Susan's Place Transgender Resources

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12591/arizona-pastors-sermons-call-for-execution-of-gays-barney-frank-and-the-president (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12591/arizona-pastors-sermons-call-for-execution-of-gays-barney-frank-and-the-president)

There's just no words to adequately express how disappointing it is that hate mongers such as this one can find support and acceptance of their hatemongering amongst any portion of the public.

OMG this is one truly sick individual. He is truly disgusting.

This guy is even crazier than the Georgia lawmaker that believes in caning pot smokers and executing their dealers (http://stash.norml.org/georgia-rep-tommy-benton-favors-caning-and-executions-for-marijuana-crimes/).

I am a firm believer in freedom of speech... It lets us know who our enemies are.
Without it, they would sit in darkness, plotting our doom.

I cry for our species.   :icon_cry:

Isn't he just special.

-={LR}=-

Wait... God instituted the death penalty for murderers?  Why didn't he do it the same in every state?  And I really don't remember God instituting the death penalty for gays.  Maybe I missed the passage of that law.

I guess God is now a politician, or should I say lawmaker?

When will we pass legislation that holds people like this responsible for their words.  We got Manson convicted for telling his followers to commit murder, why not nuts like this?

Maybe it's time to apply penalties for hate mongering.

Julie

In Iceland this would be considered to be "promoting violence towards a minority" and so would be an offence that get ya a hefty fine for publicly stating that gays should be killed.. heftier each time you shoot your mouth off in a public forum... until you end up with jail sentencing.

Yes, you're allowed to hold this opinion, no you're not allowed to try and convince other people that that opinion is "okay" and that acting on it is justified.

You'll find the penalities all laid out in either Leviticus or Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch. They are located near the ones that also demand redress for those wearing blended fabric clothing and those who eat shellfish.

I don't think god was all that down on hate-mongering though. Don't recall any penalities demanded for hating someone else. In fact, given a few of god's commands about slaughtering Amalekites and Gibeonites and various other folk, one might presume that god was positively ardently in-favor of hatred.

I posted this on his wife's blog in reference to her post here about a cop who tassered an innocent mother (http://stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.com/2009/08/mom-tased-during-routine-traffic-stop.html) I'm sure it will be deleted but...


This cop is no worse then a pastor who says gays should be executed. He's just as bad as the pastor who says that rapist are the same as homosexuals. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. 

So very true Cami. An oath breaker is an oath breaker, and any officer going that far out of line should have his/her badge removed and spend jail time.

If those entrusted with the power of law and arrest are allowed to use them cruelly or wrongfully, then we may as well have stayed British, allowed the barracking of soldiers in our homes and never tasted the rights of innocence until proven guilty, God bless King George and all that..

And my apologies to our English cousins..
God save America, God save England and God Save the Queen.
but mostly Lord, please save us from your most insane followers..please??? pretty please??  :eusa_pray:

Another nut case using religion as an excuse to commit murder? Now that is a surprise.

Kinda reminds me of another nut job from the 1940's  :P

Quote from: Miniar on August 21, 2009, 11:56:52 AM
There's just no words to adequately express how disappointing it is that hate mongers such as this one can find support and acceptance of their hatemongering amongst any portion of the public.

Meh.

there's a fruit-loop fringe to every ideaology no matter how good or bad the core ideas are.

I'd be willing to bet the Dude's "church" features about 20 members. the accesability of the internet gives every crackpot a soapbox and more visibility than his stupidity would otherwise get.

there are pretty large and busy white supremacist forums that get a lot more traffic than this guy gets.

Oh, and as an aside, Pam undermines an otherwise solid post by resorting to the tired old Iraq war discussion. Not EVERYTHING that one comments on should be a fertile spot to take a dig at W.

---

Post Merge: August 21, 2009, 06:10:57 PM

---

Quote from: Julie Marie on August 21, 2009, 03:17:23 PM
Wait... God instituted the death penalty for murderers?  Why didn't he do it the same in every state?  And I really don't remember God instituting the death penalty for gays.  Maybe I missed the passage of that law.

I guess God is now a politician, or should I say lawmaker?

When will we pass legislation that holds people like this responsible for their words.  We got Manson convicted for telling his followers to commit murder, why not nuts like this?

Maybe it's time to apply penalties for hate mongering.

Julie

Would you want those penalties applied to, for instance, a gay person who publicly declares hatred for Christians and the church?

(and bet your buttons they are out there)

Or heck, take sexuality out of it - I see people on line EVERY day who rip on the church and declare all religion is evil - we gonna pass a law broad enough to stop THAT hatred too?

If so, I nod with respect to your views - just be consistent.

---

Post Merge: August 21, 2009, 07:33:55 PM

---

OK...following some links (thanks for the link to her blog) ...looks like this guy is getting some traction by playing the martyr (perhaps not entirely without cause) concerning an incident with the Border Patrol

Not to take issue with him on the constitutional issues but...his hatefulness disqualifies him from getting so large a platform, IMO - hopefully someone within that political body he's getting noticed by steps up and calls him out on that crap.

"The same God who instituted the death penalty for murders is the same god who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals, sodomites and queers"

Some other things that are also capital crimes, according to the Old Testament:

A woman losing her virginity before marriage, or being either party in adultery with a married woman.

Striking or cursing one's own parent.

Breaking the Sabbath.  This would include such things as driving, making a telephone call or turning on a light, between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.  I guarantee that the pastor in question has been guilty of this one.  He is probably also guilty of the capital crime of "false prophecy".  He and his entire congregation is probably also guilty of the capital crimes of "sacrificing to gods other than God alone," if they pass a collection plate in the name of Jesus.

Quote from: Laura Hope on August 21, 2009, 07:05:36 PMWould you want those penalties applied to, for instance, a gay person who publicly declares hatred for Christians and the church?

(and bet your buttons they are out there)

Or heck, take sexuality out of it - I see people on line EVERY day who rip on the church and declare all religion is evil - we gonna pass a law broad enough to stop THAT hatred too?

If so, I nod with respect to your views - just be consistent.

Preaching hatred and murder is wrong, no matter who does it.  But I have to ask myself why you would even ask the question?  I think I've been pretty clear about where I stand.

As far as people who "rip on the church", can you blame them?  EVERY attack on the LGBT community comes from people who profess to be religious.  Oh, there may be an exception or two but they are few.  But I have NEVER heard one gay, lesbian or trans person aggressively attack any religious position, unless it is in defense or in violation of their civil rights.

Tell Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, Traditional Values Coalition, Americans for Truth, Concerned Women for America, the Maine Family Policy Council, National Organization for Marriage, etc to stop waging negative campaigns against LGBT people and see how long the war lasts.  It will end in an instant because LGBT people don't want a war.  They just want to be treated like every other normal person and enjoy the same rights.

Is that so hard?   

Julie

Honestly, Laura, I don't understand why you defend Christians when the OVERWHELMING evidence says that they are hateful and bigoted.  I was there and when I saw the light, I was SO ashamed of my past views. Isn't it time to face it that those who you defend are willing to betray all of us including you...

Come now Maggie,

Not all Christians are evil.. some of my staunchest supporters are Christians, including family members.. and I'm pagan..

You have a right to your opinion, but in their defense, there are good among the bad and bad among the good in every walk of life. Not to mention the fact that a good many of our brothers and sisters here are in fact Christians themselves..

Just a little perspective..

Quote from: Shanawolf on August 21, 2009, 09:59:52 PM
Come now Maggie,

Not all Christians are evil.. some of my staunchest supporters are Christians, including family members.. and I'm pagan..

You have a right to your opinion, but in their defense, there are good among the bad and bad among the good in every walk of life. Not to mention the fact that a good many of our brothers and sisters here are in fact Christians themselves..

Just a little perspective..

Agreed. The majority of Christian people I talk to are not accepting of pretty much anything. But there are some that are accepting and not the stereotypical kind

You are aware aren't you that the idea and ideal of free speak is to protect the speech you find repugnant, abhorrent and detestable. You never have to worry about speech that is popular, well-liked, and non-threatening.

And the reason that W Bush makes such an attractive target in any number of ways, and on just about any conceivable level, is its hard to really get down and even begin to imagine just how much stuff he screwed up, how bad he screwed it up, and how much contempt he had for the people he was screwing over as he was doing it.

He left office with just about every major Presidential historian calling him the worst president ever.  You just don't forget that kind of bad overnight.  Or ever.

People will always focus on the "greatest" anything, greatest football game, greatest actress, greatest president and all that.  But we also never forget the greatest screw-ups either, like we don't forget the greatest serial killers, and mass murders - it's not just a matter of what they did (which was pretty amazing) but the totality and scale of its execution that boggles the mind.

Quote
You are aware aren't you that the idea and ideal of free speak is to protect the speech you find repugnant, abhorrent and detestable. You never have to worry about speech that is popular, well-liked, and non-threatening.

For once we completely agree.

Though it boggles my mind how you made the leap from this paragraph to a rant about W.

Didn't phase me a bit. I had a friend in San Diego that could turn any conversation about anything into a Bush and religion rant. Plus I had to work with the guy  :laugh:

Quote from: N~ on August 21, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
You'll find the penalities all laid out in either Leviticus or Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch. They are located near the ones that also demand redress for those wearing blended fabric clothing and those who eat shellfish.

I don't think god was all that down on hate-mongering though. Don't recall any penalities demanded for hating someone else. In fact, given a few of god's commands about slaughtering Amalekites and Gibeonites and various other folk, one might presume that god was positively ardently in-favor of hatred.

Since you brought this up, I'll respond to your post. (But take this as a response to the ideas in general.)

First, let's look at where the Levitical code came about. Back then, the penalty for murder was not just death, but death to the family of the murderer as well. You see how this gets out of hand; and yet it is the way humans operate. The revenge impulse always outweighs the initial harm. So "an eye for an eye" is a major improvement on that pretty terribe scheme. Much of religious law has a similar liberal spirit that gets corrupted blind orthopraxy. You might recall a later episode in the Bible where God rails against the keepers of the law, the Pharisees. An obvious example of religious laws meant to liberalize society becoming repressive with a change in society and a conservative take on society is Islamic law regarding women. Those laws were initially intended to protect women from violence. Levitical law tends to be similar, just much older.

Second, what do you have against codes as to how you live? I know plenty of people who keep to plenty of different codes; some won't wear polyester, some won't wear leather, some won't eat meat, etc. Keeping kosher isn't that much different. It's a way to keep healthy and develop a culture.

As to the later parts of Hebrew scripture, yeah, it's violent, and there are some reasons for that. Mostly because it amounts to a history book from before history was even remotely intended to be objective. You will see similar stories in many cultures. Ask a Hopi or Ute or Zuni about their stories regarding the Navajo; or vice versa. Sick stuff. But honest, and that's the point, to me. If you read a little farther in the Bible, to the part about Jesus, it gets rather less militant. Oh, and that part about "an eye for an eye" gets amended too.

But you knew this, right?

--

Regarding the initial post:

This Pastor seems to be "Baptist" in the same sense that Fred Phelps is "Baptist" -- i.e., he claims the name, and might come from an SBC background (not that I'm a big fan of SBC), but he's gone off to create a little evil personality cult. Even among rather awfully conservative Christians who won't abide anything remotely queer, I don't think you'll find many who would identify with this guy's views. It's a little like taking a statement from Osama bin Laden as representing Islam.

Perhaps this guy isn't quite that bad -- I'm not terribly interested in researching him -- maybe he's just a hothead who shoots of at the mouth (but he sounds worse than that). But he is hardly representative of the mainstream leadership in the U.S. Try to imagine a Catholic bishop saying that kind of stuff. It just doesn't happen.

