Calm Dialogue or ACT UP!

Great Debates
21

Of course, His4Ever is a Jack Chickster, and therefore denies the Christanity of plenty of real Christians. I don’t see whats wrong with turning her implied insult to them (catholics, etc) implicitly on her, since by the standards of historical Christians (and some contemporary Christians like hardcore Orthodox Christians) she wouldn’t be even remotely a part of the Christian faith.

I typically call fundamentalists ‘pseudo-Christians’ because I do NOT consider their religion to be Christian in any substansive way. And I find it highly offensive to associate His4Ever, Jack Chick, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, etc, with true examples of Christianity like Mother Teresa.

Why is it okay to offend me by, as far as I’m concerned, denigrating real Christians like Mother Teresea by cheapening her faith through the inclusion of fundamentalist fringe “Christians,” why is it okay for His4Ever to, effectively, call Catholics non-Christians through her support of Jack T. Chick, but not okay for Lissener to express his similar opinion of her?

Why is it okay for His to deny the Christianity of Catholics, Mormons, JWs, etc, but not okay for Lissener to do the same to her? Sauce for the goose.

22

Please cite where the person under discussion denied Kirkland1244 his humanity.

How is her announcing that she won’t discuss it and won’t change her mind different from your saying that the issue is nondebatable and non-negotiable?

Regards,
Shodan

23

That’s because this board is primarily made up of Americans, and in the United States, as a rule, intolerance for homosexuals is more tolerated than almost any other prejudice. It’s not fair, it’s not right, but it is the way things are right now.

There are about 22 posts in this thread at this point, by 9 people. The thread has over 220 views, many probably by people who never posted to it. You’re right, Lissener, there are some people you’re never going to convince, and his4ever probably is one of them. However, the people you really should be trying to convince are the lurkers in the thread, who don’t all have as extreme views as she does, and who can be reached by good humor and logic a lot easier than by namecalling.

24

—Of course, His4Ever is a Jack Chickster, and therefore denies the Christanity of plenty of real Christians.—

Yep. Part of the problem with having a true faith I’m afraid: everybody thinks they have it, yet everybody thinks differently.

—I don’t see whats wrong with turning her implied insult to them (catholics, etc) implicitly on her, since by the standards of historical Christians (and some contemporary Christians like hardcore Orthodox Christians) she wouldn’t be even remotely a part of the Christian faith.—

Oh, that’s great: trading implied insult for actual insult. Trading a complex set of doctrinal beliefs, sometimes cordially kept quite, for a dismissive, in your face catchphrase.

—I typically call fundamentalists ‘pseudo-Christians’ because I do NOT consider their religion to be Christian in any substansive way. And I find it highly offensive to associate His4Ever, Jack Chick, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, etc, with true examples of Christianity like Mother Teresa.—

You mean: YOUR opinion of what “true Christianity” is.

And on a side note: what’s so great about Mother Teresa? Lots of people have made a fairly good case that she was more of a monster to her flock than a saint.

—Why is it okay to offend me by, as far as I’m concerned, denigrating real Christians like Mother Teresea by cheapening her faith through the inclusion of fundamentalist fringe “Christians,” why is it okay for His4Ever to, effectively, call Catholics non-Christians through her support of Jack T. Chick, but not okay for Lissener to express his similar opinion of her?—

Well, it’s not acceptable to denigrate anyone. But it’s as silly to claim that fundamentalists are not Christians as it is for them to call Catholics non-Christians. There’s really no point in playing True Scotsman games. Yes, the Christianity of a fundamentalist is very different from the Christianity of a Catholic. But both have as much right to the term Christian, and assuming that the inclusion of one cheapens the other simply pre-presumes which interpretation is legitimate in the first place.

—Why is it okay for His to deny the Christianity of Catholics, Mormons, JWs, etc, but not okay for Lissener to do the same to her? Sauce for the goose.—

I don’t think it’s doing you any good to wallow in the same sauce as Jack Chick.

25

By turning around and telling us how we should approach the subject.

You keep saying that my approach won’t work, but you’re wrong. I’ve seen it work. I am a regular poster over at the Pizza Parlor. I’ve had more than one poster from there tell me that posts by Polycarp and me have affected their opinions on the issue. In fact, one person stopped posting at that board because she no longer felt comfortable with the pervasive anti-gay attitude, which she had previously believed herself.

