[GN] Another Reason to Found Gay Churches
Chief Thracian
rather than appending gay affiliations to Christian churches that are
run by powerful, heterocentric attitudes. Since the passage of this
faith-based intitiative, I see now a more urgent reason to form our
own Gay Community religious centers that are not affiliated with any
present, hetero-run churches, synagogues, mosques or covens.
It is obvious that most churches will manipulate these faith-based
sanctions to further deny gays our basic rights, and dry up a lot of
funding so sorely needed for our survival...as well as foment further
extremism and violence against us. But if we form our own, true gay
church, we can then receive government monies, that can then be spent
on empowering and even liberating, our worldwide community.
Having our own Gay Religion, we would then be free to compete on an
equal footing with all these heterocentric religious groups, for
federal subsidies. Without our own Gay Church, however, we are likely
to become marginalized into oblivion.
I am not proposing we focus all our efforts into a Gay Church...but
that forming the world's first Gay-Only Religion, would be a powerful
strategy (to include with our other tactics) in knocking down these
newly-rising political and social barriers that are nothing less than
virtual barbed wire around a growing concentration camp of anti-gay
bigotry.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
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.)
-----= 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! =-----
D Stephen Heersink
>Some have ridiculed me for proposing the creation of a Gay Church,
>rather than appending gay affiliations to Christian churches that are
>run by powerful, heterocentric attitudes. Since the passage of this
>faith-based intitiative, I see now a more urgent reason to form our
>own Gay Community religious centers that are not affiliated with any
>present, hetero-run churches, synagogues, mosques or covens.
>
>It is obvious that most churches will manipulate these faith-based
>sanctions to further deny gays our basic rights, and dry up a lot of
>funding so sorely needed for our survival...as well as foment further
>extremism and violence against us. But if we form our own, true gay
>church, we can then receive government monies, that can then be spent
>on empowering and even liberating, our worldwide community.
I think Thracian has articulated sufficient reasons why "faith-based"
community activities need not be subsidized by a federal government. I
don't belittle the good that many of these homophobic institutions do
in the Name of their Mentor, but let them exercise the freedom of
religion without interference, much less dominion, by governmenal
support of "this" or "that" group. Here's one area where gays can join
with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson in pleading against government
support of religious-based social services funded by the taxpayers.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
Sean Robertson
completely open to the gay community, performing union cermonies and
welcoming us as equal members of the congregation. My mother reports the
one in Kneosha, Wisconsin is the same.
----- Original Message -----
From: D Stephen Heersink <dsh...@worldnet.att.net>
To: Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com>; <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [GN] Another Reason to Found Gay Churches
> Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com> writes:
>
> >Some have ridiculed me for proposing the creation of a Gay Church,
> >rather than appending gay affiliations to Christian churches that are
> >run by powerful, heterocentric attitudes. Since the passage of this
> >faith-based intitiative, I see now a more urgent reason to form our
> >own Gay Community religious centers that are not affiliated with any
> >present, hetero-run churches, synagogues, mosques or covens.
> >
> >It is obvious that most churches will manipulate these faith-based
> >sanctions to further deny gays our basic rights, and dry up a lot of
> >funding so sorely needed for our survival...as well as foment further
> >extremism and violence against us. But if we form our own, true gay
> >church, we can then receive government monies, that can then be spent
> >on empowering and even liberating, our worldwide community.
>
> I think Thracian has articulated sufficient reasons why "faith-based"
> community activities need not be subsidized by a federal government. I
> don't belittle the good that many of these homophobic institutions do
> in the Name of their Mentor, but let them exercise the freedom of
> religion without interference, much less dominion, by governmenal
> support of "this" or "that" group. Here's one area where gays can join
> with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson in pleading against government
> support of religious-based social services funded by the taxpayers.
> ________________________
> D. Stephen Heersink
> San Francisco
> dsh...@worldnet.att.net
>
George C. Hackett
It is "THE GAY CHURCH" throughout the world for Gay men and Lesbians.
It is a worldwide Christian Church.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean Robertson" <webolu...@webolutionary.com>
To: "D Stephen Heersink" <dsh...@worldnet.att.net>; "Chief Thracian"
<chieft...@runbox.com>; <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: [GN] Another Reason to Found Gay Churches
> Why not attend a Unitarian church? The one in Norfolk, Virginia is
> completely open to the gay community, performing union cermonies and
> welcoming us as equal members of the congregation. My mother reports the
> one in Kneosha, Wisconsin is the same.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D Stephen Heersink <dsh...@worldnet.att.net>
> To: Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com>; <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 11:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [GN] Another Reason to Found Gay Churches
>
>
> > Chief Thracian <chieft...@runbox.com> writes:
> >
> > >Some have ridiculed me for proposing the creation of a Gay Church,
> > >rather than appending gay affiliations to Christian churches that are
> > >run by powerful, heterocentric attitudes. Since the passage of this
> > >faith-based intitiative, I see now a more urgent reason to form our
> > >own Gay Community religious centers that are not affiliated with any
> > >present, hetero-run churches, synagogues, mosques or covens.
