
to glbt freedom and to fund their political opposition to glbt freedom.
Richard Seward
PS The School Board voted to keep the pro-glbt book in the library. The
christofacists had their kids check the books out of every school and
the public library. They then destroyed the books. They gladly paid
the fines and fees. They then checked out and destroyed the new copies
purchased. By 1999 when I left, the book was not available in any
school to the best of my knowledge. It was listed in the library
catalogue, but all copies were unavailable.
And every single one of the anti-censor School Board members either
decided not to run for re-election or were beat at the next election.
The anti-glbt-freedom candidates swept into office at the next
election. In the 1990's more liberal candidates won thanks to the
central labor council efforts. But a decade had to pass and NO MENTION
of glbt freedom could be made in any election or while in office if a
candidate wanted to win.
Richard
Richard
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
GayNet and other groups. Here is one person's response to a
copy of Natalie's original rant in rebuttal to my proposal for non-
violent, but agressive, strategies:
---begin message
Zeke-
Thanks a million for forwarding me this conversation with
Natalie.Your points are excellently made and well argued. This
woman is a typical "liberal" in the well-set middle class. Your
responses to her non-violent spiel are exactly what all Gandhians
in general have trouble with--namely, if your enemy can not be
persuaded with civil disobedience, and will kill you, rather than
really share power, then violence may, sometimes, be a last
resort.(Your point about WWII being fought against Hitler was well
made.)
If you read about India these days, most Indians are proud to
be entering the 21st century and feel more secure with the atomic
bomb in their arsenal. Ironic...these are "Gandhi's people".
Personally, I agree with non-violence to a point, and am against
proliferating nuclear weapons, but, these issues remain highly
complex and demand intelligent conversation.
Obviously you are attuned to this fact and Ms. Natalie is not.
Good work.
-Paul
---end message
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Patrick Ferris
> These well orchestrated prayer meetings and propaganda
> broadcast at public meetings were designed and arranged during Sunday
> Services within their sacred spaces.
I'll have to take your word for it, but I've never been to a worship
service that conducted actual church business and event planning. (Not
that I've been to any recently.) Announcing events, of course, but not
the actual planning.
Patrick
Marc Stauffer
The separatists - think puritan's and Mayflower were very educationally
oriented - think Harvard, Oberlin among others. We then called our selves
Congregationalists. The Unitarians separated from us just prior to the
American Revolution. I'll save you all the theological details. In
Congregationalism - most Congregational Churches are non-creedal. The have
a covenant where they agree to accept each person where they currently are
in their spiritual journey and the covenant is that you will agree that the
search is never over and that your goal and the goal of the church is to
search together for the fuller meaning of God for you, the congregation and
the world - just a short step to Unitarian Universalist. The pastor
performs such sacraments as the congregation desires but in the pulpit is
to never dictate beliefs but rather raise questions for the congregation to
consider during the week.
In 1958 the Congregational Christian Church (majority were Trinitarians but
by no means all) merged with the German Evangelical and Reformed Church to
form the United Church of Christ - again a very gay friendly group.
Some of the old Congregational Churches refused to join the UCC and the
case went to the Supreme Court over ownership of the church property. In
Western Pennsylvania - the Congregationalists had merged in 1914 with the
German United Evangelical and Reformed Churches because of persecution over
using German as the language for their services. These churches feared a
hierarchy over them and wanted to retain the right to "call" their own
pastors whose theology reflected the covenant of each church. As a result
of that merger we kept the right to call a pastor and write our own creeds,
liturgically because of the Lutheran influence we remained quite HIGH
church in services but low church in polity. My ordination is as a
Congregational minister.
I get my back up at times over the abuse of those pilgrims - they weren't
perfect but they sure did value education, science and a belief that God
still had things to teach. Harvard and Oberlin aren't such bad legacies of
a relatively small denomination.
Marc
Marc
M. G. Stauffer
Naomi Himmelhoch
created without realizing it. Isn't the first time! Thanks.
Naomi
>From: Richard <sep...@pacbell.net>
>To: Naomi Himmelhoch <nhimm...@hotmail.com>
>CC: gay...@queernet.org
>Subject: Re: [GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces
>Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:19:46 -0700
>
>Naomi, I have to say that I don't see the difference you see in "to
>tolerate" versus "to have tolerance for" I use them interchangeably.
>
>Richard Seward
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
**********
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<fer...@biosgi.wustl.edu> wrote:
<<
Homophobia has been in a steady decline for 40 years.