Hell, it goes back further than that. I used to be a fundamentalist Pentecostal, tounge-talking, Bible-thumping, fire-and-brimstone believer. My only bias and prejudice led to years of denial and self-hate, a failed marriage, and, now, regrets about what I missed in my youth. But it was the calm logic of an atheist who got me to realize the absurdity of the Great Flood story taken literally. Once that first chink in the armour was found, it led to a long process of eventually rejecting the literalist stance and changing my whole worldview. It still took several years to defeat the internal homophobia and other bigotry inherent in that worldview. But now I’m Out and Liberal.

26

I don’t understand why some people think namecalling and personal abuse have any place in a debate? I also don’t understand why some people call Homebrew me and “Uncle Tom” and “Neville Chamberlain” for trying to be polite?

See, I don;t want to trade hate for hate, insult for insult; it hasn’t done much for the Jews and Arabs or the Catholics and Protestant in Northern Ireland. Despite what Gaudere said, I didn’t insult Lissener once, but he was rankly abusive to me.

My goal, shared by Homebrew is to changeHis4Ever’s mind and get her to reconsider her prejudices, although she has shown that her mind is resolutely closed on the issue. But even if we don’t show her our humanity, maybe there are lurkers out there who may read this and rethink their antigay feelings.

And yes, I hold fundamentalist churches and their members complicit in Matthew Shepherd’s murder, my gaybashing, and the violence done to gay men and lesbians in America every day. Every antigay sermon preached, every vote cast to repeal gay rights ordinances, every judicial slap on the wrist handed to gaybashers contributes to the consensus that gay lives are worthless and that hurting gay people is OK because they are sinful people who chose to be societal outcasts.

Yes, His4Ever’s intransigent attitude infuriates me, but am I supposed to respond with hate? Am I supposed to go into a tizzy of vituperation and vitriol? I’d prefer to let the light of education and compassion clear away the miasma of ignorance and bigotry. I want to show her and other gayhaters that we are people, too.

I am a gay man. Hath not a gay man eyes? Hath not a gay man hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a straight person is?

We are people. Treat us like people, don’t support legal dscrimination against us, and don’t tell lies about us.

27

First of all, this reads as more of a Pit thread than a GD, but that’s not my business.

People are intollerant or bigotted for two reasons:

  1. they don’t know any better, but they are open to new ideas
  2. they do know better but they don’t care

Rational debate is only effective on the first group of people. Some people have been taught a certain way and may never have been exposed to gays, blacks, Mexicans or what have you. These are the people whom you can rationally discuss the similarities and diferences and gain a mutual understanding.

The second group of people you will never convince. You can rationalize, debate, get in their face, or do whatever you want, but they will always take a stance that “you are being too sensitive” or “I don’t care, I have a right to think what I want”.

To a certain extent they are correct. No one can “make” someone love gays or minorities or any other group. What they can do is educate people who are willing to learn so that the people who insist on acting on their ignorence are at a disadvantage.
Example:
Manager: We’ve had some complaints about you making inappropriate comments at work.
Employee: I don’t care.
Manager: Well it isn’t nice.
Employee: I don’t care.
Manager: Well, they are people too and have the same rights as you or I.
Employee: I don’t care.
Manager: Times are changing and you need to change with them.
Employee: I don’t care.
Manager: The firm has a strict policy against such behavior and if you keep it up, you are going to be let go and/or probably sued.
Employee: Now I care.

28

—Rational debate is only effective on the first group of people. Some people have been taught a certain way and may never have been exposed to gays, blacks, Mexicans or what have you. These are the people whom you can rationally discuss the similarities and diferences and gain a mutual understanding.—

Lets make something clear here. Debate of ANY sort is almost NEVER useful for changing the mind of people actually debating. But that doesn’t mean that it’s useless, or that any sort of debate is as good as any other. Esepcially for those who read debates but don’t throw their hat in the ring, good debates are still great places for them to get a good survey of the sorts of views out there, and, sometimes more importantly, the character of those views.

29

You make some compelling points, lissener, nonetheless I think “pseudochristian” is unwarranted.

You acknowledged that it is possible for someone to think homosexuality is morally wrong without opposing civil liberties of homosexuals.

I would guess that ostensibly His4ever would oppose the civil liberties of homosexuals. I would also guess that she could not define what a civil liberty is. While I wholeheartedly disagree with her position on this issue, I think she is guilty only of being young and naive. I know this particular brand of ignorance feels like a demeaning smack in the face, believe me; I am Catholic and when she spouted off with her innocent “Well, I’m not the best debater but I DO know those Catholics have all sorts of pagan rituals”, well, I’m not particularly inclined to give her much credence either.