> > >
> > >It is obvious that most churches will manipulate these faith-based
> > >sanctions to further deny gays our basic rights, and dry up a lot of
> > >funding so sorely needed for our survival...as well as foment further
> > >extremism and violence against us. But if we form our own, true gay
> > >church, we can then receive government monies, that can then be spent
> > >on empowering and even liberating, our worldwide community.
> >
> > I think Thracian has articulated sufficient reasons why "faith-based"
> > community activities need not be subsidized by a federal government. I
> > don't belittle the good that many of these homophobic institutions do
> > in the Name of their Mentor, but let them exercise the freedom of
> > religion without interference, much less dominion, by governmenal
> > support of "this" or "that" group. Here's one area where gays can join
> > with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson in pleading against government
> > support of religious-based social services funded by the taxpayers.
> > ________________________
> > D. Stephen Heersink
> > San Francisco
> > dsh...@worldnet.att.net
> >
Chief Thracian
<sl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I guess none of you have heard of the Metropolitan Community Church.
>It is "THE GAY CHURCH" throughout the world for Gay men and Lesbians.
>It is a worldwide Christian Church.
Well, is it a separate denomination, or an arm of a larger
denomination (which is what I had presumed)? But yes, I believe most
of us are aware of the MCC...and I do hope they are moving ahead with
requesting federal monies, along with the Fundamentalist groups.
Nonetheless, I believe we can flourish more effectively with a large
diversity of gay religious groups, including Pantheist, Wiccan, Native
American, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and so on. We would then be
available for a wide range of gov't funding...which, as churches,
cannot be rejected. (As anything *but churches, you bet we gays will
be denied! The holocaust has begun...and we better be damn nigh ready
to accept into our arms here in Northern California, the flood of
queer refugess that I predicted last year.)
I was also just informed of this church, by Allan of usQueers:
LLAPH
The Life, Liberty And the Pursuit of Happiness Church
http://www.llaph.com
I quote from their home page:
"The one requirement to be a Member of the LLAPH Church is that you
MUST be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, or the
child of at least one of those."
Hey, this makes my day...let's pop up gay churches like mushrooms!
Event *atheist churches will work, too!
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Chief Thracian
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I think Thracian has articulated sufficient reasons why "faith-based"
>community activities need not be subsidized by a federal government.
Well, they shouldn't be, IMO, nor should they be free of taxation.
However, this is not what is happening...at the moment, the gov't (by
virtue of the Religious Reich coupe) is ready to pour enormous amounts
of funding, INCLUDING OUR TAXES, into right wing extremist
organizations that are NAZI IN ORIGIN, in the guise of Christian
churches. IT'S HAPPENING ALL OVER AGAIN (in a way).
Therefore, the most effective stratagem, due to the urgency of this
matter, is for gays across the country to form all sorts of
legitimized churches of all sorts of faith. Religion *is going to
interfere with gov't in a BIG way (as if it hasn't all along; but this
is really BIG)...so we gays can also use our own religions to gain
some bargaining power. This is a struggle for our very lives!
>Here's one area where gays can join
>with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson in pleading against government
>support of religious-based social services funded by the taxpayers.
Oh, please...they're behind this funneling of enormous sums into
right-wing arms. Jerry and Pat are only posing as anti-gov't-funding
politicians, as delay tactics, by disarming any effective resistance.
Can you imagine: they successfully get gay groups wrapped up in their
phony "no gov't funds for religious-based services"...while behind our
backs, the churches' coffers grow morbidly obese with moolah?
Do we *really want to be part of this deception? Of course not. We
gays can go our own way, with *no dependence on *any hetero person or
people, group or groups, to aid in our liberation. What they outnumber
in population, we outsmart in brains. Victory *is our Destiny. And it
has begun to unfold...this lovely Flower of Liberation.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Chief Thracian
<webolu...@webolutionary.com> wrote:
>Why not attend a Unitarian church? The one in Norfolk, Virginia is
>completely open to the gay community, performing union cermonies and
>welcoming us as equal members of the congregation. My mother reports the
>one in Kneosha, Wisconsin is the same.
And what is their tactic to siphon funds to pro-gay liberal churches,
and away from the homophobib babble thumpers? Are they aggressively
fighting for their slice of the pie, in order to defend gay people and
right these homophobic wrongs? Are they broadcasting this to all their
flock, across this country, and the world?
Or are they just lazily sitting back, oblivious to this oncoming war
that is heating up? Is the Unitarian church gay-friendly enough to
fight tooth and nail for a chunk of this faith-based funding, IN ORDER
TO PROTECT AND LIBERATE GAY PEOPLE?
Ask you mother about this, please.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Richard
do have difficulty with discrimination based on sexual orientation such
as a community of faith that requires its members to be queer or the
children of queers.
I understand, embrace, and seek queer spaces. But when heterosexuals
are actually prohibited by rules of discrimination (instead of absent by
culture and mores) then I feel like I have joined the enemy.
I saw several hetero "tourists" at the Dore Alley Fair this afternoon in
San Francisco. They did not bother me one bit. The predominance of
white guys (and such a wonderful assortment of great looking white
guys!) caused several of us to again reflect on the racism that is ever
present in the USA. But a few token hets? No problem by me as long as
they don't flaunt their heterosexual practices! LOL
And my experience of MCC is that it is a separate Protestant Christian
denomination.
