On "I'm Christian, unless you're gay" and Christian "tolerance"

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

See, this is what I don't understand. What exactly is the "everything" that the author needs to "make up for?" It reads to me like you'are unsatisfied with the essayist's ability to personally atone for all the evils done by the group whose current membership he's admonishing for those same evils.

The point is, words are cheap.

But also, that this whole "hate the sin love the sinner" applied to people one doesn't know is 99.9999% of the time utter crap. Hate is hate. If the person doesn't know the sinner well, hating the sin almost always amounts to hating the sinner as well.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Steophan

He includes gay people and people with tattoos in with criminals. That is the problem, and the attitude that needs to change. That will never happen while people base their attitudes on the voices in their heads, and the ravings of ancient madmen.

He should not be saying that these things should be "tolerated", and that people should be "loved" in spite of them. He should be saying there is nothing wrong with them.

He also includes "our ex-lovers, our lovers’ ex lovers, or our ex-lovers’ lovers," with criminals. From this, do you deduce that he thinks there is something wrong with being an ex-lover? Do you think he's trying to draw an moral equivalence between being an ex-lover, and being a criminal?

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Knorf

The point is, words are cheap.

But also, that this whole "hate the sin love the sinner" applied to people one doesn't know is 99.9999% of the time utter crap. Hate is hate. If the person doesn't know the sinner well, hating the sin almost always amounts to hating the sinner as well.

Your second paragraph just isn't relevant to the essay you're criticising. At no point is "hate the sin love the sinner" used directly or advocated by the author at all. In fact, a major point of the thing is that it's not even possible to know what other people's "sins" are. It's right there in the portion I quoted in the post right above yours.

You seem to agree with what the essayist said, but you object to the essayist saying it. That's what I'm struggling to understand.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Miller

He also includes "our ex-lovers, our lovers’ ex lovers, or our ex-lovers’ lovers," with criminals. From this, do you deduce that he thinks there is something wrong with being an ex-lover? Do you think he's trying to draw an moral equivalence between being an ex-lover, and being a criminal?

He is making a moral challenge to Christians to live up to their beliefs, and love everyone, even criminals, ex-partners, and gays. My point is that homosexuals do not belong in that group, and that the attitude of anything "even though" someone is gay is what needs to change.

So, in this case, he is drawing a very specific equivalence between ex-lovers and criminals, which is that they have done something to the Christian in question to justify having that love removed, but that the true Christian should love them anyway. It is unacceptable to include homosexuals in that category.

Now, I appreciate that he is well meaning. However, he's well meaning in the same way that someone letting a black man use his toilet in Alabama in 1960 is well meaning. It's better than nothing, but there should be no "letting" allowed. It should be a matter of course.

[Skammer]

Steophan, you're wrong. You're projecting what you think are the author's motives onto what he's saying.

He comes right out and says that it doesn't matter if homesexuality is a sin or not. When he lists them with criminals, ex-lovers and people with tattoos the only thing those people have in common is that they are people who Christians should love and often don't. Now I know you would agree that Christians don't have a good track record for loving gay people, so you agree with him there.

So let me say this again. (1) In his own words he refuses to say that homosexuality is sinful, and says it doesn't matter. (2) He says Christians, who are supposed to be loving toward everyone, ought to practice what they preach and love people that they often don't. (3) People who Christians often fail at loving include criminals, people with tattoos, ex-lovers, and gay people.

Things he DOESN'T say:
- Homosexuality is bad or a sin
- "Love the sin, hate the sinner"
- Gays are like criminals
- Love gays "even though" they are sinners

You keep assigning him the belief that homosexuality is a sin, which is nowhere in this article.

[Skammer]

duplicate post

[Steophan]

To make it clear, the person I'm criticising is the person quoted at the end of the blog post, not the blogger. She says she's not religious, and doesn't understand why people have an issue with homosexuality.

[xenophon41]

I don't think any of the 'defenders' are confused about that. We've been talking about the essay "I'm Christian Unless You're Gay", referred to at the end of the blog post the OP linked.

Here: We're discussing this particular composition.

[Steophan]

Some quotes from the article.

Hell, in the past (and to some degree in the present) I participated in it. I propagated it. I smugly took part in it. I’ll admit that.

And I did so under the blanketing term “Christian.”

I know there are many here who believe that living a homosexual life is a sin.

Okay.