What part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" do extreme Christians find so hard to understand?   :icon_no:

I mean, aside from the fact that the same book that lays this out as one of the 10 absolute laws of God, is also one of the bloodiest, most violent, most completely self-contradictory books in existence.  ::)

That being said, I really don't think it's Christianity, per se, that is the problem.  It's the Christian extremists, along with all the other religious zealots in the world, who are the problem.  It's when faith in somebody's interpretation of scripture becomes more important than one's own abilities to think logically and to interact with compassion, that spirituality takes a dark and evil turn.

I've always said that, if I were the Devil, I would create religions based on common beliefs of the day, but infused with hatred and self-righteousness.  After all, what would be more supremely blasphemous than to trick people into doing the Devil's work in the name of God?

Quote from: Alyssa M. on August 22, 2009, 02:35:09 AM
...

But you knew this, right? ...

Of course not, Alyssa.

I usually always wait on you to bring knowledge to me.

You're certainly allowed to live under Levitical law if you wish.

In your peroration I think you miss the idea that if one wishes one can always keep a 3000 + year-old desert bedouin law if one wishes. No harm in that at all. I think what you miss in your zeal is that if one is going to bandy such legal precedent as the one he uses about gays as "god's law" then perhaps it makes more sense to keep kosher and to wear non-blended clothing and to keep the rest of that law as well.

Afterall, if god said it, ... no? 

Back to the original topic, this "pastor" (using that term in this case turns my stomach) needs to understand that because of his remarks, he should not be surprised or appalled when Arizona gays call for his execution.  Funny how that works.  I just hope someone has the guts to step in and put a halt to this cycle of idiocy. 

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

I just hope someone has the guts to step in and put a halt to this cycle of idiocy

Well, the 'lets not respond to them' had kinda almost worked, but they they all got up a frothing that the mouth again having lost control of America because of some sort of conspiracy, but yeah, the way they counted votes in Florida for Bush was sure all above board, but this time unknown forces, aided by a demonic, yet also largely unknown, Liberal Media, have conspired to take away their guns under a heath care policy deal (guns are unhealthy after all, at some point, so that kinda makes sense) that will never work because the government can't ever do anything right and it would be all like the DMV except that the government is some all powerful deal that is sweeping down and its like huge and incompetent at the same time - and damn it, its time for Biblical Justice.  And though we can't do anything about the forces of real oppression, then let us take out vengeance on an old standby, the gays.  Of course our anti-black deal is simmering right there under the surface too. 

He's just trying to make religion all meaningful for his followers, ain't that a happy thought.

And I thought the ancestors of these people who came to this country to escape religious persecution wanted this country to always be free of religious persecution.  Guess I was wrong.

Now, when and where will the executions take place?  Do I get a number?  I'll need to get my hair and nails done first!

Julie

Yeah, but were a very long way from the people who were here in the beginning, its been a very long 200+ years, lots of changes.  The people who were escaping religious persecution never put with with public homosexuality either.

If you can live by a book that is 2000 years old, you can live by a document that is 200 years old.

Well the document is a lot easier to follow for the most part.  Very simple, but its not as much fun as the book.

The pastor is simply mouthing the views of many of the church's followers. I agree that not all Christians are evil. I was a devout fundamentalist Christian in my past and was in leadership position in the church.  I taught a Bible study class.  What was also rampant in our main stream congregation was a regular discussion of the homosexuals trying to take over the church.  They were viewed as servants of Satan and had to be stopped.  Now none advocated violence nor did I but I can tell you that the fear was so intense that if someone was to spark a conflict, I cannot imagine what might have happened but it would not have been good.

The majority of Christians that I have known are Sunday believers.  They get very pious on Sunday but the rest of the time, they don't factor in the teachings of Jesus much at all.  I was deeply concerned about this when I was leading the congregation in prayer or responsive readings.   This is not to say that they didn't take a basic moral framework from what was preached but it was a pick and choose mentality.  One didn't want to be "Too Religious"  Well I was. Anti gay sentiment was an exception.  It took root amongst most.

I posted this topic and others like it partly to alert our community that there is a gathering storm and it is not as NOM says but in reverse.  If you pay attention, you can see that as we get more civil rights and acceptance, there are more and more in the Christian community that will become in favor of actions against us.  Some will advocate imprecatory prayer asking God for our elimination.  We will see them turning a blind eye as church members kill and maim saying that the perpetrator was not representative of the mainstream.   Look at the disgusting excuse that is laid against ENDA, namely that it will allow perverts dressed in women's clothes to molest little girls.  They do not care that we have a major issue of life just this trumped up fear.  Why? Because they hate us.

And if this pastor is so out of the mainstream where is the condemnation by the religious leaders?  They should be out there telling their flock that this is totally unacceptable.  Yet time after time when stories like this come out, they are silent.  Why? Could it be because they approve?

One of the problems that I had when I was deep in the faith as many here seem to be is that I found it very very painful to read anything that was critical of my faith.  I avoided headlines like this one.  I rationalized that not everyone in the faith is like that.  I dismissed the fact that the leadership was really influential in matters of the church.  I urge you, don't do this.  Educate yourself to what is happening.

I predict that we will see an escalation of anti LBGT rhetoric from the Christian leadership in the coming months.  I predict that transgender people will be a major target of their vitriol.  You can keep defending them if you want but at your own peril.   Stay alert.

Maggie

QuoteThis Pastor seems to be "Baptist" in the same sense that Fred Phelps is "Baptist" -- i.e., he claims the name, and might come from an SBC background (not that I'm a big fan of SBC),

From browsing the blogs he and his wife have up, i believe that he's Independent Baptist (which is WAY more Fundie than the SBC)

QuoteAnd if this pastor is so out of the mainstream where is the condemnation by the religious leaders?  They should be out there telling their flock that this is totally unacceptable.  Yet time after time when stories like this come out, they are silent.  Why? Could it be because they approve?

I'll wager 98% of all pastors have never heard of the guy.

I'd also wager that you personally are not aware of WHO 98% of pastors are condemning from the pulpit (specifically I mean, not groups in general)

Beyond that, there's a problem with this guy - he apparently is getting his limited notoriety from a run in with some over-zealous law enforcement officers at a checkpoint and that part of the political spectrum who's up in arms about the invasive power of government have taken him up as a pet project (you could watch a number of YouTube videos on it)

So that leaves these folks with a reason to give him a soapbox - and I'll be most of those following his story have never heard him preach about gays or call anyone a ->-bleeped-<-got. To be sure, some of those praising him would probably not mind his sermon about gays....I won't deny that - but my guess is most of them haven't bothered to learn anything about him beyond the incident he's known for.


By the way, while I do agree with you that some of the anti-gay voices are getting more and more shrill and irrational, I am of the opinion - and have been since before I accepted my own nature - that we are living in a Post-Christian culture and that the influence of the church is waining and will continue to. The shrillness you see is not an ascending power, but a fading one lashing out in the throes of a decline that it has no power to stop.

I think there are good AND bad consequences to this sea-change but it IS, imo, happening and nothing short of divine intervention will change it. Maybe that's why I don't tremble in fear of what Christians will do to us as so many seem to.

Quote from: Julie Marie on August 22, 2009, 10:34:47 AM
And I thought the ancestors of these people who came to this country to escape religious persecution wanted this country to always be free of religious persecution.  Guess I was wrong.

Julie

Yes, you were wrong.  But it's not your fault for believing the mythology you were taught in school.

The religeous groups that founded the various colonies were seeking to escape from their being persecuted; and to set up situations where their group could be in the majority and persecute others.  Every colony had an official religeon, and laws to restrict (or outlaw) other religeons.  When Jefferson wrote The Virginia Statute For Religeous Freedom in 1779, it was such a revolutionary idea that it took 7 years of rangling before it was finally passed into law in 1786.

I strictly support the freedom of speech but where that support ends is when someone starts making threats of violence or otherwise advocating violence against others. That is generally not constitutionally protected speech. Direct threats are illegal in most states and at the federal level as well. It is not uncommon when someone talks (or jokes) about "killing the President" that within a number of hours the FBI is knocking on their door. Advocating violence against anyone is essentially making a threat although indirectly.

Frankly, it is quite stupid because some loud mouth like this Pastor could set off the wrong person and either find his own church burned to the ground or his own life in danger. I certainly don't advocate those things but it is not tactically smart either to be advocating the deaths of entire groups of people. Those people may get angry.

Quote from: Britney_413 on August 23, 2009, 06:47:06 PM
It is not uncommon when someone talks (or jokes) about "killing the President" that within a number of hours the FBI is knocking on their door.

This is true.  It happened to a photography teacher I once had, when he was in college.  He was overheard saying that he was going to go down to a political rally and shoot Nixon.  He meant with his camera.  :D

Sorry ... hijack over, back to your thread.

I am a born again Christian and transgender. I have been Christian for nearly 37 years. What this 'pastor' represents is a stench in God's nostrils. One way that I'm trying to change the perception is sharing with transgender people that God loves them. Not an easy task but it must be done.

One other thing, just because the messenger isn't any good doesn't invalidate God's love for us. Sooner or later, people like this 'pastor' will stand before his Maker and give an account.

Gennee

Quote from: Maggie Kay on August 22, 2009, 11:36:00 AM
I posted this topic and others like it partly to alert our community that there is a gathering storm and it is not as NOM says but in reverse.  If you pay attention, you can see that as we get more civil rights and acceptance, there are more and more in the Christian community that will become in favor of actions against us.  Some will advocate imprecatory prayer asking God for our elimination.  We will see them turning a blind eye as church members kill and maim saying that the perpetrator was not representative of the mainstream.   Look at the disgusting excuse that is laid against ENDA, namely that it will allow perverts dressed in women's clothes to molest little girls.  They do not care that we have a major issue of life just this trumped up fear.

I've noticed that their accusing their enemies of doing something abhorrent is usually a precursor to their doing the exact same damn thing.

"Shoving your disgusting lifestyle down our throats"?  Pretty soon they're shoving something down our throats.

"Indoctrinate our children with your disgusting ideology"?  Prelude to pushing for mandatory CHRISTIAN!!! prayer in schools.

"'Evolution' is really a way to sneak secular humanism into our schools".  They'll fix that by banning it and teaching creationism as science.

Pay attention to their words.  What they accuse their enemies of doing is a tip-off to what they wish to be doing.

This pastor is an anomaly.  It's rare to find someone who puts his dreams of righteous retribution so plainly and so front-and-center.  I've heard others say the same things when they thought they were safe.

Karen

Couldn't agree with you more Karen.  That which they use to demonize us is what comes from the minds of people who want to do that TO us.

From the beginning of Christianity it seems followers of the faith believe it is their duty to convert.  And history tells us of an inordinate amount of death and destruction resulting in that campaign.  Besides things like the holy wars, missionaries brought into unsuspecting civilizations diseases that practically wiped them out.  All in the sake of conversion.

I will never understand why people feel an need and an obligation to push their ideology on people who don't want it.  "Saving the sinner" is just a spin on "I feel uncomfortable with you so you need to change."  What ever happened to "Live and let live"?

Julie

Julie i confess I've never been much of an "evagalistic" type - far less so than the logic i am about to explain should have mad me BUT....

whenever I hear someone expres the sentiments you just did, i know I'm hearing from a person who's never even TRIED to put themselves in the shoes of the person they don't approve of.

Lay aside whatever skepticism you might have about the supernatural or the Christian/Biblical take on it for just a second and try to see how the question looks from their side.