>>
Wrong. It declined through the seventies and began to return and
increase in the 80's with the rise of AIDS and the religio-political
extreme right. Even our so-called "moderate/liberal" President,
Clinton, saw fit to sign a horrid, bigoted piece of legislation called
DOMA. Such an Act by the Federal Government gives sanction to
further condemnation of our gay citizens on every level, from
local, to state, to nation. And that is exactly what is now
happening. I will *not be suprised when Internet censorship laws
shuts down all gay presence online, including GayNet.
<<
What has risen is a more organized opposition to the gay rights
movement,
>>
Sounds like more homophobia, to me!
<<
Maybe my memory's inadequate, but 25 years ago, gay marriage
was not on our political radar -- it was literally inconceivable. Now
several countries permit gay marriages and domestic partner
benefits are increasingly available.
>>
I didn't say advancements haven't been made...particulary in
*other countries that compose our Western Democracies. But a
lot of anti-gay laws have begun sweeping our country in the last
two years, and are likely to get much worse. They have already
greatly outstripped any recently passed pro-gay laws. This is a
race to the finish line, and I'm afraid that the enemy has far more
clout, and far more gains than the gay political body. It is not that I
lack hope; in fact I am very optimistic about our eventual
conquest of homophobia. I just see a major confrontation first,
that will also transform our society, and all others, in the
process...in favor of gay bonding, and much stern disapproval of
unsanctioned breeding. For the pressures of overpopulation and
limited resources will play an important role...along with a sea
change in our collective consciousness, and conscience.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
said:
<<
A group of neo-nazis showed up. I was stunned and a little
frightened. One by one, people turned their backs on these
people. Not a word was exchanged with this group. It took about
two minutes for them to leave.
>>
If SILENCE were such a potent force for effective dissent, then
there would NEVER have been ANY gay persecution or
repression in the first place. You are speaking of a specific
situation in which non-verbal back-turning proved effective...a
tactic that is *not effective in each and every case...nor in most
cases, just some.
In fact, turn you back on *some of these bigots, and you'll be
instantly killed.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<<
Why would I want to demonize people on my side?
>>
That is a good question, Natalie: why the heck are you doing
this? And certainly you are, by persisting in labelling my proposal
for in-church dissent as not only violent (which it clearly is *not),
but *more violent than the bashing and killing done by our
enemies.
Actually, I already *know the answer to your pertinent
question...but Roger does not allow name-calling.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<<
Gays were used by the religious (again) to build up their war
chest with guns, money and power, to take over the country as
they already have. The state to state, city to city, street to street,
and house to house fighting is already underway.
>>
You got it! Thanks for affirming the situation I believe we are in,
here in Amerika. We are at war. I am only trying to wake some
people up.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<<
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
>>
Well, if I went around preaching violence against gays, and even
bashing/killing them myself, I'd certainly deserve imprisonment for
life, even death.
And if *others do likewise to me, or those I love, I certainly would
want to do unto them, exactly what's coming to them.
Richard
> > (me) These well orchestrated prayer meetings and propaganda
> > broadcast at public meetings were designed and arranged during Sunday
> > Services within their sacred spaces.
>
> service that conducted actual church business and event planning. (Not
> that I've been to any recently.) Announcing events, of course, but not
> the actual planning.
>
> Patrick
Let me see if I can tell you what I mean by "designed and arranged"
versus "planned". Let's assume a protestant, religious-right,
evangelical church. Let's assume that the preacher (P) has met with
major donors Deacon (D-A) and Deacon (D-B) to discuss the need for some
good old fashion queer bashing at a governmental public hearing and in
other public venues. The public hearing is on the 17th of the month.
********
On Sunday the 7th:
The hymns chosen for worship are the more militant (Onward Christian
Soldiers, etc.)
The biblical readings for the sermon is not the anti-queer texts, but
rather the "give unto Caesar" texts.
The sermon centers around "Is the Christian required to give the secular
schools and government the power and right to teach our children
immorality?"
The prayers are not for the souls of the sinning queers, but rather a
pray for the strength to stand up for God."
D-A takes the pulpit for announcements and points out that in the pew
backs there is a card. At the top of the card is the phrase, "Yes
Jesus, I'll be there for you." Down the card are various option to
check
(a) write a letter to the editor or talk on ****, the afternoon radio
talk show. (D-A: we have lots of sample letters in the back of the
church for you)
(b) attend the public hearing
(c) testify at the hearing [D-A Now don't worry. I get nervous speaking
in public too. Right now I'm sweating like a pig (laughter in
congregation) But P and other good Christians a lot smarter than me,
will give us written testimony to read or we can just pray for the
children.]
(d) I can't be there but I want to help. Here's $_______.00 to help
Jesus save the children.
(e) Let me ____________________________________________________(please
explain)
(f) No thanks, I'm a luke warm christian and really don't care.