I’m not here to say homosexuality is a sin or isn’t a sin. To be honest, I don’t give a rip. I don’t care. I’m not here to debate whether or not it’s natural or genetic. Again, I… don’t… care. Those debates hold no encumbrance for me.

My message to him would be that, if he actually cares about his friend who's life is being made a misery by anti-gay sentiment in his community, it's time for him to stop participating in it, stop being ok with people saying homosexuality is sinful, and to care a great deal that people say it is.

The question shouldn't be "Should Christians love homosexuals as they love everyone else?". It should be "Why is this even a question?". At best, he's guilty of moral cowardice, being unwilling to say that homosexuality should not be considered wrong by anyone. More likely, he does have a problem with it, but wants to feel better by "tolerating" it.

[coffeecat]

Originally Posted by Steophan

My message to him would be that, if he actually cares about his friend who's life is being made a misery by anti-gay sentiment in his community, it's time for him to stop participating in it, stop being ok with people saying homosexuality is sinful, and to care a great deal that people say it is.

The question shouldn't be "Should Christians love homosexuals as they love everyone else?". It should be "Why is this even a question?". At best, he's guilty of moral cowardice, being unwilling to say that homosexuality should not be considered wrong by anyone. More likely, he does have a problem with it, but wants to feel better by "tolerating" it.

Your point isn't one he chooses to make. Write your own essay. His point is that it is irrelevant from the POV of proper behavior whether homosexuality is sinful or not. Christianity (and a several other faiths he cites, for that matter) says your job is to love. Just as you love yourself.

Yeesh. Someone comes along saying we should love each other, and people are ready to crucify him all over again.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The question shouldn't be "Should Christians love homosexuals as they love everyone else?". It should be "Why is this even a question?"

Right. You agree with the author so far, because like you he doesn't pose it as a question, but reminds Christians that it's a commandment.

At best, he's guilty of moral cowardice, being unwilling to say that homosexuality should not be considered wrong by anyone. More likely, he does have a problem with it, but wants to feel better by "tolerating" it.

Why is it moral cowardice to refrain from condemning others' thoughts and considerations? The article addresses behavior toward other people as moral peers, regardless of revealed or hidden differences between you and them. It's about acceptance, not tolerance of those differences, because they're irrelevant.

Now, I can see why most people would be uncomfortable with that directive. Most folks didn't much care for it the first time it was given either. It's much easier to look down on someone for the things we think they are that we're not than it is to be careful about how we ourselves act toward them.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by coffeecat

His point is that it is irrelevant from the POV of proper behavior whether homosexuality is sinful or not.

Which is precisely my problem.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Why is it moral cowardice to refrain from condemning others' thoughts and considerations?

Appeal to the dictionary on this one? What do you think cowardice is?

It takes great courage to stand up in a Christian community and tell Christians to change their awful, wrong beliefs about homosexuality. This person doesn't have that courage. He goes out of his way to say how little he cares if you hold such abhorrent beliefs as "homosexuality is a sin." He either doesn't have the desire or doesn't have the courage to countermand this evil doctrine.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Steophan

My message to him would be that, if he actually cares about his friend who's life is being made a misery by anti-gay sentiment in his community, it's time for him to stop participating in it, stop being ok with people saying homosexuality is sinful, and to care a great deal that people say it is.

The question shouldn't be "Should Christians love homosexuals as they love everyone else?". It should be "Why is this even a question?". At best, he's guilty of moral cowardice, being unwilling to say that homosexuality should not be considered wrong by anyone. More likely, he does have a problem with it, but wants to feel better by "tolerating" it.

You have confused "moral cowardice" with "good tactics."

Look, there's two ways we can approach this problem:

We can try to convince a large number of people to change their deeply held moral beliefs.

Or:

We can try to convince a large number of people to change the way they interact with people with whom they disagree morally.

Now, if we could do the first, that would be awesome. But that's a hell of a lot harder than doing the second one. And if we can get the second one, it'll fix 90% of the problems gays face in contemporary society. On top of which, if it actually works, we're in a much strong position to work on getting them to change those deeply held moral beliefs.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Appeal to the dictionary on this one? What do you think cowardice is?

It takes great courage to stand up in a Christian community and tell Christians to change their awful, wrong beliefs about homosexuality. This person doesn't have that courage. He goes out of his way to say how little he cares if you hold such abhorrent beliefs as "homosexuality is a sin." He either doesn't have the desire or doesn't have the courage to countermand this evil doctrine.