I once heard a minister explain it like this. If you are walking through a neighborhood one night and you see a house with flames coming out one window, what do you do? Do you respect the privacy of the homeowner? Do you refrain from disturbing his rest? to you "live and let live" figuring if he really wants to stay in a house that's on fire it's none of your business?

Of course not - you ignore all those considerations and pull out all the stops to warn the person of impending danger.

THAT, my friend, is how the evangelistic Christian sees the question. According to their DEEPLY held belief system, a person who hasn't been "saved" by faith in Christ IS in mortal peril and that being the case, attempting to warn that person - even in the face of indifference or even hostility - is the noblest service they can possibly render. It's not "oppression" or "imposition" or "harassment"....it's the same as getting that fellow out of the burning house.

Now, YOU may know full well (according to your worldview) that the house is not on fire and, in fact, that there is no such thing as fire at all - in which case you are justifiably annoyed at this delusional person banging on your door shouting "Fire!"

But from there point of view, as they understand the nature of human existence, the worst thing they could possibly do to you is leave you to your fate.

That's why.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 04, 2009, 12:56:11 AM
THAT, my friend, is how the evangelistic Christian sees the question. According to their DEEPLY held belief system, a person who hasn't been "saved" by faith in Christ IS in mortal peril and that being the case, attempting to warn that person - even in the face of indifference or even hostility - is the noblest service they can possibly render. It's not "oppression" or "imposition" or "harassment"....it's the same as getting that fellow out of the burning house.

Now, YOU may know full well (according to your worldview) that the house is not on fire and, in fact, that there is no such thing as fire at all - in which case you are justifiably annoyed at this delusional person banging on your door shouting "Fire!"

But from there point of view, as they understand the nature of human existence, the worst thing they could possibly do to you is leave you to your fate.

In this case, we're talking about a man who believes in speeding gays along to eternal torture.  This isn't about compassion and salvation, it's about sadism and hate.  Even for less extreme evangelicals, I think a lot of them, deep in their hearts, wouldn't be all that sad if God smote the lot of us right now.

According to their DEEPLY held belief system, a person who hasn't been "saved" by faith in Christ IS in mortal peril and that being the case, attempting to warn that person - even in the face of indifference or even hostility - is the noblest service they can possibly render. It's not "oppression" or "imposition" or "harassment"....it's the same as getting that fellow out of the burning house.


So, we're supposed to humor them because they have a mental defect that lets them think they have an imaginary friend in the sky?

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 04, 2009, 12:56:11 AM
Julie i confess I've never been much of an "evagalistic" type - far less so than the logic i am about to explain should have mad me BUT....

whenever I hear someone expres the sentiments you just did, i know I'm hearing from a person who's never even TRIED to put themselves in the shoes of the person they don't approve of.

First of all, you couldn't be more wrong about me not putting myself in someone else's shoes.  I do it all the time to help me understand why people do what they do.  And when I put myself in the shoes of someone knocking at my door trying to convert me to their religious beliefs I wonder what took place in their lives that led them to believe this is an acceptable form of human behavior.  They don't know me at all.  They don't know what is in my heart.  Yet they feel they have an obligation to condemn me and try to persuade me to accept their faith as my own.  I could spend a lifetime in their shoes and never understand that self righteous attitude.

If you break my door down because you think my house is on fire only to find I have a roaring fire safely contained in my fireplace, I would hope you would be extremely apologetic about breaking in and offer to pay for the damages.  And then, I expect, you would leave.  You wouldn't take a hose and try to douse the fire in spite of my protests.

These people don't listen to us.  They INSIST we are sinners who need saving, even though we harm no one and are happy in our beliefs.  They are either extremely dense or so brainwashed by their religious beliefs that they can't see the person screaming in their face saying, "Leave me ALONE!!!"

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 04, 2009, 12:56:11 AMBut from there point of view, as they understand the nature of human existence, the worst thing they could possibly do to you is leave you to your fate.

That's why.

Well maybe they should do what you accused me of not doing, put themselves in the shoes of the people who they are harassing and making their lives miserable.  Because if they did, they would understand we see them as a bunch of meddlesome busybodies who need to mind their own business.

Maybe you can talk to THEM about the shoe on the other foot concept.  :eusa_think:

Julie

Laura,

I once gave that exact argument to "unbelievers" as a way to help them understand why I was evangelizing them.   Yep, I drank the Koolaid.  I was convinced that I had found the way the truth and the life.  With this as a value system and the church's exhortation to spread the "Good News" I was out doing my part.  But you know, I was wrong.  After all these years, I can't recommend the faith anymore.  I did it back then because I had not seen what the "Faithful" are really like. 

You say that 99% of pastors are not like this guy but can you substantiate this?  Why is it then that the leadership who are funded by donations by thousands and thousands of ordinary Christians, are spouting off such homophobic claptrap and actively trying to stop gay marriage?  Is there one of these so called pastors who will get in front of a microphone or post on a web site condemning the church's position?  There may be but he or she isn't getting much media attention or donations.  Why?

Do you think that the animus between the LBGT community and the church is not justified?  Would you recommend that we all go to church next Sunday? Should I just walk into any random church?  Will I be received well?  Or will I be shunned or worse forced to leave?  No you wouldn't because some of us might be physically hurt.

So really, why defend the faith and the organized church so vigorously here at Susans?  Do you really think we aren't familiar with church people?   To say that we don't know is almost condescending. 


BTW, this pastor was interviewed by Mike Signorile of Sirius XM radio
http://www.signorile.com/2009/09/steven-l-anderson-killing-gays-is-not.html (http://www.signorile.com/2009/09/steven-l-anderson-killing-gays-is-not.html)   He says that he hopes Mike gets brain cancer and dies like Ted Kennedy. 

AND the pastor is connected to the protestor who took a semi-automatic weapon to an Obama Health Care town meeting.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12678/heatpacking-protestor-connected-to-pastor-steven-anderson (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12678/heatpacking-protestor-connected-to-pastor-steven-anderson)


Maggie

Quote from: Kait on September 04, 2009, 10:26:49 AM
In this case, we're talking about a man who believes in speeding gays along to eternal torture.  This isn't about compassion and salvation, it's about sadism and hate.  Even for less extreme evangelicals, I think a lot of them, deep in their hearts, wouldn't be all that sad if God smote the lot of us right now.

To be clear, Anderson is a nut job and nothing I said is any sort of defense of HIM or any other person who calls for God's judgment on anyone. The ethical and orthodox position of Biblical Christianity is that God is VERY longsuffering, slow to judge, quick to forgive, and witholds his hand as long as he possibly can because "God is not willing that any should perish"

If that's God's position, it MUST be the position of the believer. it's not anyone's place to judge another but if you forced me to take a stand, I'd say that Anderson and Phelps and that ilk are EVERY BIT as far outside God's will and at odds with his views as the most notorious Satanist.

However, I completely disagree with your sentiment here:

Quote
Even for less extreme evangelicals, I think a lot of them, deep in their hearts, wouldn't be all that sad if God smote the lot of us right now.

I spent most of my life in Southern Baptist churches and I know for a FACT that this is not true. Certainly there's a relatively large minority that at least sympathizes with that view....but there's a decent minority of almost any race who things that we'd be better off if the "n****rs" (or whitiey or whoever it is they hate) were smote out of existence too....but we don't judge the "whole lot" as bigots just because of a significant minority of bigots among them.

---

Post Merge: September 04, 2009, 12:05:11 PM

---

Quote from: tekla on September 04, 2009, 10:34:58 AM
According to their DEEPLY held belief system, a person who hasn't been "saved" by faith in Christ IS in mortal peril and that being the case, attempting to warn that person - even in the face of indifference or even hostility - is the noblest service they can possibly render. It's not "oppression" or "imposition" or "harassment"....it's the same as getting that fellow out of the burning house.


So, we're supposed to humor them because they have a mental defect that lets them think they have an imaginary friend in the sky?

You might want to read what I SAID, and read it in the CONTEXT of what I was replying to before you ask any more dumb questions.

OK, so I walk into a psychiatric hospital, I tell them I have a friend that no one can see, and that friend made the entire universe, and controls all of it, and if I do exactly what he says I'll never die.  And when they ask who my friend is, I tell them "Bob" - what you think will happen next?  Matter of fact, if I tell them any name other than "Jesus" I'll pretty much get locked up.

it's not anyone's place to judge another
Tell it to the choir.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 04, 2009, 11:06:09 AM
First of all, you couldn't be more wrong about me not putting myself in someone else's shoes.  I do it all the time to help me understand why people do what they do. 

Please don't see this as hostility on my part because my sympathies are with YOU, not with THEM. Which is why I was never a "soul winner" myself, I Just couldn't be that pushy.

But that said, with all due respect to the fact that you know you better than I do...what they thing and how they act is perfectly consistent with understanding their world view. If you have tried to put yourself in their shoes you failed because you can't wrap your mind around what they believe.
I don't blame you for that - it's quite like me not being able to grok who a terrorist thinks blowing up a bus full of innocents is an act pleasing to God. But while I don't get it, I understand WHY, in their twisted world view, THEY think it makes sense.

Quote
And when I put myself in the shoes of someone knocking at my door trying to convert me to their religious beliefs I wonder what took place in their lives that led them to believe this is an acceptable form of human behavior. 

Nothing "took place" - they were indoctrinated into it. Just like all sorts of other people are indoctrinated into all sorts of other beliefs that can't possibly all be true. Why is it so unusual? They annoy you? no doubt. Is that ALL the human behavior that annoys you?

I know that it is not. So what's so worthy of remark about this particular form of annoyance. for example, a Jehovah's Witness knocking on my door annoys me....and the guy going to slow down the highway in front of me annoys me.

Equally so. I have no greater need to complain about the former than about the latter.

Quote
They don't know me at all.  They don't know what is in my heart.  Yet they feel they have an obligation to condemn me and try to persuade me to accept their faith as my own.  I could spend a lifetime in their shoes and never understand that self righteous attitude.

Friend, do you not realize that YOU are, in this very paragraph, taking EXACTLY the same attitude about their beliefs and behavior that you are complaining that they take about yours?

Are you condeming their behavior? Yes, just as they probably would yours.

Are you questioning their belifs? Yes, just as they question yours.

Do you wish they would change their mind and share your view of their beliefs and behavior? Yes, just as they do yours.

Now, you will argue that you do not go to their home and try to convince them to change, and that is true and it does mean you hold a milder form of the same views  - but the nature of each set of beliefs is exactly the same, and it that both views are "self righteous"

Quote
If you break my door down because you think my house is on fire only to find I have a roaring fire safely contained in my fireplace, I would hope you would be extremely apologetic about breaking in and offer to pay for the damages.  And then, I expect, you would leave.  You wouldn't take a hose and try to douse the fire in spite of my protests.

Naturally, but then in their point of view, that's not what they will find - unless of course you can convince the evangelist that hell really doesn't exist.

If you can, I am certain that person would indeed apologize for trying to warn you of a false danger.

Quote
These people don't listen to us. 

and you listen to them?

Quote
They INSIST we are sinners who need saving, even though we harm no one and are happy in our beliefs.  They are either extremely dense or so brainwashed by their religious beliefs that they can't see the person screaming in their face saying, "Leave me ALONE!!!"[/color][/font]

Never said they were not brainwashed. Albeit it is always possible that the person I think is brainwashed is actually right and I am wrong because none of us has cornered the market on truth.
I'm not suggesting in any sense that they are not brainwashed, delusional, wrong, or even insane.

I'm simply answering your original question - "Why do they do it?"

I'm not telling you that you should agree with their reasoning or even find the behavior acceptable - just explaining as best i can "why" which is what you asked.