However, I do not ever recall her calling anyone a god-hated hellbound faggot; you may say that her support of Chick implicates these values to her, but I don’t see her as a terribly staunch supporter of Chick per se; rather I see her as more loyal to the faith of the fundamentalist . Look, guin herself shared a personal story about how she used to feel one way, then grew up a little and has a more enlightened view. I think there is a real opportunity here to fight ignorance.

Also, lissener I think your tone to Apos has been way out of line.

30

I’d like to say that I’ve never said I hated homosexuals or that they aren’t human beings. I was simply informed of gobear’s gayness and asked my opinion. I gave it and most didn’t like it. Am I not entitled to disagree with someone? Is free speech not allowed anymore in our country. I’m sorry that my opinion distresses you but I won’t change it. It’s deep in my heart and soul to believe what the Bible says. And I know you’ll ask me how do I know my interpretation is right. I don’t know that I’m totally right on everything but I read what it says about this issue and have come to the conclusion that I have. I’d really appreciate if if you didn’t try to get me to change my mind. I respect that you differ from me, but I don’t happen to agree with you. Does everybody on this board agree with each other on everything? So I can’t answer all your questions, I’m sorry. But all the convincing of me to change my mind on this postion isn’t going to do it. Respect my belief and I’ll respect yours even though I disagree with it.

31

Just a note: I don’t think His4ever is necessarily “young”: from my understanding, she’s at least 27 (that’s when she said she was born again).

32

See, now you pushing me towards lissener’s view of you. Freedom of speech does not mean that I have to respect your opinion. You can say what you want and I’m free to deride it as much as I deem necessary.

gobear has eloquently described all of the reasons I can’t respect your opinion. Strike that, you’ve given all the reasons I can’t respect your opinion. I cannot respect the opinion of someone who refuses to even discuss the basis of their opinion; someone who admits openly that they can’t defend their belief; someone who ignores counter-arguements; someone who refuses even to consider that they might be wrong.

No, I’ll not respect your opinion because I can show that it is wrong. Likewise, I won’t respect the opinion of someone who claims the earth is flat, because it is demonstratively wrong.

You say you’ve “read what [the bible] says about this issue and have come to the conclusion that I have”; but what about the fact that others who’ve read the same verses have come to another conclusion. You won’t even respect their opinion enough to consider their opinion. You fail to “study to show yourself approved” because you fail to study. You won’t look at the discussion of the meaning of Paul’s choice of words in the original Greek. You fail to consider that Paul’s condemnation is translated to “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves” in the KJV that you use - not homosexual. You put your own prejudice into the scripture; you don’t read that meaning out.

You’ll find me opposing you at every turn on this board. Not because I think you’ll change your mind, but because someone may read it and open his mind.

33

I think there is some kind of middleground between Act Up and calm dialogue. I know you can’t change the mind of someone who doesn’t want to change or learn, but I’m not sure pointing out scripture in defense of your argument will help…the reason being that H4E has read the bible over and over and chooses to interpret it in her own way.

I like the idea of pushing her out to the fringes rather than letting her push you to the fringes. I’m not gay, and I’m not claiming to know more than you about the state of gay affairs in the U.S., but it is my personal observation that people are learning and opening their minds and hearts, and H4E is pretty much in the fringes anyway, at least from a civilian standpoint (in Chicago). I know there is still a lot of “enlightening” to do on the legal front, but people with her attitude are isolating themselves more and more every day. And rightly so.

34

I think there is some kind of middleground between Act Up and calm dialogue. I know you can’t change the mind of someone who doesn’t want to change or learn, but I’m not sure pointing out scripture in defense of your argument will help…the reason being that H4E has read the bible over and over and chooses to interpret it in her own way.

I like the idea of pushing her out to the fringes rather than letting her push you to the fringes. I’m not gay, and I’m not claiming to know more than you about the state of gay affairs in the U.S., but it is my personal observation that people are learning and opening their minds and hearts, and H4E is pretty much in the fringes anyway, at least from a civilian standpoint (in Chicago). I know there is still a lot of “enlightening” to do on the legal front, but people with her attitude are isolating themselves more and more every day. And rightly so.

35

Before we begin, let us clear up your misconception of the right of free speech. What the First Amendment guarantees you is that the government will not interfere with your right of free speech. This does not apply to a private organization or individual.
This forum is titled Great Debates, this means that while you may state an opinion, you will most likely have to defend it. The way ideas get challenged in this forum is one of the things that makes it so enjoyable to read.

Have you examined these issues from both sides, or have you read books that simply repeat what your side has taught you? Is your faith really so important to you if you won’t analyse it and examine it? Are you afraid that it won’t survive scrutiny? My opinion is that a faith that you can’t defend is not a faith worth having.