"Countermand?" Would you like a dictionary? You may not be aware of this, but the author actually has no signal authority over the doctrine of any established Christian church. Courage has nothing to do with it.

And he doesn't have the desire to argue anyone out of a moral consideration because he's trying to argue them into moral behavior.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Miller

You have confused "moral cowardice" with "good tactics."

Look, there's two ways we can approach this problem:

We can try to convince a large number of people to change their deeply held moral beliefs.

Or:

We can try to convince a large number of people to change the way they interact with people with whom they disagree morally.

Now, if we could do the first, that would be awesome. But that's a hell of a lot harder than doing the second one. And if we can get the second one, it'll fix 90% of the problems gays face in contemporary society. On top of which, if it actually works, we're in a much strong position to work on getting them to change those deeply held moral beliefs.

Moreover, this is actually a whole different problem from the one that the author of the essay is addressing.

He's not trying specifically to get conservative Christians to change their attitudes about homosexuality. Rather, he's denouncing the whole self-righteous attitude of “God hates people that aren’t just like me”.

Which, as he notes, is held by a number of people of all religions and of no religion, and directed at an infinite variety of categories of "not-just-like-me", including both traits that are viewed as actual moral failings and traits that are just "different". That covers, according to the author, not just gays but also "fat people", "people with nontraditional piercings", "people who dress differently", and "people who aren't members of the dominant local religion".

Bigotry against homosexuals is indeed a dreadful thing. But I think the essay's author is spot-on in noting that ultimately, it's just one particular manifestation of a much bigger dreadful thing: namely, the desire to bully, reject and hate others just for being different from the majority.

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

It takes great courage to stand up in a Christian community and tell Christians to change their awful, wrong beliefs about homosexuality. This person doesn't have that courage. He goes out of his way to say how little he cares if you hold such abhorrent beliefs as "homosexuality is a sin." He either doesn't have the desire or doesn't have the courage to countermand this evil doctrine.

Kind of ironic to think that nonetheless his well-meaning essay will probably inspire more genuine self-questioning humility, and accomplish more to combat homophobia effectively, than your own mean-spirited, smugly self-righteous, holier-than-thou condemnations ever will.

[digs]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Kind of ironic to think that nonetheless his well-meaning essay will probably inspire more genuine self-questioning humility, and accomplish more to combat homophobia effectively, than your own mean-spirited, smugly self-righteous, holier-than-thou condemnations ever will.

Ooh, and now C. Robot had to read that twice...

[Condescending Robot]

Which doesn't make it any more true...

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Kind of ironic to think that nonetheless his well-meaning essay will probably inspire more genuine self-questioning humility, and accomplish more to combat homophobia effectively, than your own mean-spirited, smugly self-righteous, holier-than-thou condemnations ever will.

Why would it do anything to combat homophobia at all? It validates homophobia as acceptable, as long as you push it with a smile.

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Why would it do anything to combat homophobia at all? It validates homophobia as acceptable, as long as you push it with a smile.

No, you're making the same mistake as Robot by confusing civility or politeness - "tolarance" - with love.

The author's point is not "be nice to gays, even if you think they are sinful." Its "love all people, even if they are different than you."

If you are loving someone, it literally does not matter if they are a sinner or not. As the guy says, it's completely irrelevant. If a particular individual thinks that gay sex is not God's perfect plan, but doesn't care and truly loves and respects gay people -- I can't call that homophobia.

[PandaBear77]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Kind of ironic to think that nonetheless his well-meaning essay will probably inspire more genuine self-questioning humility, and accomplish more to combat homophobia effectively, than your own mean-spirited, smugly self-righteous, holier-than-thou condemnations ever will.

Let's go for a third time for Condescending Robot, just so it'll sink in.

I'll throw in an Amen while I'm at it

[Steophan]

Someone who believes that they have been told by God that homosexuality is evil is not going to be convinced to act as though it isn't by a well meaning essay on the internet. They need to be told that there is no God, and to grow up and act accordingly.

[Algher]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Someone who believes that they have been told by God that homosexuality is evil is not going to be convinced to act as though it isn't by a well meaning essay on the internet. They need to be told that there is no God, and to grow up and act accordingly.

No, but they will be convinced by a well delivered sermon, repeated regularly, that hits the core of their belief system.