Any time any person believe ANY thing passionately, they will go out and try to make a difference based on what they believe - the same reason civil rights protesters spend their lives trying to change the society they live in, the same reason some people spend their lives trying to care for the poor, the same reason ideologues spend their life grasping for power in order to enact their views.

Doesn't make any of them right or wrong because they are passionate - but it does explain why they do what they do.

Quote
Well maybe they should do what you accused me of not doing, put themselves in the shoes of the people who they are harassing and making their lives miserable.  Because if they did, they would understand we see them as a bunch of meddlesome busybodies who need to mind their own business.

Indeed they do. Desperately. Even before I accepted that they were wrong about my "condition" I understood instinctively that aggressive evangelism did much more to hurt their cause than it did to further it.

Just like the suicide bomber (albeit on a vastly smaller scale) I see a misplaced sense of "doing God's will" - but i wasn't ever arguing they were doing the right thing, or that they were not in need of a change - just understanding why it seemed right to them.

By the way, as mentioned above, the aggressive evangelist is a distinct minority in even the most aggressive Christian church (Mormons and JW's not being Christians)

The SBC is the most evangelistic of the major denominations and I never met a pastor (and I know a BIG lot of them) who didn't bemoan the fact that no more than 1% of his congregation were "soul winners" who would show up for visitations or bring potential new Christians to church. the VAST majority of new church members in the SBC are those who come out of the immediate family of an already existing church member.

Probably the independent Baptists and some segments of Pentacostalism have better luck but even so, I'd bet you anything that there's not one Christian church in America (again, Mormons and JW's don't count) who gets even 10% of their membership to be really assertive "soul winners".

Most never EVER try to evangelize anyone (I held a ministry license and I NEVER made a cold call) and another huge minority would only ever approach someone they already had a friendly relationship.

the typical break down, in my opinion, even in the most "aggressive" congregation is -

3-4% = aggressive "soul winners" (by the way, most of these are new converts running on the fuel of just having believed)
~15% = will evangelize a friend or neighbor or family member or co-worker with whom they already have a relationship
~80% = would never have the courage to speak to anyone about their faith system

And yet, among non-believers the common assumption is that to be a Christian is, by definition, to be an agressive conversion-obsessed a--hole.

'taint so.

Quote
Maybe you can talk to THEM about the shoe on the other foot concept.  :eusa_think:

Julie[/color][/font]

Quite frankly, I have had MANY conversation with pastors and deacons and others about my HUGE reservations about cold-call evangelism.

(By the way - I think this one might merge with te previous one again which sometimes I HATE because it ends up resulting in a HUGE post no one wants to read - but I don't know how to stop it. Apologies to all if it turns out that way)

---

Post Merge: September 04, 2009, 12:30:40 PM

---

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 04, 2009, 11:12:13 AM
Laura,

I once gave that exact argument to "unbelievers" as a way to help them understand why I was evangelizing them.   Yep, I drank the Koolaid.  I was convinced that I had found the way the truth and the life.  With this as a value system and the church's exhortation to spread the "Good News" I was out doing my part.  But you know, I was wrong.

Yup. Never said they were not wrong.
In my observation it tends to be the new convert who's drunk on the Kool-Aid, a tiny minority are hard core enough to be that way for years.

Quote
After all these years, I can't recommend the faith anymore.  I did it back then because I had not seen what the "Faithful" are really like. 

You say that 99% of pastors are not like this guy but can you substantiate this?

Well, let's see - in 1986 I "rededicated" at a "crusade" and in 1988 I "accepted the call" and was licensed into the ministry by a rather fundamentalist SBC pastor. From 2001 to 2005 I attended a very conservative Baptist college and got a Bible minor along with my Social Science major (and only lack maybe 12 hours having a Bible major as well) and over the course of those 20 years (1986-2006) I met personally probably 2-300 SBC preachers and a few dozen of other faiths.

I have not ever met ONE in my life who would agree with Anderson's views. Now, that preacher who was my pastor who licensed me, and who preformed our wedding, is still an acquaintance of mine and his wife and mine talk on the phone almost every day and he does NOT approve of my new look (hell, he doesn't approve of short-legged pants)

But I can state confidently that he doesn't want me, or any gay person, or the president "smote down by God" for our sinful ways.

Is he wrong? Oh hell yeah! but even he wouldn't approve of Anderson's words. Unless there's a place in the US (outside maybe Utah) that's a helluvalot more infested with backwards fundy preachers than MISSISSIPPI is (and i find that astoundingly hard to believe) then yeah, I can saw with confidence that Anderson is a total anomaly.

Quote
  Why is it then that the leadership who are funded by donations by thousands and thousands of ordinary Christians, are spouting off such homophobic claptrap and actively trying to stop gay marriage?

Trying to stop gay marriage is hell-and-gone from wishing all gays would be struck dead.

QuoteIs there one of these so called pastors who will get in front of a microphone or post on a web site condemning the church's position?

Actually, there are pastors, less so in Bapist and Pentacostal denominations than in others, who DO oppose their churches official position on gay marriage. There are SBC churches that PREFORM gay marriages (because in the SBC each church is autonomous)

QuoteThere may be but he or she isn't getting much media attention or donations.  Why?

because the media LOVEs the stereotype that all Christians are backward toothless hillbillies or clinically insane or hateful monsters and they seldom run any story which casts a christian - particularly a conservative one - in a positive light.

for instance, did you know that the SBC spent more money on Katrina relief than any non-governmental agency? More than most of the rest of them COMBINED?

if you did I feel confident in saying you didn't learn that on the Evening news or from the NYT.

Quote
Do you think that the animus between the LBGT community and the church is not justified?

You are wandering FAR afield from the reply I posted at this point. I don't think it's fair that you read a particular answer to a particular question out of context as a defense of every thought and action of every Chrisitan on every position and expect me to defend these things or take a stand on them.

Julie ask a very specific question and got a very specific answer and now we are talking about much broader themes in your reply.

That said, the animus you refer to is well founded, but the LGBT community (as a whole) is EVERY BIT as bigoted about Christians as Christians are about gays. Now, since they see them as a threat that is understandable, but the fact remains that he LGBT community stereotypes ALL Christians in a characature that applies to a distinct minority, in just the same way as the reverse is true.

I will qualify this with an admission that the big majority of straight people have a latent discomfort level with gays and trans people that transcends whatever religious views they have, but being uncomfortable is not being bigoted.

Quote
  Would you recommend that we all go to church next Sunday?

Given I haven't set foot in a church (except for a funeral) in over 2 years and have NO intention of doing so, I suspect you are making a false assumption here.

Quote
Should I just walk into any random church?  Will I be received well?  Or will I be shunned or worse forced to leave?

any RANDOM church?
Why?
would you do so if you were not trans and just happened to be looking for a place to worship?

would you make no distinction between Catholic and Methodist? No distinction between Episcopal and Pentacostal?

Of course you would. you set up a strawman here.

We can do better in this discussion than that.

However, no, there is no guarantee you would be accepted well in ANY church - but there ARE churches out there, some attended by members of our own community here, where you could go and be warmly accepted and loved as you are.

Let's be clear here - why is it Christians are wrong to judge all trans people as if they were outrageous drag queens and all gays as if they were hyper-promiscuous drug addicts (and they ARE wrong to do so) but it's okay for a trans or gay person to describe Christians as if ALL believers are hateful bigoted mean-spirited narrow-minded judgmental asses who would round us all up into concentration camps or worse if they could?

It's not ok. and yet FAR too many of the voices i see here seem to make just that assumption.

Quote
  No you wouldn't because some of us might be physically hurt.

If I had any use for what's being preached in the churches in this town, I would not hesitate to walk into any of them. If I had enough of a chip on my shoulder to confront them with the wrongness of their views, I'd do it for spite just to put the issue in front of their faces.

But would I fear being physically assaulted? Maybe in a couple of seriously wacked out Pentecostal churches I know about - maybe. but not otherwise.

I'd be called names in some of them, "prayed over" and possibly humiliated by what was said to me and i don't defend that. but in many if not most I'd just be "tolerated" at least for the occasional visit (they would be hoping I'd "get right" if I came regularly).

I'd probably have to go to Tupelo to get a warm reception though a couple of the local one MIGHT surprise me.

Again, I live in North MS and i find it hard to believe there are MORE conservative places to live.

So while I wouldn't suggest blundering into ANY church (any more than I would suggest blundering into ANY hairdresser) I expect that if you really wanted to find one which accepted you, you could, albeit it might not be doctrinally right where you want them on every point of theology.

Personally, I'm not looking right now.

Quote
So really, why defend the faith and the organized church so vigorously here at Susans?

I don't defend the church OR organized faith - I argue for the TRUTH.

The truth only aggravates people when it upsets their stereotypes. When I came out to my friends on a mianstream board at which I post, I faced a (minority) contingent of people there who were convinced I was making a grave mistake - both believers and non-believers, and I debated them FAR more vigorously from the other position.

I argue over my favorite baseball team with the same passion. when someone says "Joe Blow has never hit with runners in scoring position" and I look at the stats and he has hit well in that situation his whole career and is simply not doing so NOW, THIS season - i defend him. As it turns out, I hate Joe Blow - don't want him on my team and think he's a huge burden.
BUT the attacker had his facts wrong and I have a weakness (believe me, I wish I didn't) for correcting a poorly made argument supported with inaccurate facts.

there are a WORLD of things you can attack Christianity, or any other organized religion, about that will not get the faintest peep of disagreement from me on.

I do not attend an organized church, at present I seem unlikely to ever again, and think even the best Christian denomination has considerably more wrong than right. I don't think organized religion should have any more influence or power than - for instance - the Rotary Club.

But I DO think people ought to state things which are true when discussing them, just as i think (and have argued on christian boards back when I posted there) that THEY ought to speak truth about US.

That's why.

Quote
  Do you really think we aren't familiar with church people?   To say that we don't know is almost condescending. 

I can only go by the words i see on the screen.

Quote
BTW, this pastor was interviewed by Mike Signorile of Sirius XM radio
http://www.signorile.com/2009/09/steven-l-anderson-killing-gays-is-not.html (http://www.signorile.com/2009/09/steven-l-anderson-killing-gays-is-not.html)   He says that he hopes Mike gets brain cancer and dies like Ted Kennedy.

You can always find nutters in any belief system. what does anecdotal evidence prove?  We've already established Anderson is a nutter - do I need to say it yet again?

Just a quick word here.

Yes I know that religion is a touchy subject for the most of us, regardless of which one is ours.
If you feel yourselves get riled up, close the tab or window or just go to a different thread.

Laura, you may know I like to play golf.  And golfers who don't know better tend to give unsolicited advice to their fellow golfers.  THAT is annoying!  And most golfers will tell you that.

If I am discriminated against because I'm trans and I see people who are publicly waging a campaign against trans people and perpetuating the negative stigma, that's not annoying, it's terribly harmful.  Losing your job, losing family and friends and being ostracized from society is far beyond annoying.  It's not that I don't understand these people are brainwashed, it's that they are hurting my ability to live a happy life and as long as they do that I will put up a fight.

The idea that "this is how they think" does not preclude them from being able to understand "leave me the f**k alone!"

When you're giving advice on the golf course, your playing partner might not say anything and that might make you believe it's okay.  But as soon as they turn to you, usually after hitting a bad shot, and tell you to shut up, it's a good idea you do because next time you could end up wearing their driver around your neck.