Richard
Jerry Notaro
> Why not attend a Unitarian church?
I couldn't agree more. I have been attending a UU Church since 1973 when I
first came out and all have been very supportive.
Jerry
Sean Robertson
is one of the worst ideas I've heard of in years. First off, what
determines which religions get funding by the government? You run into all
kinds of problems with cults and the like. Second, what is to prevent those
charities from misusing the government funds to get their message out
through their charity? Thirdly, many churches have policies that
discriminate against various people, including homosexuals. The whole
concept of government funded religious charities flies in the face of the
principles set forth in the founding of this country to protect religion and
governement from each other. The unitarian church would be very wise to
steer way clear of these issues by not requesting or accepting such funding.
The bill, assuming it passes, should also be vigorously fought in court.
The government has no business getting involved in the affairs of churches,
except to regulate them as any other business.
As for the tactics of the Unitarians, they simply provide a welcoming
community where all people, regardless of belief, race, or orientation may
freely seek their own answers. If you'd like to know more about them, I
suggest checking out the following two web sites (the second one being the
one I designed for the Norfolk church).
http://www.uua.org
http://www.ucnorfolk.org
For the record, my mother is not a Unitarian, though I would be willing to
bet she'd like it if she gave it a try.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chief Thracian" <chieft...@runbox.com>
To: <gay...@queernet.org>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: [GN] Another Reason to Found Gay Churches
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:16:49 -0400, "Sean Robertson"
> <webolu...@webolutionary.com> wrote:
>
> >Why not attend a Unitarian church? The one in Norfolk, Virginia is
> >completely open to the gay community, performing union cermonies and
> >welcoming us as equal members of the congregation. My mother reports the
> >one in Kneosha, Wisconsin is the same.
>
> And what is their tactic to siphon funds to pro-gay liberal churches,
> and away from the homophobib babble thumpers? Are they aggressively
> fighting for their slice of the pie, in order to defend gay people and
> right these homophobic wrongs? Are they broadcasting this to all their
> flock, across this country, and the world?
>
> Or are they just lazily sitting back, oblivious to this oncoming war
> that is heating up? Is the Unitarian church gay-friendly enough to
> fight tooth and nail for a chunk of this faith-based funding, IN ORDER
> TO PROTECT AND LIBERATE GAY PEOPLE?
>
> Ask you mother about this, please.
>
>
Paul Halsall
*required* to attend any church, synagogue, or mosque at all. Thank God.
When people do choose to attend such an institution, I suppose searching for
social interaction or political influence is one plausible reason, but I
suspect that *belief* in the teaching of the religion in question must play a
role. Ample experience, not to mention sociological research, has shown that
theological statements are less important to many religious people than the
imaginative or symbolic world of a given religion. Some religions -- notably
Orthodox Judaism -- forthrightly admit this and stress practice of precepts
over assent to doctrinal statements. Even where doctrine is stressed -- as in
Catholicism -- there are admitted "hierarchies of truths" and it is quite
possible for an individual to give full assent to all the central doctrines
without accepting more minor statements.
Practicing a religion then, is not like choosing a brand of VCR. Many with a
Christian background will find Unitarian churches sterile and meaningless.
Many will find that the MCC has no serious theology, and so on. Rather than
"religion lite," which is what is all too often found in "gay" religious
groups, many people for quite discernible psychological *and* intellectual
reasons will prefer to "wrestle with angels" in a demanding religious
tradition rather than take the easy path.
In other words, it is risible to talk about religious practice as a matter of
consumer choice, when consumerism is so far from the lived reality of people's
religious lives.
Paul Halsall
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Notaro
To: Sean Robertson
Cc: D Stephen Heersink ; Chief Thracian ; gay...@QueerNet.ORG
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [GN] Another Reason to Found Gay Churches
Sean Robertson wrote:
> Why not attend a Unitarian church?
I couldn't agree more. I have been attending a UU Church since 1973 when I
first came out and all have been very supportive.
Jerry
**********
Deborah Levinson
>I guess none of you have heard of the Metropolitan Community Church.
>It is "THE GAY CHURCH" throughout the world for Gay men and Lesbians.
>It is a worldwide Christian Church.
Perhaps you haven't heard of non-Christian religions. <g>
Deborah
Who is fortunate to live in an area with two GLBT/Affirming Jewish
Congregations and many other that are "merely" affirming and welcoming.
P.S. And I was about to hit send when I realized that I would actually be
remiss if I did not share the URL to "Gays for God" --- started many years
ago by a super fellow named Mike and turned over to my care about three
years ago: http://gaylesissues.about.com/library/gfg/blgfg.htm
Puff Poofter
>rather than appending gay affiliations to Christian churches that are
>run by powerful, heterocentric attitudes. Since the passage of this
>faith-based intitiative, I see now a more urgent reason to form our
>own Gay Community religious centers that are not affiliated with any
>present, hetero-run churches, synagogues, mosques or covens.
Uhhh... Isn't that what the MCC is supposed to be ???
PP
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Marc Stauffer
I'd rather start a new Church or join the UU than spend time on changing
the existing denominations. Remember - all of them split over slavery at
the time of the civil war and some haven't joined back together since.