Christ said Love. Period. That is the primary commandment. We don't get the luxury of choosing WHO to love. The words of Christ are crystal clear, and trump anything from the Old Testament or from a few words from Paul. Hammering that message home is a VERY effective way to shift people over, and it has been very effective. This has been a core part of the various movements - that reminder has been used repeatedly. You can find it in the hearings of the Presbyterian Church, when they started ordaining Gays and Lesbians. You can find it with other sects who have opened their eyes and arms as well.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Why would it do anything to combat homophobia at all? It validates homophobia as acceptable, as long as you push it with a smile.

I'll let the advocates of the different approaches speak for themselves here:

Originally Posted by essay author Dan Pearce

The greatest spiritual leaders in history have all preached love for others as the basis for all happiness, and never did they accompany such mandates with a list of unlovable actions or deeds. [...]

So if this is the founding directive of all the major religions… why is it that sometimes the most “Christlike” people are they who have no religion at all? [...]

In truth, having a religion doesn’t make a person love or not love others. It doesn’t make a person accept or not accept others. It doesn’t make a person befriend or not befriend others.

Being without a religion doesn’t make somebody do or be any of that either.

No, what makes somebody love, accept, and befriend their fellow man is letting go of a need to be better than others. [...]

What I care about is the need so many of us have to shun and loathe others. The need so many of us have to feel better or superior to others. The need some of us have to declare ourselves right and “perfect” all the freaking time and any chance we have.

And for some of us, these are very real needs.

But I will tell you this. All it really is… All any of it really is… is bullying.

Sneaky, hurtful, duplicitous, bullying.

Well, guess what.

There are things we all do or believe that other people consider “sinful.” There are things we all do or believe that other people consider “wrong.” There are things we all do or believe that other people would be disgusted or angered by.

“Yes, but I have the truth!” most people will adamantly declare. [...]

I promise you it doesn’t matter what you believe, how strongly you live your beliefs, or how true your beliefs are. Somebody else, somewhere, thinks you are in the wrong. Somebody else, somewhere, thinks your beliefs are senseless or illogical. Somebody else, somewhere, thinks you have it all wrong. In fact, there are a lot of people in this world who do. [...]

Yet, we expect and want love anyway. We expect and want understanding. We expect and want tolerance. We expect and want humanity. We expect and want respect for our beliefs, even from those who don’t believe the same things we do. Even from those who think we’re wrong, unwise, or incorrect. [...]

I wish we didn’t all have to find ways that we’re better than others or more holy and saintly than others in order to feel better about our own messy selves.

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

There is one mentally diseased state that I should get credit for "tolerating" despite the repulsion it inspires in any sane person, and it's not homosexuality, it's religion. [...]

See the problem? See the biogtry? See why Christians are terrible? [...]

If you think homosexuality is wrong or that practicing sodomy is "a sin," your beliefs are incorrect and you are a bad person. You should change your beliefs. [...]

The Church hates homosexuals because their religion tells them to be douchebags. [...]

It takes great courage to stand up in a Christian community and tell Christians to change their awful, wrong beliefs about homosexuality. This person doesn't have that courage.

The reason why the essay author's approach is likely more effective than Condescending Robot's at actually making some people less bigoted against homosexuality is simple.

It's because the essay author comes across as a sympathetic and compassionate person pointing out that EVERYBODY is "wrong" or "sinful" when judged by someone of different beliefs. So we should all stop letting those judgements dictate our attitudes and behavior towards others.

Condescending Robot, on the other hand, comes across as a self-righteous jerk interested only in lecturing those of different beliefs about how wrong and sinful they are.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Someone who believes that they have been told by God that homosexuality is evil is not going to be convinced to act as though it isn't by a well meaning essay on the internet. They need to be told that there is no God, and to grow up and act accordingly.

You don't think an internet essay can convince someone to act nicer to gays - but you do think they can be convinced to abandon belief in God entirely via the same medium?

You might want to think that one through a little more.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Why would it do anything to combat homophobia at all? It validates homophobia as acceptable, as long as you push it with a smile.

I agree that Condescending Robot's mean-spirited, smugly self-righteous, holier-than-thou condemnations won't do anything to combat homophobia, but I think it's going a bit far to say that his antics actually validate homophobia.

...

Oh, wait, you were talking about the guy who wrote the essay, weren't you? Never mind, then.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Someone who believes that they have been told by God that homosexuality is evil is not going to be convinced to act as though it isn't by a well meaning essay on the internet. They need to be told that there is no God, and to grow up and act accordingly.

Yeah! But you just can't stop there! You need to ferret out those hate-mongers, sterilize them, isolate them on an island and let them all die so the rest of us tolerant people can live in peace!