Julie

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 04, 2009, 02:26:44 PM

If I am discriminated against because I'm trans and I see people who are publicly waging a campaign against trans people and perpetuating the negative stigma, that's not annoying, it's terribly harmful.  Losing your job, losing family and friends and being ostracized from society is far beyond annoying.  It's not that I don't understand these people are brainwashed, it's that they are hurting my ability to live a happy life and as long as they do that I will put up a fight.

The idea that "this is how they think" does not preclude them from being able to understand "leave me the f**k alone!"
Julie

I don't disagree with any of this nor would I ever suggest that you shouldn't put up a fight. You should, we should.

I would just like to hope we can do it in a better and more principled and more well-informed way than they do.

Laura,
I am at a loss with where to begin.  Your post is so long that I can't use the quote system without getting lost so I will try to isolate some salient points that you said and respond.

First, The issue of equal bigotry on the part of the LBGT and Christian communities.
"That said, the animus you refer to is well founded, but the LGBT community (as a whole) is EVERY BIT as bigoted about Christians as Christians are about gays. Now, since they see them as a threat that is understandable, but the fact remains that he LGBT community stereotypes ALL Christians in a characature that applies to a distinct minority, in just the same way as the reverse is true.

I will qualify this with an admission that the big majority of straight people have a latent discomfort level with gays and trans people that transcends whatever religious views they have, but being uncomfortable is not being bigoted."

Just who is trying to take away whose rights?  Christians are.  NOT LBGT people. We are struggling for tolerance and the church as a whole is against that.  Look at the numbers.  The population of Christians vastly outnumbers the number of LBGT people. The Christians claim the high moral ground against us and argue politically now that we should not receive civil rights.  Rights that can save people's lives are being denied and by those who claim to do so on moral grounds.   The pastor in this tread correctly quotes Leviticus that gays should be killed.  It is there.  So for any believer that says the bible is the infallible word of God, passages like this must be in play when civil rights comes up.  Now, to me that is a very one sided case for bigotry.  When we call these people by who they are we are no more bigots than is the victim crying out against his attacker.

The other point you made is:
"Let's be clear here - why is it Christians are wrong to judge all trans people as if they were outrageous drag queens and all gays as if they were hyper-promiscuous drug addicts (and they ARE wrong to do so) but it's okay for a trans or gay person to describe Christians as if ALL believers are hateful bigoted mean-spirited narrow-minded judgmental asses who would round us all up into concentration camps or worse if they could?

It's not ok. and yet FAR too many of the voices i see here seem to make just that assumption."

Where are the LBGT organizations for the repression of Christian rights? Why do we not have a national day of remembrance for Christians killed by LBGT people?  Why do we not have initiatives for the banning of the right to pray or congregate?  How many millions does the Catholic church spend in it's attempt to stop civil rights for LBGT people?  Didn't the Pope himself come out and say that riding the world of homosexuality and transsexuality is more important than the saving of the rain forests?    Hasn't the vast resources of the Mormon church been given in shady and deceptive ways to undermine our rights? What have we done to them?  NOTHING.  We just want to live in peace.   You seem to indicate that our complaints are unfounded but there are countless examples of actions taken by the church throughout history. Read Pam's Blend and you will see a steady stream of reports.

This thread is sickening.  So much hate coming from both sides.

Kristi

I argue for the TRUTH.

Truth can be proven, superstition can not.

Quote from: tekla on September 04, 2009, 07:20:56 PM
Truth can be proven, superstition can not.

Yeah, but some people don't want to know the truth.  It's better to believe a dark and dangerous evil force is lurking in the shadows waiting to eat your children.   >:-)

Not a day goes by that I don't run across an article or two about the "homosexual menace" or some other fictional evil created by fear mongers.  Are we in a modern day holy war?

Hatred?  No.  Anger?  Yes.  But I guess when your house is being bombed, one does tend to get a bit angry.

Julie

QuoteYour post is so long that I can't use the quote system without getting lost

I wish the board wouldn't automaticlly merge posts that long.

Quote
Just who is trying to take away whose rights?  Christians are.  NOT LBGT people.

Well, that's a broad statement and not very precise.

For starters, no "rights" are being taken away, on a few points -
first, until recently no gays could have a legally recognized marriage so you can't take away something from someone who doesn't have the thing in the first place.

second, the opportunity to "get married" has always existed and still does and will continue to - what is being discussed on gay marriage is whether or not the state will recognize and grant some privileges associated with being married.

third, the legal privileges associated with having your union recognized can be and have been granted without invoking the term "marriage" in a variety of areas (albeit a notable set of Christians object to this too)

fourth, and the thing that no one wants to acknowledge, is that the legal recognition of your marriage, or mine is NOT a RIGHT

Consider, for instance, the tax code - it's RIFE with discriminatory choices about what to give a tax break for and what to not give a tax break for. Having a taxable status as being "married" is no more a "right" than I have a right to demand a home mortgage deduction while renting.


Does this mean i don't think gays should be able to marry? Frankly, I don't think the government should take notice of marriage either way - I think there should be a legal compact which ANY two people can enter into for ANY reason which specifies they are "partners" in terms of the things we now associate with marriage (child custody, estate purposes, et al)...and anyone who wants to marry privately can do so without seeking a pat on the head from the government.

But in any case, it's not a RIGHT.

Beyond that, In Canada Christians have been fined for expressing an opinion regarding homosexuality that is not approved of, and the complaints were brought by gays...so yes, it can happen. but I would agree that at the present time the LGBT group has the right to feel threatened.

All that said, you didn't address the part you quoted - which is that false assumptions exist on both sides.

Quote
The pastor in this tread correctly quotes Leviticus that gays should be killed.  It is there.

so are dozens of other verses no Christian, likely including Anderson, takes seriously.

if he doesn't keep a kosher diet, for instance, he has surrendered the right to cite that verse and be taken seriously.

Quote
So for any believer that says the bible is the infallible word of God, passages like this must be in play when civil rights comes up.

Not at all. You can believe the Bible is infallible and be wise enough to know that the expression means that it is infallible in what it claims to say. YES there are some simplistic folks who don't figure out things like context and reach stupid conclusions, but those people, if you'll pardon my saying so, are not a victim of religion but a victim of their own stupidity.

They have wrongheaded views about all sorts of things. The world has stupid people in it  (Anderson is one of them) but because stupid people are Christians (or Democrats, or gays or conservatives, or Mexicans or whatever) does not mean that ALL Christians (or whatever label) are that stupid.

But thinking people - even thinking people who happen to be wrong about me and you - thinking people can STILL read the book with some consideration to context and audience and purpose and NOT conclude they have to go outside the camp and bury their dung as the Book says they should do.

And we both know that.

Quote
When we call these people by who they are we are no more bigots than is the victim crying out against his attacker.

So it is your position that EVERY Christian wants to rob you and I and every member of the LGBT community of our rights AND our lives?

you SERIOUSLY are making that claim?

If not all of them share those views (and they don't, if for no other reason that there are denominations with LGBT MINISTERS and there are Christians among the membership HERE) then to make that claim is bigotry against those Christians who do not, in fact, believe those things.

Quote
Where are the LBGT organizations for the repression of Christian rights?

don't change the subject hun - you are dodging.

Please honestly face the logical implication of your claims.

Quote
Why do we not have a national day of remembrance for Christians killed by LBGT people?

Wait, hold it - the NDoR is held to remember LGBT people killed by Christians?!!?

Who knew?

Quote
Didn't the Pope himself come out and say that riding the world of homosexuality and transsexuality is more important than the saving of the rain forests?

Dunno, haven't heard that - let me Google a bit.....

Ah, here it is: "The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

Yeah. He's wrong. (Not that I'm as busted up as most about the supposedly terrible situation with the rainforest but I'll stay off THAT tangent)

You will note I'm not arguing in this thread that those views are anything BUT wrong.

Quote
You seem to indicate that our complaints are unfounded

You seem to have a slight problem with comprehending what I'm actually saying.

------------------------------------------------

Quote
Truth can be proven, superstition can not.

By all means, please indicate where in this thread I argued for the truth of any superstition.

Saying "understand what they believe" is not - and I specifically said I was not saying - is NOT saying "what they believe is objectively true"

So, exactly, where are these people wrong in their reading of the Bible, and yours is (now) somehow right?

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 12:05:07 AMFor starters, no "rights" are being taken away, on a few points -
first, until recently no gays could have a legally recognized marriage so you can't take away something from someone who doesn't have the thing in the first place.

But once same sex marriage is legalized in a state, there are certain rights (privileges) that go with being married.  And once that legal status is taken away, as what happened with Prop 8 in CA, you lose those rights.  And now Maine is the focus of anti-gay marriage campaigning in hopes of achieving what they did in CA.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 12:05:07 AMsecond, the opportunity to "get married" has always existed and still does and will continue to - what is being discussed on gay marriage is whether or not the state will recognize and grant some privileges associated with being married.

I'm not sure what you mean by "get married". If the state does not recognize your marriage, you aren't legally married.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 12:05:07 AMthird, the legal privileges associated with having your union recognized can be and have been granted without invoking the term "marriage" in a variety of areas (albeit a notable set of Christians object to this too)

There has not been a true "separate but equal" across the board status for same sex marriage in all the states that have approved it.  And, once you cross the state lines, your marriage might not be recognized.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 12:05:07 AMfourth, and the thing that no one wants to acknowledge, is that the legal recognition of your marriage, or mine is NOT a RIGHT[/b

I don't think people are thinking of it that way.  The concept of "right" is based in the belief that if an opposite sex couple can get married and enjoy thousands of privileges, then same sex couples should too.  The right we're fighting for is to be treated fairly under law and not allow majority rule to deny the rights of the minority. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

We have certain rights granted to us by the Constitution.  Some of these rights are being denied.  All we want is fair and equitable treatment. 

Since a formal, legal recognition of something called marriage is accompanied by a specific set of privileges and responsibilities (including, but not limited to: property rights, the ability to make certain decisions at the end of life, and some legal exemptions) given to those persons, to deny a segment of the population a means to secure those privileges and responsibilities is a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

At least 3 State Supreme Courts, Iowa, California and Massachusetts have found exactly that.

Laura,
Your arguments about gay rights are similar to those used against same sex marriage and NOM's talking points.   That gay adoption is banned in two states now is an indicator of what is going on. 

My satirical questions were to turn the tables as if Christians were facing the attacks that LBGT people live with daily.  I was not being literal and I thought that was obvious.

My point is that there is a concerted effort to take away basic freedoms and "rights" from LBGT people and incite violence against us by Christians. 

Check out these prominent examples


Pope Benedict XVI   http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1868390,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1868390,00.html)
"Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from transsexual behavior is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction."
also
"the Vatican has announced its opposition to a United Nations proposal to protect gays from being criminalized and punished by governments for their orientation"

Rev. Wiley Drake
Openly prays to God to kill Obama and quotes Psalm 109 as his reason. He states that Southern Baptists know about this practice of "Imprecatory Prayers" He says Dr. Tiller's death was an answer to his prayer.  (Not LBGT but it demonstrates the mindset that one can have God kill someone as an answer to prayer.)


Methodist Judicial Council To Rule On The Sin of ->-bleeped-<-
http://www.transadvocate.com/methodist-judicial-council-to-rule-on-the-sin-of-->-bleeped-<-.htm (http://www.transadvocate.com/methodist-judicial-council-to-rule-on-the-sin-of--%3E-bleeped-%3C-.htm)

Pat Robertson spouting off about Barack Obama's announcement of a "Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination" asked "someone's proud to be transgendered?"