Marc
M. G. Stauffer
George C. Hackett
applying for a CHUNK of this faith based initiative PIE for ALL PEOPLE
except GAYS.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chief Thracian" <chieft...@runbox.com>
To: <gay...@queernet.org>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: [GN] Another Reason to Found Gay Churches
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:16:49 -0400, "Sean Robertson"
> <webolu...@webolutionary.com> wrote:
>
> >Why not attend a Unitarian church? The one in Norfolk, Virginia is
> >completely open to the gay community, performing union cermonies and
> >welcoming us as equal members of the congregation. My mother reports the
> >one in Kneosha, Wisconsin is the same.
>
> And what is their tactic to siphon funds to pro-gay liberal churches,
> and away from the homophobib babble thumpers? Are they aggressively
> fighting for their slice of the pie, in order to defend gay people and
> right these homophobic wrongs? Are they broadcasting this to all their
> flock, across this country, and the world?
>
> Or are they just lazily sitting back, oblivious to this oncoming war
> that is heating up? Is the Unitarian church gay-friendly enough to
> fight tooth and nail for a chunk of this faith-based funding, IN ORDER
> TO PROTECT AND LIBERATE GAY PEOPLE?
>
> Ask you mother about this, please.
>
>
Tim Kerslake
> In the United States, and most other countries in fact, people are not
> *required* to attend any church, synagogue, or mosque at all. Thank
God.
While reading through this thread, I was asking myself "what happens to
those people that don't particularly want to be part of a church?"
While this thread has some potential substance - if some queer people want
to form their own churches that's fine by me - please remember that there
are some people (myself included) who don't really want to be part of any
religious affiliation.
What happens to us then?
Tim.
Chief Thracian
<dogw...@worfie.net> wrote:
>While this thread has some potential substance - if some queer people want
>to form their own churches that's fine by me - please remember that there
>are some people (myself included) who don't really want to be part of any
>religious affiliation.
>
>What happens to us then?
My idea of forming queer churches in order to obtain Federal funding
is intened to serve just that purpose: to ensure that what monetary
sources dry up for the gay community, new sources will be born...via
these churches. Their funding would be promised to all gay matters in
general, not just to their own religious slant (whatever that may be).
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Chief Thracian
wrote:
>I understand, embrace, and seek queer spaces. But when heterosexuals
>are actually prohibited by rules of discrimination (instead of absent by
>culture and mores) then I feel like I have joined the enemy.
Haven't we learned the lesson yet? We CANNOT continue to allow
heterosexuals to invade our spaces. We need some REAL SANCTUARY that
is totally devoid of heteros and heterocentric dogma. Just as Israel
needed her own nation, free of anti-Semite attitudes.
To say we've joined the enemy in so doing, is like saying that to keep
all murderous psychos from our group is to become just like them. IOW,
bluntly erroneous nonsense.
>I saw several hetero "tourists" at the Dore Alley Fair this afternoon in
>San Francisco. They did not bother me one bit.
I was talking of a tragic social injustice that sorely grieves all of
us in the LGBT family. To compare that to a picnic on the street is
ludicrous.
>But a few token hets? No problem by me as long as
>they don't flaunt their heterosexual practices!
Ah, but the problem of their flaunting their dogma *is there, once you
let them in. In describing a truly gay church, I did not say we
shouldn't allow a few token hets at our service...if "token" is what
they remain.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Marc Stauffer
I am an ordained minister in the Congregational Christian Churches. I have
my degree in theology from Colgate-Rochester and doctorate from Emory Univ.
I still preach on occasion to fill in for a pastor on
vacation, interim etc. I also perform all the funerals, marriages,
baptisms for a very large extended family.
The following statement was written just off the top of my head and is
intended for discussion. I made it formal
in the sense that there are certain things that I believe are essential for
any religion to be taken seriously.
FOUNDERS
STATEMENT
FOR
THE UNIVERSAL UNITED CHURCH OF SPIRITUALITY
We the undersigned do hereby advocate the founding of a non-creedal church
- the only requirement for membership being to agree to a covenant that
with the help of the pastor and members that all will search for a deeper
meaning to life beyond self by study, inquiry, and discussion. All Holy
Writings are of equal worth for study in that search - spiritual writings
both secular and religious. The pastor's job would be solely to raise
questions for the congregation to meditate and hopefully act upon. The
pastor would also be available for such ceremonies as any church member
would request.
The minister must hold a minimum of a M.Div. degree from an accredited
school of theology - ie Yale, Harvard, Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt among
others. ( Remember students working toward an M.Div or MTh or MA in
Theology or Comparative Religions degree can emphasize virtually all
religions through various comparative religions courses.) The ministerial
candidate would be encouraged to take as wide a course range as possible in
comparative religions and theology in order to minister to a particular
congregation's needs. Those ordained and credentialed by other
denominations or religions would be accepted if called by a congregation.
The congregation and only the congregation has the power to ordain, call,
and install an individual to a ministry to them. The churches of the
denomination would agree to meet periodically to issue such social
statements as the delegates deem appropriate; but in no sense would they be
binding upon the individual churches. They may also ask other churches of
the denomination to consult with them on a candidates credentials. Mutual
support among pastors being essential to the pastor's own growth.