After all, I'm pretty sure they have already been told that there is no God and it's time to grow up......it's just not happening as fast as you would like to think it should.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

IIt's because the essay author comes across as a sympathetic and compassionate person pointing out that EVERYBODY is "wrong" or "sinful" when judged by someone of different beliefs.

No, not "everybody" is wrong or sinful, and neither you nor the author of the article actually believe that, so let's cut the bullshit.

[gamerunknown]

Tattoos are banned in Leviticus. Spousal abuse doesn't feature from what I recall, but it is repudiated by Paul (as are expensive clothes and gold jewelry). On the other hand, belonging to a biker gang and doing drugs aren't sins of themselves from what I can tell.

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

No, not "everybody" is wrong or sinful, and neither you nor the author of the article actually believe that, so let's cut the bullshit.

You're really good at telling other people what they believe despite what they say they believe. How do you do that?

In a year of sermons, I might hear one about how other people are sinners - maybe. I'll probably hear 50 about my own sins, though. But I guess you know better than Christians do about what they believe.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Skammer

In a year of sermons, I might hear one about how other people are sinners - maybe. I'll probably hear 50 about my own sins, though. But I guess you know better than Christians do about what they believe.

OK. The vast majority of Christians in America, and a supermajority so large as to make any other viewpoints basically irrelevant in the rest of the world, spend most of their time doing things like working to pass laws against the existence of homosexuals and stoning witches. I know you feel really great about being in the elite 1% that have figured out The Real Christianity; what does that get me when the 99% who are obviously doing it wrong show up at my door?

[Yeticus Rex]

This thread is beginning to make a sharp turn into Fred13 country...

[Algher]

Originally Posted by Yeticus Rex

This thread is beginning to make a sharp turn into Fred13 country...

Beginning? With that last post he accelerated into turn 3 and is about to catch Fred13 in the Unsubstantiated Bullshit 500!

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

OK. The vast majority of Christians in America, and a supermajority so large as to make any other viewpoints basically irrelevant in the rest of the world, spend most of their time doing things like working to pass laws against the existence of homosexuals and stoning witches. I know you feel really great about being in the elite 1% that have figured out The Real Christianity; what does that get me when the 99% who are obviously doing it wrong show up at my door?

No, the moderately large and noisy miinority of conservative evangelical Christians do szome of this, and the Republican Party (in particular, though political pandering is not limited to them) and supposedly 'fair, balanced' media coverage give them a voice all out of proportion to their real strength.

[Condescending Robot]

To use homosexuality as a convenient example: The Catholics are the largest group of Christians in America, followed by the Baptists, the Methodists, the Mormons, and the Pentecostals. The least virulent of those churches on the anti-gay front are the Methodists, whose official position nonetheless remains clearly anti-marriage equality and anti-the inclusion of homosexuals on an equal basis within their own church as priests and so on (though neither position is without significant dissent within that church, to be clear).

The liberal Christian is perhaps the greatest contemporary exemplar of Pauline Kael's famous "everybody *I* know voted for McGovern, so how did Nixon win?" mindset. Christians whose theology revolves around "no boys kissing" are not a "noisy minority," they are the numerical supermajority even in the United States and have never been anywhere close to losing this position. The "hippie Jesus" school is not and never has been the norm no matter how much you insist that 99.99999% of Christians throughout history were fake Christians who don't count.

In other countries where Christianity has political influence, even the much-vaunted "tolerance" of homosexuals is not even a position that exists. Christianity, worldwide, means Catholicism and the equivalent of the snake-handling churches in Africa, and there's no filter on it for the niceties of American centrism. The idea that anti-gay [or anti-woman, or inclined to believe that one's child needs an exorcism, or anti-mental health care] Christians are anywhere CLOSE to being a "noisy minority" as opposed to 90% and more of the religion is pure "the world is the way I wish it was!" fantasy.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

OK. The vast majority of Christians in America, and a supermajority so large as to make any other viewpoints basically irrelevant in the rest of the world, spend most of their time doing things like working to pass laws against the existence of homosexuals and stoning witches.

I'd imagine the vast majority of Christians in America spend most of their time doing things like going to work, sleeping, and watching TV. That's true of most of the Christians I know, at least.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

OK. The vast majority of Christians in America, and a supermajority so large as to make any other viewpoints basically irrelevant in the rest of the world, spend most of their time doing things like working to pass laws against the existence of homosexuals and stoning witches.