"I am aware that Rev Robertson helped start and the American Center for Law and Justice, (http://www.aclj.org/ (http://www.aclj.org/)) the leadership of the Christian Coalition. They have been known to be 'transphobic' and 'honophobic'. The words of Jay Sekulow, 'Chief Justice' of the ACLJ have been pointed out to me again where it was stated regarding the Gardiner decision in Kansas: "this is the first shot across the bow in the war against the scourge known as transsexuality."
http://www.intersexualite.org/PatRobertson.html (http://www.intersexualite.org/PatRobertson.html)

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blame gays and lesbians among others for God's allowing 9/11 to happen.
Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11
Video on Youtube

Pat Robertson says God allowed Katrina because of abortion. Quotes Leviticus.
Katrina = God's Wrath   
Video on Youtube

Rev. John Hagee says Katrina happened because Gays were going to hold a rally in New Orleans.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23/hagee-katrina-mccain/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23/hagee-katrina-mccain/)

Church Rejects Transsexual's Care
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401408.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401408.html)

These are just a few examples of the attacks on the LBGT community by Christians.  They serve to incite violence against us even by non church goers because they claim to have the moral high ground.

Actually, I don't really know what your point is in participating in this thread.  The subject is to point out another example the rising danger posed by the Christian community against LBGT people.  You seem to want to minimize this and say that it is just a tiny fraction of real believers.   It seems that your point is that we shouldn't worry or be aware that these things are happening from elements in the Christian community. 

I have been affected by them here in California.  My marriage was questioned because of Prop 8.  We had to spend two weeks arguing with the insurance company that our 22 year marriage was legal so I could be covered again.  Once Prop 8 was law, they wanted to drop me.   Prop 8 would not have passed without the millions given by the Mormons and Catholic churches.   

What is being set up here in the US is a climate where the conservatives are being whipped up into thinking we are evil sinners who are endangering everyone.  Now that can only give rise to more hate crimes against us.  Take note of the current trend of ARMED protestors in town meetings.  If that isn't a sign of impending violence, what is? 

We need to know what is being said and try to expose it not minimize it like you seem to want.  Someday, even you may be one of the victims. 

Maggie

The constant argument that 'oh that's just a fringe few, not the majority' always reminds me of how the Hell's Angels protest getting tagged as a criminal organization.  "Oh no, we're just a bunch of guys who love motorcycles" (who also share lengthy criminal records and participate together in ongoing criminal activities)

I think that hate coming from the Christian Community is widespread enough, and constant enough (and hardly ever denounced by the 'mainstream' churches) that its completely fair to characterize it as part and parcel of the Xian belief system at this point.

What is important is to understand that, until you are out, open and/or living full time, you will never fully realize how words like the ones the Arizona pastor said ripple through society and eventually make their way into affecting your life.

Before I was out, I was living what everyone would have seen as a normal male life, married, kids, house in the suburbs, worked in construction, etc, some even called me macho.  I was completely ignorant about what was happening in the LGBT world outside the fact that I knew trans people were stigmatized and it was wrong. 

But the environment 'out' LGBT people face every day had no effect on me at all.  It wasn't even on my radar screen because I really had no LGBT friends.  I had met a few TGs but we never became friends.  So when some hate monger spewed out his vitriol, I would see him as a nut and hope that his words don't compel some other nut to become violent.  End of story.

Now, that's all changed.  I watched as family, lifelong friends, bosses & co-workers did a total 180 on me when they found out I was trans.  And when I went searching for why, all the roads led to religious sources as the beginning of this intolerance.

When I realized that Catholics, the people I grew up with, went to church with, played with, lived with, had an inordinate percentage of their congregation who were anti-LGBT, I was pretty hurt.  How could they be that way when we were all taught to love and respect God's creations?  It was a surprise because I was forced to open my eyes when I was made an outcast.

And, from all my years being raised in a Catholic environment (add Chicago south side Irish to that), I knew when the Pope spoke, it was the same as if God spoke.  So when I hear the Pope take a position against LGBT people, I know millions of Catholics will see that as the word of God and do the same.  It may only be words but to the millions of Catholics around the world, it's the word of God and cannot be challenged.

That is some pretty powerful stuff.  And if we ever expect things to change for the better for us, we need to educate the Catholic church, and other organized religions, that we are not who they portray us to be.  That is if we don't want their continued opposition to denying us the same rights and privileges they have.

Or maybe we should just say if a tax exempt organization becomes involved in the political process, they lose their tax exempt status.  Separation of church and state.

I wonder what the impact of a law like that would be?

Julie

Quote from: juliekins on September 05, 2009, 06:42:03 AM
But once same sex marriage is legalized in a state, there are certain rights (privileges) that go with being married.  And once that legal status is taken away, as what happened with Prop 8 in CA, you lose those rights.  And now Maine is the focus of anti-gay marriage campaigning in hopes of achieving what they did in CA.

Agreed. But that's a slippery thing because before it was legal anywhere, the rhetoric was STILL "they are trying to take away our rights" even when "they" were arguing for the status-quo.

Even now, the argument usually centers around whether or not the expansion of privileges was wise.

Quote
I'm not sure what you mean by "get married". If the state does not recognize your marriage, you aren't legally married.

Marriage is something more than a legal state, at least as far as the religious are concerned.

and if that "extra-legal" definition of marriage is a legal irrelevancy, then gays would be content to accept "civil unions" as a valid equivilant and not make such an issue out of being called "married"

the fact that civil unions with all the same legal privlidges did not settle and satisfy the issue (from the POV of gay rights activists) indicates that one of two things is true:
a. the word "marriage" means something to them beyond the legal status, as it does to religious people; or
b. there is a political agenda to "screw with" the legal concept of marriage beyond the effort to just gain the same privileges.

I chose to believe the less sinister ofthose two choices.

Quote
There has not been a true "separate but equal" across the board status for same sex marriage in all the states that have approved it.  And, once you cross the state lines, your marriage might not be recognized.

And that, too, is a factor in why the opponents would still argue that they advocate not for "taking away" privileges but for maintaining the previous arrangement.

they recognize that gay marriage in California inevitably leads, at some point, to gay marriage in Alabama.

Quote
I don't think people are thinking of it that way.  The concept of "right" is based in the belief that if an opposite sex couple can get married and enjoy thousands of privileges, then same sex couples should too.  The right we're fighting for is to be treated fairly under law and not allow majority rule to deny the rights of the minority. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

To be clear, I do not disagree with the concept of the minority having been denied by the majority in this case.

I am simply pointing out that the legal privileges associated with marriage are NOT an example of unconstitutional inequality before the law.

If they were, they could not exist because then the married person, of whatever gender, would be unequal before the law with the single person. if we consider a visitation right or an estate right or a taxation right to be an example of inequality before the law, then we must also consider that ANY tax policy which treats people unequally is too.

that is NOT me arguing against gay marriage, just clarifying the terms of the discussion. Just because a thing is not a "right" doesn't mean that it isn't still unjust to deny it without good cause.

Quote
We have certain rights granted to us by the Constitution.  Some of these rights are being denied.  All we want is fair and equitable treatment.

I respectfully disagree that this is a Constitutional rights issue - but I do agree that fair and equitable treatment should exist.

Laura,

Civil Unions are not the same as marriage because of DOMA.  These couples are denied all 1400 plus federal benefits afforded to married couples.  This is well known and in the LBGT media again and again.  It is one of the central reasons for legalization of same sex marriage and to strike down DOMA. 

Yes, same sex couples want to be married for reasons beyond legal ones.  Half of the same sex marriages in Iowa are performed with couples from neighboring states  where their marriages will not be recognized at all.  They do it because they want to have the social bond called marriage.  There is nothing wrong with that. They form bonds as strong as hetero marriages and many have children. 

Your argument here seems to be pointing to a position that you are against same sex marriage. Is that so?

Maggie

Quote
Actually, I don't really know what your point is in participating in this thread. 

Frankly, I don't either.

The irony is that I recall over the years many times when I saw a gay poster try to convince hetro posters that they had a false perception of all gays based on a tiny minority of that community.

they didn't listen either. People do love their stereotypes.

Quote
That gay adoption is banned in two states now is an indicator of what is going on. 

Only two?

Given the general perception about homosexuality even 20 years ago, it's stunningly GOOD news that it's ONLY two...and the day isn't far off when it will be zero.

the thing neither side of this national discussion seems to acknowledge is that we live in a POST-Christian culture. The societal habits of thought are still there but they weaken steadily every day and every year and will continue to. the reason the church is so noisy in some quarters is that they are desperately trying to hold back a tide they cannot stop.

god knows why the gays are so paranoid. The long list of progress and victories in the last 40 years is breathtaking and yet they still rage about the oppression.

Keep working? Hell yeah. but stop being so paranoid - there will be no concentration camps and no death squads.

Quote
What is being set up here in the US is a climate where the conservatives are being whipped up into thinking we are evil sinners who are endangering everyone.

Paranoia. Fewer and fewer and fewer people believe negative things about LGBT people every year. Generating a lot of noise is one thing but those days are past.

Quote
We need to know what is being said and try to expose it not minimize it like you seem to want.

I have no problem with it being exposed - it should be. I started a thread about this a--hole myself on the general board I frequent. But exposing one moron when he says something stupid is an entirely different thing that painting millions of sympathetic believers with his stupidity.

you won't find ONE thing I've ever said minimizing the stupidity of this guy or the fact he needs to be reamed for it.

all I have EVER said in this thread is that it is beneath us to stereotype EVERY believer, or even most of them, as sympathetic to his views.

You have CONSTANTLY and consistently ducked and dodged that point to put words in my mouth I have neither said nor implied and you have not yet, in all your replies, had the fortitude to agree with me or concede the point that not all believers - not MOST believers - agree with this moron.

Do you REALLY want to display the exact same sort of broad brush assumptions about your opponents that they display about us? Beyond being unhelpful to your cause, it's intellectually dishonest.

What is my point in participating in this thread?

i'll tell you what my point is - my point is I don't like seeing people who I agree with in this debate, people on the side I want to win, people who's cause i support - acting with the same sort of intellectual sloppiness as the people I want to lose.

I want to see US be the people who DON'T broad brush the enemy with one simplistic stereotype.

I want to be proud of the arguments my side puts forth and all too often I'm not.

Quote
Someday, even you may be one of the victims.

May be.

Maybe already have been for all I know. The world is an imperfect place. I'm pretty sure I've been a "victim" of preferential treatment in other, non-trans-related ways in the past.

which sucks. But that doesn't mean I'm going to trade in weak arguments and sloppy thinking in response.

I think that the issue of the pastor being a tiny minority is way off base.   If you keep current with the LBGT news you would see that I am not being unfair. I say this because you make references to not knowing things that are common knowledge to most of us.

Here are more references to religious bigotry.

This is a Evangelical Christian and rabid homophobe:
Read some excerpts of Heath's "gay-marriage potato blight" column below:
"Our crops are faring like our moods. The potato crop is blighted, and corn and fruit fields wither. In one historic building in Augusta, rain flooded the basement, as water from another source poured down through the ceiling and extinguished a century-old chandelier.
Few people would be bold enough to suggest the cause of the endless rain and gloom, that the moral climate in Maine has caused the sun to hide its face in shame.
Worse than the rain is the fact, that Maine voted in homosexual "marriage."
http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/08/11/maine-anti-gay-activist-blames-bad-weather-potato-blight-on-gay-marriage/ (http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/08/11/maine-anti-gay-activist-blames-bad-weather-potato-blight-on-gay-marriage/)

It is well known that the Nazi's persecuted the homosexuals and were swept to power on moralistic grounds supported buy the church.