The Universal United Church Of Spirituality recognizes four cornerstones
for a mature faith. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. We hold
no one canon of scripture as complete or holding all the answers for
mankind but rather hold the sacred writings that have endured as all being
worthy of being canonical. We also hold that modern writings contain
spiritual insight and purpose in our lives from those of Thoreau, Dr.
Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, Buddha, Lincoln and the various native
folk lores, myths, and animism have equal power to inform the spiritual
journey of an individual.
The knowledge revealed by the various branches of study also should inform
and cause us to rethink our positions.
We covenant and agree that all members come to the church at various points
in their journey of faith. No member can, shall or must be at the same
point in their journey as any other member or affirm any belief other than
human life is unfulfilled without a deep spiritual acknowledgement.
That's a rough outline of a denomination that I would be willing to start.
Of course given it's looseness everything is open to discussion. If there
are other like minded ministers on the list - let's talk??? The
Creator-Gods and Goddesses will guide us to a greater understanding of life
and the good stewardship of all things including the earth mother and the
universe.
Marc
M. G. Stauffer
Chief Thracian
<stau...@washpost.com> wrote:
<<
We also hold that modern writings contain spiritual insight and
purpose in our lives
>>
And I surely hope that you consider my *own pro-gay spiritual
writings, which are available for anyone to read at my "Final
Testament" website. One section of my writings is "Parables for the
21st Century"...which I think will delight you. Try reading "The
Little Angel Who Wouldn't Fly", for starters.
<<
That's a rough outline of a denomination that I would be willing to
start.
>>
More power to your project, Marc. The only thing I am concerned about,
is there seems to be no mention of your church's policy to dedicate
itself to Gay Liberation, and the Gay Community at large. (One may
replace "gay" with "LGBT" if one so wishes.)
For my intent in proposing gay churches is as a strategy to counter
the anti-gay forces, and even topple them. Any gay church that now
exists, or is soon to exist, must have as its first tenet: utter
DEVOTION to the gay cause, with complete inclusion of all true LGBT
peoples (the poor, disabled, homeless, of color, war veterans, and any
and all others who are presently disenfranchised by our own "queer
mainstream"...including our outstanding gay sisters).
These gay churches must be so structured as to make it extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to corrupt or abuse in any manner that
deflects from the struggles to effectively gain LGBT liberation for
all of us, anywhere on this planet.
My proposal for forming the Blue Rose Militia offers strategems that
can be effectively applied to such Gay churches:
http://netjunk.com/users/gaybible/write/militia.htm
In fact, many of my tales and essays are fodder for a new gay
revolution...whether it manifest in new churches, political activism,
social events, or any other way. Any devoted LGBT person, should feel
free to partake of whatever ideas I contribute. For these are my gifts
to our Gay Family, with unconditional devotion.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Marc Stauffer
Yours as well as others suggestions can be included. I said in my original
post that it was a matter for the individual congregations. You are right
about the use of words - instead of church - how about sanctuary - a place
of refuge and protection and by definition any room where collective
worship of a deity occurs?
I just set a general outline on paper - - a first, and very rough draft -
I'm not the Pope - thank the gods and goddesses for that - like the
continental congress with the Declaration of Independence - all is on the
table for discussion.
It might be fun for those interested to start with my rough draft and edit
it with changes in words or thoughts that a person feels is necessary for
complete inclusiveness.
One thing pointed out was that Moslems, Jews, etc. wouldn't be comfortable
joining something called a church - we could always use the word temple or
shrine - that has less theological connotations than does the word church.
I would toss one
note of caution I DIDN'T use the word evangelical - membership would be
sought by the individuals - there would be NO, NONE, NOT ONE RED CENT spent
on evangelizing or converting others from their own faiths. For me at least
evangelization is a dangerous and insulting pursuit of Christianity as now
constituted.
As for a statement about gay liberation - I would suggest that would be
part of our "Social Statement" to the world at large.
Marc
M. G. Stauffer
Marc Stauffer
I'm ROFLMAO! I'm also sorry your tits are in such a twist today. As I've
stated in 3 postings this was a simple rough draft of a church I'd be
comfortable with - basicly an outline for a personal statement of my
theology. It was done in reply to Lefox who asked me about my religiosity.
I don't have the intent to found a church, I don't intend to access the
faith based social service monies - you must have been smoking something
when you wrote that since I've made absolutely no mention of trying to
access those monies. I've also indicated that list members are free to
play with my posting and edit it to suit themselves. I also never said I
was going to make radical or innovative changes in theology or polity.
I find it rather tragic that you feel such a need to call the traditions I
value personally as being a collection of platitudes. Each individual can
make these statements into platitudes or make them active daily values
applied to the life situations one encounters. As for having no substance
or structure we've survived for the last 200+ years very nicely thank you.
As for the derivation of church from ekklesia please go to a good
dictionary. church comes from a prehistoric WGermanic word for cave or
hollow, frequently used for religious rites. It is only secondarily
christian in its connotations - get over your Romanized world view.
Since you chose to be so formal feel free to use my title - the rest of the
people on this list have and still call me just plain Marc.
Hope your Xanax is working this weekend - relax - enjoy - meditate; it will
get the anger out of your system.