I certainly don't spend most of my time stoning witches. It takes up about 15% of my time, tops.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Skammer

If you are loving someone, it literally does not matter if they are a sinner or not.

Of course it matters; people who think you are a sinner will work to punish or "reform" you. If they "love" you in the Christan sense, that just means they say that "we're really sorry that we have to do this, but it's for your own good" before they commence the beatings or whatever. Christians have always talked about how they loved the people they imprisoned, enslaved, tortured and murdered for their god. I'd far prefer Christian indifference to Christan love; the latter is indistinguishable from malice.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

I think the OP has a reasonable point, perhaps inelegantly phrased. While "we tolerate you just like we tolerate every other manner of deviant" is, I suppose, a degree of improvement over "die, faggots," it's still a condescending little demi-step toward what the norm ought to be, which is "it's not our business to 'tolerate' you at all because there's nothing wrong with you."

At least I think that's what he's getting at.

Originally Posted by Miller

He also includes "our ex-lovers, our lovers’ ex lovers, or our ex-lovers’ lovers," with criminals. From this, do you deduce that he thinks there is something wrong with being an ex-lover? Do you think he's trying to draw an moral equivalence between being an ex-lover, and being a criminal?

1. Firstly the OP never linked to the original essay/glurg. Here it is: http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-chr...youre-gay.html

FTR, it makes my skin crawl. Regardless, I'd like to amplify Miller's point.

Originally Posted by Glurgy essay

You see, I live in this community too. And I’ve heard the hate. I’ve heard the disgust. I’ve heard the disdain. I’ve heard the gossip. I’ve heard the distrust. I’ve heard the anger. I’ve heard it all, and I’ve heard it tucked and disguised neatly beneath a wrapper of self-righteousness and a blanket of “caring” or “religious” words. I’ve heard it more times than I care to number.

About gay people.

About people who dress differently.

About people who act differently.

About fat people.

About people with drug addictions.

About people who smoke.

About people with addictions to alcohol.

About people with eating disorders.

About people who fall away from their faiths.

About people who aren’t members of the dominant local religion.

About people who have non-traditional piercings.

About people who just look at you or me the wrong way.

Placing "Gay" near "People who dress/act differently", doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If anything it's the fat people who might get exercised about being placed next to "Drug addictions" -- but somebody had to be put there right?

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

... And if you look at a gay man giving his husband a peck on the cheek and think "ick!" you're a bigot and should be ashamed of yourself.

Well I think, "Ick!" (nonverbally anyway) but I take exception at being called a bigot. I'm not going to apologize for thought crimes, especially those propped by pronounced, borderline traumatic and near-universal incidents from the youth of my cohort. What I don't feel is contempt and decency implies that I don't create unnecessary problems or challenges for others. Which is to say I try not to be a dick about it.

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Oh and when I was younger I used to get "You're not a Christian, you're a Catholic", "Fenian bastard" and (once) "Papist". There is only Christian cohesion against a common enemy. As soon as it comes down to actual dogma, I'd say most Christians hold that marginally different sects are still going to end up in hell.

Based upon the Christian sect that I grew up in, I'd say that theology is nuts.

Originally Posted by Polycarp

No, the moderately large and noisy minority of conservative evangelical Christians do some of this, and the Republican Party (in particular, though political pandering is not limited to them) and supposedly 'fair, balanced' media coverage give them a voice all out of proportion to their real strength.

Hoo-boy Poly: I'm close to giving up on Christianity. Once a slice of it advanced the moral boundary -- I'm thinking of abolitionism and the civil rights movement.

Now fast forward to the 2009 health care debate. Here's an argument that I almost never heard:

Jesus came to earth as a healer. Now he was referring to sin when he said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." But when the mostly healthy are turned down for insurance because of a genetic disorder or when the premium paying customer falls ill and has her policy yanked away because of today's cancer and yesterday's acne, perhaps some of Jesus' expressed sentiments might be judiciously applied.

Ok, ok: I am no preacher. Still, I'd say the basis in the Gospels for curbing rescission and addressing pre-existing conditions seems a lot stronger than the wackadoodle abortion objections of the debate. Private insurance companies had covered abortion services for years without complaint after all. Now admittedly I wasn't surprised that there would be an abortion brou-ha-ha: I even anticipated it. But the deafening silence of the moral community on the subject of -you know- the poor and the sick was disturbing.