The Pictures Accuse:
The Vatican and Nazism in Germany and Croatia

"The evidence shows that:

A) The Catholic church hierarchy, acting under Vatican orders, played the decisive role in making Hitler the dictator of Germany.

B) Subsequently, the Catholic hierarchy was active in Nazi movements outside Germany, for example in the Balkans, where the church was the institutional base of the Nazi puppet State of Croatia.

C) Although at Yad Vashem, in the year 2000, Pope John Paul II described the Nazis as having "a Godless ideology," in 1933, when it mattered, the Vatican ordered German Catholics to love, honor, obey and protect the Nazis."

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm (http://www.emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm)

I bring these news stories to the attention of all at Susan's because there are signs that we again are facing a similar face as 1930's Germany.
America is descending into fascism.

"Paxton (who presciently warned that "An authentic popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black") agrees that if a corporate/brownshirt alliance gets a toehold -- as ours is now scrambling to do -- it can very quickly rise to power and destroy the last vestiges of democratic government."
http://www.alternet.org/politics/141819/fascist_america:_we%27re_almost_there?page=4 (http://www.alternet.org/politics/141819/fascist_america:_we%27re_almost_there?page=4)

If you didn't think the church was militaristic, you will after seeing this documentary.

Constantine's Sword
"Constantine's Sword is the story of James Carroll; a former Catholic priest on a journey to confront his past and uncover the roots of religiously inspired violence and war. His search also reveals a growing scandal involving religious infiltration of the U.S. military and the terrible consequences of religion's influence on America's foreign policy."
http://constantinessword.com/ (http://constantinessword.com/)

I included this because it is an example of the hypocrisy of the church and it's activities in modern life. 

So we have a reason to be worried and that is certainly not PARANOID.  BTW, your comment about why gays are so paranoid is strange.  It is your community too and one way or another, you'll be considered gay too.  I know that you have not had personal experience with being hated for this because you are not out but it will come someday and maybe then you will have a different opinion.   People who say they are fine with you being trans now often will change radically once you actually take steps to transition.  That is when it gets real.

Maggie

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 05, 2009, 03:42:24 PM
Laura,

Civil Unions are not the same as marriage because of DOMA.  These couples are denied all 1400 plus federal benefits afforded to married couples.  This is well known and in the LBGT media again and again.  It is one of the central reasons for legalization of same sex marriage and to strike down DOMA. 

Well, as a rule I seldom read, and then with considerable skepticism, the media propagated by either side.

In any case, since I have said nothing in opposition to either gay marriage or the granting of those various legal privileges, this isn't relevant to my point. Any of those "1400" (a number I greet with considerable skepticism but am not prepared to debate) can and I suspect in every or almost every case should be granted.

which doesn't change the fact that there are probably 100 mines that number other ways in which the feds do not treat all people equal in terms of some legal status.

I'm not saying that there is a justification for DOMA or the implications you describe - just saying it's a matter of changing legal privileges, not "civil rights"

Quote
Yes, same sex couples want to be married for reasons beyond legal ones.  Half of the same sex marriages in Iowa are performed with couples from neighboring states  where their marriages will not be recognized at all.  They do it because they want to have the social bond called marriage.

BINGO.

and for those people, that always have and alwayswill be able to have that sort of marriage because there's always someone willing to marry them on those terms. so the discussion isn't about "can I get married?" but "can I get the legal and financial stuff that comes with being married?"

Let me just point out that I didn't marry my wife for "goodies" from the government and have little interest either way in whether those are granted or withheld in terms of whether or not I should be married and i think most everyone thinks that way - so lets be honest and admit this is not a debate about whether people are denied the "civil right to get married"

what they are being denied is legal and financial benefits commonly associated with being married. which I agree is generally if not always unjust...but a different thing nonetheless.

Quote
  There is nothing wrong with that. They form bonds as strong as hetero marriages and many have children. 

Not sure why you think I would say there is something wrong with it.

Quote
Your argument here seems to be pointing to a position that you are against same sex marriage. Is that so?

Maggie

I might as well just stop replying to you if THAT is what you got out of my remarks.

Sometimes you can't stop people seeing what they want to see I guess.

*sigh*

I am not against same sex marriage and have said nothing that should remotely make you think so.

My original post in this thread and almost the only one I have returned to consistently is that you shouldn't broad-brush Christians based on a small percentage of noisy nuts.

All this other stuff is DD&B.

My only opinion that you would disapprove of concerning gay marriage is that NO marriage - mine or yours or my fundy preacher friend's - is a constitutional right.

Something doesn't HAVE to be a constitutional right to be the right thing to do, legally.

---

Post Merge: September 05, 2009, 04:53:29 PM

---

Maggie,

If I did the leg work and cited you 50, or 100 web site references in which a gay or trans person expressed outright hatred of Christians, would you take that as proof positive that ALL LGBT people hate all Christians?

I will not get into the Nazi thing, because the whole story shows that many Christians were martyred alongside the Jews, homosexuals, those who had physical deformities, and others.  The Nazis were equal opportunity butchers.  It was also a branch of the church called the Confessing Church who stood most in opposition to Hitler, and most of them paid with their lives. 

What you need to know is that there are many millions of mainline Christians across America and across the world who have never cared what Rome has said, and have never been part of the fundamentalist movement.  This is my background, though every time you go off on your quoting spree, you refuse to acknowledge the mainline church.   No, we don't consider the pronouncements of the pope, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Wiley Drake, John Hagee, and all of their ilk to be in any way authoritative, or even to really be part of the same religion we practice.  We see these statements and scratch our heads in bewilderment  We also continue to be totally confounded by why you hate us so very much. 

Kristi

QuoteThat is some pretty powerful stuff.  And if we ever expect things to change for the better for us, we need to educate the Catholic church, and other organized religions, that we are not who they portray us to be.  That is if we don't want their continued opposition to denying us the same rights and privileges they have.

Amen and hallelujah

I absolutely agree. The only point I've been trying to make here is that you can't do that if you have a false impression of who the people you are trying to educate are, and if you stereotype them in exactly the same way they do you.

I absolutely agree that the VAST majority of mainstream Christians have been conditioned - not just by their faith system but by the culture - to have at a minimum at considerable degree of uncomfortableness with gay and trans people. I further agree that politically active Christian groups play too and count on that feeling in order to maximize their support.

But conditioning CAN be changed. Most of all by personal experiences with gay and trans people who defy the stereotype image that they have always had imprinted upon them of such people. but we don't present a sympathetic profile to these people when we go about assuming they are all hateful bigots.

They are not, mostly they are just uninformed and sheltered.

Maggie keeps citing me these lists of examples of people saying foolish things. I'm not sure why that is supposed to prove the point - I can find hundreds of examples of racist material online but it doesn't prove all whites are racist, I can find thousands of examples of Republicans speaking hatefully of Democrats and vice versa but that doesn't prove either bunch is made up only of narrow-minded hateful people.

I am sure the day will come when people I once considered friends reject me - the man who preformed my wedding is likely already on that list. And maybe I'm just a cold-hearted bastard that I don't care in the LEAST that he has done so. But i also know another Christian Pastor who is most loving and welcoming to people like me - should I assume the former trumps the latter? Or should I reject assumptions and stereotypes altogether as i am asking them to do?

Hell, the very fact that I AM a Christian and a - in most regards - politically conservative person, raised in the SBC and living my whole life in the Bible belt and yet I am STILL trans and not afraid for them to know it already screws their conventional stereotypes all to pieces.

If I'm not the stereotypical left-wing activist gay rights marcher (to say nothing of a lot of other less flattering assumptions connected to words like "pervert") then maybe that in itself is "educational" - and If I'm not the stereotypical gay/trans person, then just maybe they are not the stereotypical bigoted hate-filled oppressive narrow-minded backward redneck person  that it would be easy for me to assume either?

Just maybe?

Quote
Or maybe we should just say if a tax exempt organization becomes involved in the political process, they lose their tax exempt status.  Separation of church and state.

I wonder what the impact of a law like that would be?

I'd be all for that.

In fact, I think the church would be far better off to NOT hold a "special status" that makes them even more of a target. I like level playing fields.

The broad brush thing is not relevant.  If there are significant numbers of hateful Christians, my points are valid.

I'll even grant that millions of fair minded Christians exist. However, it is undeniable that these men that I have mentioned are in positions to say those things because of the donations of millions more.  As I asked before, if the majority of the Christian population sees these hateful comments and actions, why are they silent?  Where is their leader?  Don't say it is the liberal media squelching it because there are plenty of non mainstream ways to get the word out and it isn't there.  Silence is tacit agreement.   

There is a little known but very powerful movement in the Christian right called the New Apostolic Reformation and also the Seven Mountains movement.   Just because it has not been in the major media doesn't mean we should dismiss it.  Their goal is to take over all world governments and enforce Christian morals and biblical principles with emphasis on the OLD testament.  They embrace military action.  Now before you go and say oh just another back woods militia, check it out.  They have significant backing by many of the conservatives in the US.  Sarah Palin is among them.   

Here is a link to one source describing them .
http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/examining-the-seven-mountains-movement/ (http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/examining-the-seven-mountains-movement/)

We cannot just sit back and assume that most of the Christians are with us.  I was once in that group of non Catholics and said the very same things as Kristi.  But I was wrong.   It is frightening to consider that if Obama is somehow derailed, that the wingnuts will take over and then strip all of us of the rights we do have. I'm not going to be so complacent to believe that America can remain the bastion of freedom anymore.   

Not even trying to get informed and sift through the information for the truth is putting your head in the sand.   

Maggie

I can't argue paranoia.

I withdraw from the discussion.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
I can't argue paranoia.

I withdraw from the discussion.

Accuse me of being mentally ill because you won't admit your position is not defensible?  You admitted that you speak from ignorance and do not want to be informed.  I used references and sources that are legitimate.  That is somehow paranoia?   A wise person once said "You can't have an argument with an ignorant man"  well in this case, woman...

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 05, 2009, 04:07:32 PM
If you didn't think the church was militaristic, you will after seeing this documentary.

Constantine's Sword
"Constantine's Sword is the story of James Carroll; a former Catholic priest on a journey to confront his past and uncover the roots of religiously inspired violence and war. His search also reveals a growing scandal involving religious infiltration of the U.S. military and the terrible consequences of religion's influence on America's foreign policy."
http://constantinessword.com/ (http://constantinessword.com/)

I included this because it is an example of the hypocrisy of the church and it's activities in modern life. 

Excellent movie Maggie! James Carroll also wrote a book, which goes more in depth than a 2 hour movie can.

Quote from: Kristi on September 05, 2009, 04:55:44 PM
What you need to know is that there are many millions of mainline Christians across America and across the world who have never cared what Rome has said, and have never been part of the fundamentalist movement.  This is my background, though every time you go off on your quoting spree, you refuse to acknowledge the mainline church.   No, we don't consider the pronouncements of the pope, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Wiley Drake, John Hagee, and all of their ilk to be in any way authoritative, or even to really be part of the same religion we practice.  We see these statements and scratch our heads in bewilderment  We also continue to be totally confounded by why you hate us so very much. 

Kristi

Thanks for stating this Kristi! I've always believed it is important to not simply believe stereotypes, and go beyond them to looking at the individual person. There are many people, of all religions and atheists too, whose lives exemplify the teachings they believe in.

The above are my own opinions, now wearing my admin hat (trust me it's stylish), let me remind folks (no one in particular) to discuss the idea, no personal attacks.

Z

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 05, 2009, 05:38:45 PM
Accuse me of being mentally ill because you won't admit your position is not defensible?  You admitted that you speak from ignorance and do not want to be informed.  I used references and sources that are legitimate.  That is somehow paranoia?   A wise person once said "You can't have an argument with an ignorant man"  well in this case, woman...