Your comments are attached for those who may have deleted them.
Marc
M. G. Stauffer
D Stephen Heersink
<dsh...@worldnet.att.net> To: "Marc Stauffer" <stau...@washpost.com>,
Sent by: gay...@QueerNet.ORG
D.Stephen...@notesrs3.wa cc:
shpost.com (dshsfca Subject: Re: [GN] Another Reason to Found Gay
Churches
08/03/2001 02:16 PM
"Marc Stauffer" <stau...@washpost.com> writes about the creation of
a Humanitarian Church to be called the Universal United Church of
Spirituality. His tentative agenda reads like most unitarian
universalist platitudes, and seem more redundant of that body than a
novation of a new body. It's not even clear whether the "church" is
anything more than a theosophy society, which, while once popular, are
almost extinct now. Besides, it's my understanding that his views are
already widely popular in the body of his own denomination,
Congregational Churches, that, coupled with the unitarians, have no
party line, no spiritual leader, no book of spiritual inspiration, no
natural lines of leadership -- in short, neither substance nor
structure.
"Church" or "ekklesia" is a distinctly a Christian appellation for
community gathered around a bishop. Historic Christianity found its
identity, not by virtue of a building, but by virtue of a bishop, who
as heir to the apostolic commission, continued steadfast in the
apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and the prayers.
It's unclear what the Rev. Stauffer's "church" would remain steadfast
to. It's so amorphous that it lacks energy. Moreover, he seems to
ignore that a "gay church" already exists in the form of the
Metropolitan Community Church, and that gay organizations exist within
Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran bodies.
Some people have not learned the lesson of history that teaches us to
work within existing structures for change rather than recreate all
structures to fit some utopian ideal. Those who work for gay inclusion
and equality have had remarkable success in existent structures such
as the Presbyterian, Anglican, Catholic, and Methodist bodies. The
struggle began in earnest only fifteen years ago, and the strides made
have really been amazing. Only impatience ignores that it took women
centuries for suffrage, while gays are making substantial in roads in
an iota of time.
If the goal of the Rev. Stauffer is to have a hand at the faith-based
doling of funds, I suggest that it is better to defeat this notion
altogether rather than convolute it. It's a bad idea, and adding
another faith-based community into the mix won't make a bad policy
better. A consensus of Congress already suggests this policy isn't
going to fly, or, if it gets off the ground at all, it's funding and
local impact will be negligible. Rather than create a Church of
Spirituality (where any spirituality goes as long as the leader has
been taught by one of the Rev. Stauffer's "approved" seminaries), I
suggest we leave Churches to the Christians and do what we can with
other forms of governmental aid.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
**********
Sean Robertson
be a mistake. As a two year member of the church here in Norfolk, I have
found plenty of substance worth noting throug the various services I have
attended. I don't think it is necessary to have a specific book or leader
to acheive substance or structure. I simple set of good solid principles
should be sufficient. The Unitarian church has that, and plenty of good
leaders within each church and the UUA in general.
I would also like to remind you that the rigid structure found in many
churches can be very detrimental, as it inhibits creativity and personal
growth. That same structure and much of the substance to which you refer
has led to a great deal of persecution throughout the ages as well. I think
a free-form construct built around democratic principles and the idea of
personal spritual growth is much more beneficial to all involved.
As for gays fitting in at other churches, how are they making inroads when
the churhces are merely trying to "turn them away from sin" rather than
kicking them out altogether? They're still being looked down on as somewhow
wrong, bad, or unclean. There are churches out there (like the Unitarian
church) that won't do that, but will accept you wholeheartedly as you are.
Is it worth attending a church that doesn't give you the bare minimum of
respect? I'm not advocating the creation of new churches, but I certainly
do suggest looking into options already in existance, like UU churches or
the MCC.
I agree 110% with your last paragraph. ;-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Stephen Heersink" <dsh...@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Marc Stauffer" <stau...@washpost.com>; <gay...@queernet.org>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [GN] Another Reason to Found Gay Churches
D Stephen Heersink
**********
Sasha Normand
> My idea of forming queer churches in order to obtain Federal funding
> is intened to serve just that purpose: to ensure that what monetary
> sources dry up for the gay community, new sources will be born...via
> these churches. Their funding would be promised to all gay matters in
> general, not just to their own religious slant (whatever that may be).
>
An interesting notion, especially since money diverted to "religious"
denominations from various public and government sources never actually goes to
projects that can be called, strictly speaking, religious. Perhaps we can even
find funding for gay missionaries and send them out to offer food and shelter
to starving, homeless people, but force them to convert to homosexuality in the
process, and set about destroying any native sexual systems they might already
have.
--
cheers,
Sasha
****************************************************************
Sasha Normand
110 W. Chelsea
Tampa, Florida 33603
"There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, and
knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them."
--J.K. Rowling
Sasha Normand
That said, a former boyfriend who was raised Protestant occasionally
asked if I would attend an MCC service with him. I agreed that I would
do this *for him* and we went, a service that resulted in a very sore
side from where he kept elbowing me. Raised in a religion that
prohibits the discussion, handling or exchanging of money within the
chapel, I have always seen most Christian denominations as somewhat
mercenary, but the MCC service not only took the cake, it charged for
each slice. The cleric (I am unsure of his actual title) managed to
direct the sermon, the readings, the particular prayers recited, the
speech, and everything else in the service (in a feat of rhetorical
strategy) toward the recurring theme of "Why You Are Holier If You Cough
Up Some Moolah Now." As each new segment of the ceremony began and then
turned to the same theme, I had an increasingly difficult time stifling
laughter. My side was black and blue, my boyfriend never again asked me
to go to church, and I had learned a valuable lesson: you can take the
homos out of the Church...
--
cheers,
Sasha
****************************************************************
Sasha Normand
110 W. Chelsea
Tampa, Florida 33603
"There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each
other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them."
--J.K. Rowling
**********
David Thompson
> Haven't we learned the lesson yet? We CANNOT continue to allow heterosexuals
> to invade our spaces. We need some REAL SANCTUARY that is totally devoid of
> heteros and heterocentric dogma. Just as Israel needed her own nation, free
> of anti-Semite attitudes.
I have no problem with wanting a gay-exclusive zone. I do, however, have a
problem with trying to implement it. Unlike Jews, African Americans, Female
Americans et al, there is no established scientific method for determining
sexual identity except to ask the subject or observe conduct and that can
prove inaccurate. This is not to question the legitimacy of
homosexuality--only that we know little enough about the working of the brain
to be able to conclude what makes one homosexual.
Case in point: Here in Minneapolis, there is a bar called the Gay 90s.
EVERYONE goes there--gay, straight, male, female, and everyone in between. It
is considered a gay bar as it is advertised as such in the local gay rags, in
addition to being identified in Damron without being labeled "Gay Friendly".
However, it has become something of a Studio 54 of the 21st Century. It
was--at one time--a gay-exclusive zone which, for whatever reason, became an
establishment which also catered to (and, some would say, was infiltrated by)
the straight community. Is this appropriate? Ultimately, the owners of 90s
and its gay clientele will have to decide that using economic leverage but it
does demonstrate the difficulty of establishing a gay-exclusive zone which
maintains its integrity as such.
Establishing a gay-zone would be wonderful. Managing to do so in the current
system is difficult at best.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Chief Thracian
<david_ala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Establishing a gay-zone would be wonderful. Managing to do so in the current
>system is difficult at best.
I am well aware of the point you are making, David. However, that does
not stop me from conjecturing and proposing truely gay sanctuaries,
free of any form of heterocentric dogma. While the ability to
differentiate heterosexuals from gays--within large groups and
communities--seems impossible at first glance (and even second, third,
etc.), it is certainly not insurmountable. More difficult problems
have been overcome, in our history.
One idea is to require all members to wear a particular symbol at our
gatherings...which design would be instantly shunned by any
heterocentric boor. This would ensure that whatever heteros wear such
symble to attend, are true friends to gays. And what few sabotuers may
dwell among them, would be easy to flush out by use of simple verbal
strategies that test them without their awareness.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Chief Thracian
<stau...@washpost.com> wrote:
>As for a statement about gay liberation - I would suggest that would be
>part of our "Social Statement" to the world at large.
If it's not in the basic tenets of your sanctuary, it's of no value.
To save pro-gay affirmation later on, in a public address, seems
somewhat treacherous. I don't see why anyone should have any problem
putting gay protection and liberation as the basic goal for a
sanctuary. After all, I am proposing *gay sanctuaries...not ones that
are generalized. For we already have plenty of those kind...and the
vast majority of them aggressively attack gays; or at best, remain
silent about this issue.
For you are proposing is not any sort of gay church, temple,
sanctuary, or what have you. No, not at all. You are proposing a
universal center that does not have gay liberation as its
heart...which is what I am proposing.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Chief Thracian
>An interesting notion, especially since money diverted to "religious"
>denominations from various public and government sources never actually goes to
>projects that can be called, strictly speaking, religious.
My poiny exactly, Sasha: play dirty pool back; don't let the bigot
fundies have their way with their plenitude of financial resources so
willingly tossed at them by the new Right-Wing Regime. I am not
talking here of running a legitimate church, but of creating a church
legitimately, by the letter of the law. This is a possible strategy
that will enable our LGBT community to survive through this hateful
era...perhaps even thrive, regardless.
>Perhaps we can even
>find funding for gay missionaries and send them out to offer food and shelter
>to starving, homeless people, but force them to convert to homosexuality in the
>process, and set about destroying any native sexual systems they might already
>have.
Why would you imply that the churches I propose would do such a thing?
Don't you have faith in your own family...that we would manage to
minimize corruption, and maximize benevolence? These churches I
propose would first reach out to the most desparate and marginalized
of our own Community...then to the next most desparate, and so on.
Once we have accomplished complete inclusion of all our Family--which
also implies a decent level w/basic level of affluence--then we can
reach out to other who are not LGB or T. There would be no
poselytation allowed, in any manner. However, we would publicize our
charitable programs, to make the world know that our church is run by
and for LGBT's. Otherwise, the majority would assume, by default, that
our church is your usual run of the mill heterocentered organization.
As for "native sexual systems": in most of them, prior to Western
History, homosexuality was a happily integrated facet of their sex
lives...and in a plethora of such cultures, homosexuals were revered
as spiritual leaders.
As a church devoted to LGBT liberation, we would, however, publicly
(and often) condemn the practices that sprout from heterocentric/
patriarchal dogma. Condemning heterosexist ideas is a far cry from
condemning heterosexuals.
---
"Give us marriage or give us death:
Slay the beast of homophobia!"
-Zeke Krahlin, Chief Thracian
http://surf.to/gaybible
**********
Eric Bohlman
>I have no problem with wanting a gay-exclusive zone. I do, however, have a
>problem with trying to implement it. Unlike Jews, African Americans, Female
>Americans et al, there is no established scientific method for determining
>sexual identity except to ask the subject or observe conduct and that can
>prove inaccurate. This is not to question the legitimacy of
>homosexuality--only that we know little enough about the working of the brain
>to be able to conclude what makes one homosexual.
This is sort of an aside, but there really isn't an "established scientific method" for determining
whether one is Jewish or African-American, either, and in the case of females, the method sometimes
breaks down. In the former two cases, the definition is quite arbitrary; one is considered Jewish
if one's mother was considered Jewish; this is a recursive definition without a stopping rule. In
the US during Reconstruction, and in South Africa during Apartheid, there were elaborate laws
setting out criteria for whether one was "black" or "white"; the criteria were quite arbitrary, and
many people who would consider themselves "white" were classed as "black" under the laws, and vice-
versa. There is no purely biologically-based procedure for assigning an individual to a racial
category; racial categories are socially defined, and have extremely fuzzy boundaries that vary
with place and time. Even with male/female, there are anomalies, such as the Olympic athlete who
was stripped of her medal because she was chromosomally "male," but later went on to give birth to
several children.
Ultimately, membership in most of the categories you mentioned comes down to self-identification,
and the amount of variation, on any variable you can name, *within* each category is usually
greater than the amount of variation *between* the categories. Lots of people who would self-
identify as "gay" have very little in common with each other, and some of them would have more in
common with people who self-identify as "straight." Name any criterion you want, and you'll find
exceptions. Common sense would say, for example, that someone who's freaked out at the thought of
two men kissing couldn't be "gay," but one can easily find men whose sexual attraction is entirely
to other men who *are* freaked out by it (most of them will outgrow the revulsion, but group-
membership criteria, to be meaningful, can't be based on future traits). Biologically, there's no
gurantee that when we finally learn everything there is to know about how sexual orientation
develops, we won't find that there are several different pathways to becoming gay (or straight, or
bi); in fact, I'd be surprised if there weren't.
Sean Robertson
> heterosexuals to invade our spaces. We need some REAL SANCTUARY that
> is totally devoid of heteros and heterocentric dogma. Just as Israel
> needed her own nation, free of anti-Semite attitudes.
I beg to differ! Why should we exclude those heterosexual people who
support us? There are a lot of them out there, one need only walk into my
church to see well over two hundred of them. How would it be fair or proper
to discriminate against those people? Our cause would be far better served
by welcoming EVERYONE, including homophobes (so long as they behave
themselves, of course), and preaching a religion of compassion, tolerance,
and inclusion. When homophobes are exposed to us and given an opportunity
to see where we are coming from, they are far more likely to be turned
around than they would be if they were automatically excluded.
You cannot build anything positive around such a strong negative as that
kind of outright discrimination. It becomes self-defeating, because
everyone would resent you all the more for saying they are not welcome.
Lead by example and show people that we don't behave that way, no matter
what they think or do. Give them the opportunity to see that we are no less
normal people than they are, and earn their respect.
> To say we've joined the enemy in so doing, is like saying that to keep
> all murderous psychos from our group is to become just like them. IOW,
> bluntly erroneous nonsense.
No, but killing them all off, instead of trying to find some way to treat
them and return them safely to normal productive lives sure as hell is.
D Stephen Heersink
>I beg to differ! Why should we exclude those heterosexual people who
>support us? There are a lot of them out there, one need only walk into my
>church to see well over two hundred of them. How would it be fair or proper
>to discriminate against those people? Our cause would be far better served
>by welcoming EVERYONE, including homophobes (so long as they behave
>themselves, of course), and preaching a religion of compassion, tolerance,
>and inclusion. When homophobes are exposed to us and given an opportunity
>to see where we are coming from, they are far more likely to be turned
>around than they would be if they were automatically excluded.
>
>You cannot build anything positive around such a strong negative as that
>kind of outright discrimination. It becomes self-defeating, because
>everyone would resent you all the more for saying they are not welcome.
>Lead by example and show people that we don't behave that way, no matter
>what they think or do. Give them the opportunity to see that we are no less
>normal people than they are, and earn their respect.
This wonderful retort is close to my heart and mind. Too many gays and
lesbians and transgendered people have been the victims of EXCLUSION,
that the worst message we can afford to send is that we are all to
exclude all straights, simply because some of them have been
injurious. Robertson's point is well taken. To get to where we are
today has taken the support of the straight community, and how are we,
apriori, to know who 'se for us or against us? Let us reward and
respond to our straight friends by inviting them into our most
hallowed places, if that be their desire, for it is their approbation,
not opprobrium, that we seek in our struggle for equal rights.
________________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
**********