Where were the mainline Christians when this Great Issue of the Day was debated? Why didn't anyone even say offhand, "Of course we all want to aid the sick..."?

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Where were the mainline Christians when this Great Issue of the Day was debated? Why didn't anyone even say offhand, "Of course we all want to aid the sick..."?

I had to recheck the username on this post after that one.

MfM, does it disturb you at all that your question is of exactly the same form and intelligence as these other questions you may have heard:

After 9/11: "Why don't so-called 'moderate' Muslims condemn terrorism?"
On internet political debates: "Why don't liberals mind it when their own politicians lie and cheat?"
After Trayvon Martin's shooting / George Zimmerman's non-arrest: "Why aren't black people concerned about black on black killings?"

The answer to your question is just as obvious as the answers to the other questions.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

If anything it's the fat people who might get exercised

I see what you did there!

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Where were the mainline Christians when this Great Issue of the Day was debated? Why didn't anyone even say offhand, "Of course we all want to aid the sick..."?

They were here:

* FINAL VERSION - Concurred Resolution: D048
Title: Adoption of a "Single Payer" Universal Health Care Program
Topic:Health Care Committee: 09 - National and International Concerns
House of Initial Action: Deputies
Proposer: The Rev. Gary Commins

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th Convention of the Episcopal Church urge passage of federal legislation establishing a "single payer" universal health care program which would provide health care coverage for all of the people of the United States; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention direct the Office of Government Relations to assess, negotiate, and deliberate the range of proposed federal health care policy options in the effort to reach the goal of universal health care coverage, and to pursue short-term, incremental, innovative, and creative approaches to universal health care until a "single payer" universal health care program is established; and be it further

Resolved, That the Episcopal Church shall work with other people of good will to finally and concretely realize the goal of universal health care coverage; and be it further

Resolved, That church members and the Office of Government Relations communicate the position of the Episcopal Church on this issue to the President and Members of Congress, and advocate passage of legislation consistent with this resolution.

and here:

We therefore seek legislation that incorporates the following principles:

Principle 1

We seek a national health-care plan that serves and is sensitive to the diversity of all people in the United States and its territories.

Principle 2

We seek a national health-care plan that will provide comprehensive benefits to everyone, including preventive services, health promotion, primary and acute care, mental-health care, and extended care.

Principle 3

We seek a national health-care plan with an equitable and efficient financing system drawn from the broadest possible resource base.

Principle 4

We seek a national health-care plan that provides services based on equity, efficiency, and quality, with payments to providers that are equitable, cost-efficient, and easy to administer and understand.

and here:

Happily, we have come to the place in the national discourse where almost no one holds the position that we ought to do nothing to improve health care. The questions are: What ought those changes be? How do we pay for the changes?

The simple truth is that we will have to pay more taxes. The wealthiest of us ought to pay more, and all of us should pay taxes on sugar-filled drinks and junk food. Health care is a right, but it, as all rights, comes with responsibilities. We are all responsible for eating right and getting exercise and rest. We ought to practice spiritual disciplines that help relieve stress and learn nonviolent conflict resolution. Violence is a health care issue. Healthier individuals will make for a healthier society.

And many other places. But like Polycarp said, those voices get drowned out, ignored, or dismissed.

[Larry Borgia]

Billy beats up "faggots" at his high school.

Bob won't rent an apartment in his building to a gay couple.

Mary sends her teenage daughter to a camp who's mission is to "repair" gay teens using bullying and coercion.

Steve tells his fellow Christians that gay people are children of God, and that the Christian thing to do is to love them, even if you find them odd or distasteful.



Steve is the one who gets pitted.

[Sitnam]

Between Jesus and Buddha, who do you think was smarter? I mean, in terms of avoiding crucifixion.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

I had to recheck the username on this post after that one.

MfM, does it disturb you at all that your question is of exactly the same form and intelligence as these other questions you may have heard:

After 9/11: "Why don't so-called 'moderate' Muslims condemn terrorism?"
On internet political debates: "Why don't liberals mind it when their own politicians lie and cheat?"
After Trayvon Martin's shooting / George Zimmerman's non-arrest: "Why aren't black people concerned about black on black killings?"

The answer to your question is just as obvious as the answers to the other questions.

I think the side of this conversation saying that it's OK to be a homophobe would want to avoid the spurious racism analogies.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

Billy beats up "faggots" at his high school.

Bob won't rent an apartment in his building to a gay couple.

Mary sends her teenage daughter to a camp who's mission is to "repair" gay teens using bullying and coercion.

Steve tells his fellow Christians that gay people are children of God, and that the Christian thing to do is to love them, even if you find them odd or distasteful.



Steve is the one who gets pitted.

Because he's patronizing and probably hypocritical and does the same things as the others, just with more speeches about how he's doing it out of love. You think Mary doesn't tell her kid that she's doing it out of love as she has her sent off to be starved and beaten?

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

Billy beats up "faggots" at his high school.

Bob won't rent an apartment in his building to a gay couple.

Mary sends her teenage daughter to a camp who's mission is to "repair" gay teens using bullying and coercion.

Steve tells his fellow Christians that gay people are children of God, and that the Christian thing to do is to love them, even if you find them odd or distasteful.



Steve is the one who gets pitted.

Well, yes. The whole attitude of "JEEEEZ, i'm not actually stabbing you in the face anymore, what else do you fucking faggots WANT?" is indeed the problem I am addressing here.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

MfM, does it disturb you at all that your question is of exactly the same form and intelligence as these other questions you may have heard:

After 9/11: "Why don't so-called 'moderate' Muslims condemn terrorism?"
On internet political debates: "Why don't liberals mind it when their own politicians lie and cheat?"
After Trayvon Martin's shooting / George Zimmerman's non-arrest: "Why aren't black people concerned about black on black killings?"

Er, I don't think #2 is the same as #1 and #3. And contrast all 3 to my argument: I said there's a long tradition of Christians pushing the moral boundary. That tradition, so I argued, seems to have ceased. Your examples can be translated as "Why don't you guys emphasize what I want to emphasize? But plenty of Christians should like universal health care: as I noted, Jesus' healing characteristics are a core part of the doctrine.

I came up with an hypothesis though. Perhaps those attempting moral suasion, as opposed to policy analysis, have a channel problem: they can realistically move the ball on only one issue at a time. Moreover, the process drags on for years. Health care reform is a terrible match in this respect, as it is complicated, empirically intensive and in the past has come up about once every 20 years. Christian reformers are better at the long slogs. My guess is that the current Xtian reformer issue is... wait for it... gay rights.

Now that's a tough one as the Bible isn't especially gay friendly. Luckily blatantly homophobic Christians also have scriptural problems as Jesus says not a word against homosexuality, though he enjoins boatloads of cutting language against sanctimonious pricks.

Anyway, examples include the report on homosexuality by the Presbyterian Church USA during the 1990s and various United Church of Christ advertisements.

Skammer: thanks for the links. I see 2 resolutions, which is nice but only prerequisite for political engagement. Gary Bauer is 7 steps ahead of that. The 3rd link to Sojourners is a little different since a decent magazine will have some influence. I haven't seen it for years though. I guess I'm out of the loop though: their wikipedia piece documents that they were highly engaged with health care reform, distributing information packets to pastors and organizing meetings with senators and representatives. Woops. So much for my hypothesis.

Mainline Christians certainly have a branding problem though, as Evangelical Christian Conservatives have taken over the marketing term: Christian media. See: How Did Evangelicals Hijack the Word "Christian"?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

In other countries where Christianity has political influence, even the much-vaunted "tolerance" of homosexuals is not even a position that exists.

Well, the Anglican Church has a minor influence on politics in the UK and they're quite tolerant of homosexuality. Becoming increasingly so, actually. Denmark also has a state Church and they were the first country in the world to recognise same-sex unions. On the other hand, there are countries like Uganda, where bigotry is rooted in religious sentiments.

Also, pronouncements from the Vatican now mirror in some cases the language used in the OP.

Originally Posted by Vatican

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter

Also interesting on the same page:

Originally Posted by Vatican

According to the constant Tradition of the Church, only a baptized person of the male sex validly receives sacred Ordination. By means of the Sacrament of Orders, the Holy Spirit configures the candidate to Jesus Christ in a new and specific way: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, the head, shepherd and spouse of the Church.

It seems strange to me that the average male, perhaps even a person with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" could be transfigured sacramentally into the person of Christ, yet no amount of piety could accomplish the same thing for an individual with a less stumpy 46th chromosome.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

I think the side of this conversation saying that it's OK to be a homophobe would want to avoid the spurious racism analogies.

Which side of the conversation is that again?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Which side of the conversation is that again?

The side that thinks it's wrong to criticize people who sugarcoat their homophobia with empty platitudes about how they love the people they are persecuting.