I would not classify paranoia as mental illness.

YMMV.

if you prefer then, I'll rephrase it to say you worry too much.

Vigilance is proper, but if you insist on the tinfoil hat, there's nothing I can do to change that.

Let me just conclude by saying this. I've been reading that 7 Mountains" link and the thing that most jumps out at me is that Rushdooney and the others of his ilk were prominent voices (among those who didn't think he was a nutter) in the early-mid-70's.

And since his voice gained notice, on EVERY frot he would have been concerned about, his views have lost ground and ever-decreasing currency with the majority of Americans and with those in power.

On every hand, we have moved further and further from his vision and goals.

Yet I'm supposed to be worried about him succeeding?

Meh. i'll look you up in the death camps and admit I was wrong when the time comes.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 06:49:31 PM
I would not classify paranoia as mental illness.

The APA does.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 05, 2009, 06:49:31 PM
Vigilance is proper, but if you insist on the tinfoil hat, there's nothing I can do to change that.

Ths is an insulting and disrespectful comment.  I never thought I would have to argue for LBGT rights at Susan's.

I'm done responding to you.

topic locked for 24 hours.

Z

This will be my last post in this thread regardless of reply but I didn't want to leave this hanging:

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 05, 2009, 07:24:31 PM
The APA does.

Well yes, if you think Alien Zombies in Plaid Flying Saucers are coming tonight to suck your liver out through your nose....you probably have a mental condition.

If you think the two people whispering at the end of the hall are talking about YOU....you don't.

For the record - in my intended usage, I was making no implications concerning your mental health. If you choose to be insulted by it, I can't help it.

Until you took offense, it never occurred to me - in my entire life - that someone called paranoid would believed that they had been accused of having a mental illness.

So I guess I did learn something, as it were, in this thread.

Quote
Ths is an insulting and disrespectful comment.  I never thought I would have to argue for LBGT rights at Susan's.

I'm done responding to you.

You wouldn't be arguing for LBGT rights at Susan's if you were actually discussing the point I made instead of ascribing to me the views you seem to want to see.

It probably comes as a shock to you, or an insult to your worldview, that a person can possibly be trans and NOT be a flaming left-wing radical at the same time.

At least, that's the reaction I seem to be getting around the net since I came out.

In any case, you insist on approaching the conversation as if I am attacking or arguing against LBGT rights in this thread and that couldn't be further from reality.

I argued one point and one point only - that you do not show the wide diversity of Christian opinion the same respect you ask Christians to show towards us.

It's not my fault you persist in arguing against a point no one is making.

/fins

There is a point at which you have to dance with those what brung ya.  To be a Catholic is to be Catholic, with all the good (and it's in no means small, and in many ways huge) and the bad (and it's in no means small, and in many ways huge) that all of that experience has to offer. 

You can't pick and choose.

It's the whole, not part, or this bit, or that part, but all of it that informs your existence. 

It must be nice, convenient even, to take what you want, and leave the rest.  But its always disingenuous to do so. 

Tekla,
Superb point.   
Laura,
Characterizing my views as a "flaming left wing radical" is meant to demean.  You do know that the vast majority of LBGT people are supporting the democratic party don't you?  That surely isn't a secret or that I am wearing a tin foil hat to post it.  In so doing, you now have insulted most of the people here. 

Oh, I'll give you your point as I had earlier as well but you ignored it.  Not all Christians are against transgender people.   However, I won't respect a group who supports and allows their spokes people to spread anti LBGT views. 

Please stop this.  I don't want to be insulted again and again.  I didn't post these things because as an academic argument. They are deeply upsetting to me as a person once was proud to call herself a conservative Christian.  I don't want to be hurt again by another Christian.  I don't know if you are trolling or what but I have had enough. 

The Flaming Left-Wing Radical
Maggie

It's okay to discuss points but not okay to demean or name call members here.  Attack the points, not the members.  Please re-read the rules if necessary.

On to the discussion...

It's pretty obvious those who have participated in this discussion have stood their ground.  And that's fine, unless you sell religion door to door.  And it's fairly well known the LGBT community (and other groups as well) are not too happy with what they see and hear coming from religious organizations.  And that's a generalization, and does not apply to EVERY religious organization.  And I think we can all agree not every LGBT person is upset with every Christian.

While I can certainly understand why our community isn't too happy with the things we see coming from the world of Christianity, what I don't understand is why all those Christians who see the fear and hate mongering aren't calling those who are doing it out onto the carpet.

I know devout Christians who hate hearing some of the fear and hate mongering but I've never heard them say they have stood up to their Christian community members and expressed their disgust to them.  Aren't we all responsible for keeping our houses clean?  If we don't want people to walk away in disgust, we'd better.

For those who want to change the prevailing attitude the LGBT community has toward Christians, you have to start with changing what we see coming from outspoken Christian organizations.  You're not going to win any cases with our community if we keep seeing Christian organizations pouring money into anti-gay marriage, making claims trans people have a mental disorder and perpetuating outdated beliefs that paint us in a bad light.  Tell your pastor or minister to read what Steven Anderson or Fred Phelps says and use it to make the point that there are people calling themselves christian who are preaching hatred and it has to be stopped.

If there are so many Christians out there who disagree with the fear mongering types, why aren't they doing anything about it?  Why aren't they more vocal?  Why aren't they encouraging others to stop sending them money?  Until the attacks stop, you can expect the members of our community to fight back.

Julie

Quote from: Maggie Kay on September 08, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Tekla,
Superb point.   
Laura,
Characterizing my views as a "flaming left wing radical" is meant to demean.  You do know that the vast majority of LBGT people are supporting the democratic party don't you?  That surely isn't a secret or that I am wearing a tin foil hat to post it.  In so doing, you now have insulted most of the people here. 

Oh, I'll give you your point as I had earlier as well but you ignored it.  Not all Christians are against transgender people.   However, I won't respect a group who supports and allows their spokes people to spread anti LBGT views. 

Please stop this.  I don't want to be insulted again and again.  I didn't post these things because as an academic argument. They are deeply upsetting to me as a person once was proud to call herself a conservative Christian.  I don't want to be hurt again by another Christian.  I don't know if you are trolling or what but I have had enough. 

The Flaming Left-Wing Radical
Maggie

Ok, fine.

You win.

I dare not open my mouth unless I am being insulting and hurtful.

nothing is "meant to demean" - nothing was a purposeful insult. In fact, if I were being as sensitive as you have been I could have easily been insulted by your characterization of Christians in this very thread.

I would greatly prefer to discuss things with those who SON'T assume an insult or an attempt to hurt in every sentence BUT, such is apparently not the world I live in so

Let me be very plain spoken for once:

NOTHING I have said to you is mean to insult or demean you. In point of fact, I LIKE you a great deal and only entered this discussion (and no leave it) with no animosity or ill-feelings whatsoever. If you have felt any they were entirely unintentional and a result of me underestimating just how easy it was to hurt your feelings.

I have discussions like this all the time all over the net and have had FAR worse said to me without blinking, I was and apparently am unprepared for just how easy it is to hurt your feelings but nevertheless, I didn't and don't want to so I apologize.

Quote
You do know that the vast majority of LBGT people are supporting the democratic party don't you?

Indeed I do. But were I to offer a reaction to that reality, I'd create another firestorm so I will censor myself.

---

Post Merge: September 08, 2009, 03:07:04 PM

---

Quotewhat I don't understand is why all those Christians who see the fear and hate mongering aren't calling those who are doing it out onto the carpet.

Two things-

a. they are out there but they get virtually no attention because they don't fit into the popular motif that Christians are "teh evil". That's not just on this subject but across the board. Read Bernie Goldberg's "Bias" for an example of how those with the microphone tend to care more about the meme than the reality.

b. every group has a problem with the "herd mentality" - that's why being a Gay Republican is such a rare thing and why a lot of Gays consider such people almost traitors to the cause.
In the same way that a LGBT person knows they should keep there head down and not sound like they are "right wing" (a lesson that's been pounded into my brain with great regularity in the last year - I speak from experience when I say i'm learning that the LGBT community expects me to keep my mouth shut about my conservative views) - even so a Christian who has sympathies with the LGBT cause realizes it's a minority view and learns it's best to keep his mouth shut about it.

It ain't right, but it happens, in every sphere of life.

Quote from: Laura Hope on September 08, 2009, 02:59:43 PM
even so a Christian who has sympathies with the LGBT cause realizes it's a minority view and learns it's best to keep his mouth shut about it.

But we all know keeping your mouth shut never advances any cause.

I realize the active Christians here and within the LGBT community elsewhere are hurt, offended or upset with what is coming from our community regarding christians.  And just as much as I can't blame our community members for being upset, I can't blame our Christian members for being upset.  They know they are being lumped in with the majority and labeled haters when they are anything but.  And that's just as sad as members of our community being labeled pedophiles and such.

How do we change this?  Well, speaking out is a good start.  Creating social groups that invite people with opposing views to get to know each other can help.  I'm sure the people here can come up with lots of other ways too.  But keeping quiet accomplishes nothing.

I realize there are risks to speaking out when it's contrary to commonly held beliefs.  It's a lot like coming out as being TG.  You could suffer some losses.  But there's always a price to pay when you are trying to make the world a better place to live by challenging the status quo.

Julie

Indeed I do. But were I to offer a reaction to that reality, I'd create another firestorm so I will censor myself.

I doubt if a statical analysis would create a firestorm.  Fact is, more people ID as democrats than republican in the United States, as a subset of those groups, gay/lesbian persons would fall into that basic split along the same lines.

Moreover, if you did further statistical breakdowns you'd find that the large G/L populations tend to center in liberal areas, SF, Boston, Chicago, Ann Arbor, Minn/St.Paul, Madison Wisconsin - and those areas are predominantly democratic, year in and year out, hence, even more G/L persons would be democrats.

And in a final analysis you would find that for the most part the G/L population tends to have both above average educations and above average incomes, the combination of the two is as solid a democratic indicator as there is outside of union membership.

Does that mean all are?  No.  Hell I have a couple of people in my union that are 'Pubs, one was even a big time Huckabee supporter.  But most of the members of my union are yellow dog democrats (as opposed to blue dog democrats).*  That would stand to reason as the Democrats are long standing supporters of unionism (going back to FDR), and tend to support other issues, like workplace safety that we are concerned with. Even more as my union works with performance arts, has many 'artists' of different stripes (scene painters, lighting designers, make-up artists) in our association. A high concentration of "Bleeding Hearts and Artists" then would tend to democratic alliance also. The fact that the biggest and strongest locals are in NYC, LA, SF, Philly would also trend democratic on location alone.

In fact, most of the gay men I know are very fiscally conservative. They are homeowners, property owners, many are self-made business persons, who feel - rightly so - pretty much rejected by the Republicans, (if not outright condemned by them) and if the 'Pubs would drop the 'culture war' deal I'm sure many would venture to the other side.

But, so long as the 'Pubs keep up that extreme cultural attack, most G/L will be Democrats, just like so long as the Democrats keep up the strong commitment to trade unionism, most union members will be Democrats.









*  Yellow Dog Democrat - the people who would vote democratic no matter what, as in "I'd vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a Republican."  The original source of the name seems to be Abe Lincoln.  Blue Dog Democrats, who are really the old Boll Weevils, are conservative (Southern and Western) Democrats who are left outside of the party all the time, hence, turn blue from the cold.  They have a D after their name, but tend to vote against, rather than with the party on a lot of issues.