Please see my comments above.

Kirkland

My opinion on this subject is that it cheapens your argument. If you find that Jack Chick’s tactic of labelling all those you disagree with his narrow fundamentalist viewpoint as non-Christians wrong, why use the same tactic?

36

If you’re not aware of them, ACT-UP is a radical gay activist group. One of their ways of “acting up” is to go into Catholic churches while Mass is being held-throwing things (condoms, I guess?) around and knocking Communion wafers from people’s hands, etc.

For one thing, that’s offensive as a Catholic, because to us, Mass is sacred, as is the Host-it is considered to be Jesus’s body. And it’s also disrespectful in general-is it okay for me to go into your house and start throwing things because I don’t agree with you?

And they aren’t changing John Paul’s mind on gays in the church. They’re only making a spectacle of themselves, and painting their cause in a bad light.

37

I think this is exactly what Lissener is talking about. Feel free to defend fundies right to be bigoted, but when you claim their belief system is “a complex set of doctrinal beliefs” you are giving more respect to their views than they deserve. Jack T. Chick exemplifies this “complex set of doctrinal beliefs” by making sub-par comic books. Comic books that anyone with half a brain can tell use flawed reasoning, and this is a “complex set of doctrinal beliefs”.
Somehow Fred Phelps waving banners declaring that “god hates fags” are cordially keeping their beliefs quiet, and we are the one using “in your face catchphrases.”
Fundies have a right to express their opinion, but those defending that opinion against reason are frikkin’ stupid.

38

—I think this is exactly what Lissener is talking about. Feel free to defend fundies right to be bigoted, but when you claim their belief system is “a complex set of doctrinal beliefs” you are giving more respect to their views than they deserve.—

I don’t think it’s about respect. It’s simply about being factual. The fundamentalist ideology is more complicated than “hey, let’s try to justify our crazy worldview with this here thing called a Bible.”

—Jack T. Chick exemplifies this “complex set of doctrinal beliefs” by making sub-par comic books. Comic books that anyone with half a brain can tell use flawed reasoning, and this is a “complex set of doctrinal beliefs”.—

I don’t think His4ever takes all her beliefs out of Chick tracts. She just happens to belong to the same sect as Chick, and has the same sort of beliefs.

—Somehow Fred Phelps waving banners declaring that “god hates fags” are cordially keeping their beliefs quiet, and we are the one using “in your face catchphrases.”—

No, you (meaning you personally, and other who do) both are. See: your lousy habits with fundamentalists are now starting to rub off on me, a non-fundamentalist. You’re putting words in my mouth. I don’t remember defending Phelps. I think he’s detestable. But when he dies, I’m also not going to bust in on his funeral waving banners that say “God hates Phelps.”

—Fundies have a right to express their opinion, but those defending that opinion against reason are frikkin’ stupid.—

I don’t think I’m defending the content of their opinion. I don’t think any fair reading of my comments here and elsewhere could support that charge. I do think that I’m defending the people holding the opinion, and the idea that it’s pointless to haphazzardly presume things about the basis of their beliefs.

39

Any number of actual christians can tell you that is exactly what fundie ideology is. They twist the scriptures to support their own bigotry while mainstream churches interpret the bible to mean exactly what it says plainly, treat others as you would be treated yourself.

40

—Any number of actual christians can tell you that is exactly what fundie ideology is.—

Which only begs the question, since they come pre-labeled as “actual” Christians.

—They twist the scriptures to support their own bigotry while mainstream churches interpret the bible to mean exactly what it says plainly, treat others as you would be treated yourself.—

As an atheist, who isn’t committed to any particular interpretation of the Bible, I’m fairly unimpressed with any particular claim about what the Bible must be “really” saying. I don’t necessarily find one reading more compelling than any other just because it happens to be “nicer” or closer to my own particular moral compass. Nor do I think your arguement here is very compelling in itself: treating others as one would wish to be treated might well, under some interpretations, make people like Phelps a hypocrite, but it doesn’t do much against people who just happen to think that homosexuality is sinful.

From my reading of the text, I think there are a lot of supposedly correct ideas in the Bible that are actually very morally objectionable, whether they be commands by god or even some of the teachings of Jesus. I’m not committed to defending them or reinterpreting them, though I realize that others are. But I don’t really have a vested interest in whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual sex or not (I think a plausible case could be made either way, and I’ve already presented wat I think is a pretty solid case against the idea at least in regards to lesbian sex in the other thread): I’ll celebrate it regardless.