D-A continues: Now why do we ask you to complete these cards? Well, we
believe that Jesus will call forth hundreds if not thousands of
concerned christians to stop this sin. And we need to have a good feel
for the number of people so we can tell the (Mayor, School board
chairman, etc.) the size room they need to hear from their
constituents. D-B and I will be in the back of the church to collect
your cards as you leave.
P: It just warms my heart and my soul rejoices when good christian folks
are ready to take up the sword for Jesus. Let's end today with hymn
number 123.
********
On Sunday the 14th:
The hymns chosen are both militant and repentant in nature.
The biblical text is Jesse's "I bring a sword"
The sermon theme is on getting into heaven: no queers AND no luke warm
christians.
Prayer is for the holy spirit to fill the hearts of God's people and
give them courage and the words to preach to the godless.
Announcements by D-B:
This righteous cause was not in our budget. And I am real sorry to say
that we don't even have enough money to cover the copying costs much
less that witnessing tracts we want to give to any homosexuals that come
to the meeting. So the ushers are passing the basket around again right
now. (as the basket make its way through the pews) Now dig deep. We
are truly honored by the Lord that He has given us this opportunity to
speak out in his name. And don't worry about us all contributing too
much money (chuckles n congregation) All that we don't need we'll send
to ***** to aid in that special ministry to help homosexuals turn away
form their sin through christ.
Let me point out that the pledge cards are back in the pews this
Sunday. We still need 12 people to read Dr. Thinklittle's excellent
research on the evils of homosexuality. You know they only give us 2
minutes and it is tough to speak of all the glories of Jesus in only 2
minutes. Just ask the preacher (chuckles in congregation) so what we
are gonna do is have enough speakers lined up in order to read the full
report. when the first reader's time is up, the next reader will take
up where he left off, and so on and so on.
Now we have over 300 good christians pledged to attend the hearing from
this and other fine churches. But we need at least, and I do mean at
least, 150 more good christians at the public hearing to bring the good
news to those men and women that we elected (and even to those misguided
souls I did not support - more chuckles.) So take out those cards and
if you have already filled out one, then fill out another and promise to
be there on the 17th. If we can't get 500 christians to take a stand
for our children, how can we face the Lord at the last trumpet?
And for the sake of Jesus, let's fill those collection baskets. I'll
let you in on a secret. Yall have heard that the ministers of the
unitarian and lutheran churches support godless homosexuals. You read
it in the paper and you saw it on TV. Well, P told me that he just knew
in his heart that this congregation would come through. So we had a
1000 flyers made up explaining the good news that Jesus can change the
homosexual heart and that we can love the sinner and hate the sin.
Right now, our wonderful youth group is over at the unitarian and the
lutheran churches putting those flyers on the windshields of all the
cars in their parking lots. But we have to pay for them, as well as our
other costs. So dig deep for Jesus!
D-A and I will and our lovely wives and children will be in the back of
the church to collect your pledge cards. Thanks.
P: Let us pray: (Jesus give us strength to fight the heathen forces and
the resources to fight the good fight. You have given us so much, but
we must give back to you so that the little children are not led into
darkness.)
*************
On the 17th Public hearing, the youth group runs around taking down the
names of people who are there to testify for Jesus.
************
On the 21st the Preacher in his sermon thanks the good christian people
who came to the hearing, wrote letters to the editor, or called the talk
show (their names are listed on the back of the church bulletin for you
to thank individually. (and for us all to know whose names are NOT on
the list and therefore add subtle but real pressure for future
compliance.) And we are pleased to announce that after all our bills
are paid we are sending $2,000 to ******** and another $1,500 to *******
*************
The style of Roman Catholic organizing is more subtle, but still there
at the mass in the form of Prayers of the Faithful, the homily (many
psalms are great text for fighting the good fight even if the gospel of
the day does not quite fit) and the music used...not to mention
announcements and the distribution of written material.
So while I agree with you that political organizing is planned outside
of worship, political organizing is designed/arranged/carried out during
regular worship - in the prayers, the sermon/homily, the music, and the
announcement. Not in every church, never in some faith communities,
often in others, seldom in others. But I remain convinced that some
sacred space is used to organize anti-glbt-freedom political activity
and to raise funds for anti-glbt-freedom public activity.
Richard Seward
Troy Westerberg
of context and generating dozens of posts from that (I think you're on about
17 posts so far today - and it's EARLY in the U.S.) next you'll start taking
individual words and generating hundreds of posts from them.
I understand you as fully as I need to. And I'm turning my back. Consider
yourself 'procmailed'.
And what's with the asterisks? Is your keyboard broken or have you been
reading Vonnegut again?
Troy Westerberg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ezekiel J. Krahlin" <ezek...@runbox.com>
To: "GayNet" <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces