Absolutely, they see what is being done, “By their works shall you know them”. You don’t go over and tell them unasked. That’s just rude, and I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that proselytizing had driven more people away from Jesus that it has drawn to him. If you, (generic Christian you) truly have that secret to a happy life that everyone else lacks, they’ll see it and ask about it. Don’t go pushing it on them if they don’t ask.
The sad fact is that any traditionalist cause, from monogamy to personal responsibility, can count on opposition from some gay people. The difference is that I don’t impute the positions or beliefs of some of you to all of you. And you’re damn lucky I don’t. If this makes it sound like I think I am in this respect considerably more tolerant than you, that’s because I believe that’s true.
However, what you are overlooking is the unequal power dynamic involved. Given that we are pretty much a Christian nation with a born again head of state, it is obvious that those folks have a great deal of power in determining the way that society is shaped.
Moreover, even if you make a sharp distinction between activist Christians and (for lack of a better way to express the thought) run of the mill Christians, my experience is that activist gays are simply fighting for equal treatment under the law where as activist Christians are usually trying to impose their particular brand of morality on the rest of us. I am sure that if you looked hard enough you might be able to find a gay proselytizer that was looking for converts, but you would have to look pretty damn hard.
It is one thing to claim to be tolerant when you are in the majority and every aspect of society is geared to pander to your identity, it is quite another to try to be tolerant in spite of the fact that a significant portion of the society in which you live is attempting actively to deny you full access and privileges to the institutions of that society.
That thar’s a right purty statement, ma’am, and by throwing the qualifier “some” in there, it’s pretty hard to refute as a “statement of fact”, but my experience is that you’re way off the mark there, most likely posting in heat because you somehow feel that a condemnation of proselytizing fundies somehow must include you because you’re a Christian. As a point of fact, the gay push to be allowed to marry is a huge endorsement of monogamy, and as to personal prsponsibility, well, the fight for AIDS education, for example, has been spearheaded by the gay community under the banner of personal responsibility.
In addition to Binaydrone’s excellent comments, a further difference is that gay people are not organized in groups that teach dogma that demand opposition to ceratin causes. And I hate to break it to you, but there many heteros who don’t believe in monogamy or personal responsibility and many gay folks who do.
Further, gay people do not teach that that you, Jodi, by the very fact of your existence, are inferior to everyone else. They don’t organize groups to protest laws to protect you from bigotry. They don’t try to convert you or to coerce you into behaving the way they want through societal pressure.
Your church, Jodi, the United Methodists, is hostile to me purely because of who I am. From umc.org
Face it, Jodi, you are a member of an anti-gay organization.
What really gets me, Jodi, is that you insinuate that gay people are not monogamous or responsible, yet the movement for gay marriage completely contradicts that.
How do you strengthen an insitution by denying it to people who want it?
Interesting that there are atheists who wouldn’t object to the poster and Christians who do. The Christians who object to the poster are not the same Christians who attack others (by calling them “pea-brained,” for example). The Christian who did use that particular put-down is offended when the word Jesus is used casually or as an exclamation.
It is to weep.
I am a Christian who would be offended by the poster. That is largely due to my having been persecuted by other Christians whose beliefs differed from mine. It was more important to them to try to control my thinking than to treat me with Christian love.
BIANARYDRONE –
Sure. And this is the fault of moderate or liberal Christians because . . . ? I do not overlook the power dynamic, but it is what it is, and even being in a disempowered position does not justify categorizing everyone in the majority as automatically as oppressors.
This has nothing whatsover to do with the point I have made – what? 9 million times? – which is that if you recognize that Christianity is not a monolithic whole, then it is irresponsible for you, and GOBEAR, and everyone like you, to post things like “We actually see Christianity as an active force for harm and misery in this world. That is where the offence and anger comes from,” when what you apparently really mean is some Christians and some Christianity. It’s a distinction you are surely intelligent enough to make, and yet you do not make it.
And I find that amazing. You have presumably encourtered people who have negative prejudices regarding what it must mean – has to mean – to be a gay man, and who refuse to understand that they is not such a thing as a monolithic “gay society,” and who further insist on interpreting that “gay society” in terms of the most irresponsible and inaccurate stereotypes imaginable. They have decided that being gay can only mean one particular set of things, and an extremely negative set of things, and when you explain that that is not what being gay means (or not all it means), and that their stereotype doesn’t apply to you, they don’t fucking listen. They come back and same the same damn thing. Yet you turn around and do the exact same thing. You talk about Christianity as if it is one thing, and when called on it, you point to the positons taken or beliefs espoused by the most fundamentalist of Christians.
This fries me. How on earth do I control whether or not I’m in the majority? Why, by virtue of that position, am I only “claiming” to be tolerant while you are “trying” to be tolerant? Are you saying that you’re automatically more tolerant because you’re in the minority? Because that’s crap. I will say it again: Based on some of the things you post – and a lot of the things GOBEAR posts – it is absolutely fair to say that I am way more tolerant of gay people than you are of Christians.
WIERDDAVE, I’m thrilled to hear this hasn’t been your experience, but then I don’t believe I had presumed to talk about anyone’s experience but mine. And I don’t give a rat’s ass about the “condemnation of proselytizing fundies;” I’m continually irritated that people who ought to know better do not distinguish between proselytizing fundies and the rest of us. “Christianity is an active force of harm and misery” is not a statement about proselytizing fundies.
GOBEAR –
Of course they are. They organize into groups to oppose conservative dogma all the time. If your point is that only some gay people organize into groups that teach dogma – that’s exactly my point about Christianity. So if I insisted on talking about “the gays” as all ascribing to a particular dogmatic philosophy – all members of Act Up!, for example – that would be wrong, wouldn’t it. As for your second sentence: fucking duh. Way to miss the point, which I will now make explicit to you:
Did it seem to you as if by saying “The sad fact is that any traditionalist cause, from monogamy to personal responsibility, can count on opposition from some gay people” I was talking about all gay people? Of course it did, since you now accuse me of “insinuating that gay people are monogomous and responsible.” But my statement exactly mirrors BIANARYDRONE’s who said “The sad fact is that any progressive cause, from gay rights to science education in schools, can count on opposition from Christians.” It exactly mirrors it intentionally.
You do see that those two statements are entirely analogous and that only the subject has changed, right? That was the whole point. So if you see why my statement was objectionable (which clearly you do), and if you see that I implicitly indicted all gay people (which clearly you do) , then if you have a shred of intellectual honesty you have to admit the statement is equally offensive if the subject is Christianity, and for exactly the same reasons. Get it?
Blah blah blah blah blah. The point is that not all Christians do that! A lot of Christians don’t! But you insist on posting as if all Christianity is the same, and the worst of Christianity at that. You post this shit repeatedly when you fucking know better, because you are a bigot – quite likely the biggest bigot on the Boards.
You are a bigot, but you should attempt to not be a disingenuous one. As you damn well know, the UMC also affirms:
But why present both sides when you can show your bias, right? And this from the guy who told me “Jodi–I completely understand and sympathize with your point that people who believe gayness to be sinful but who try to be kind and decent to actual gay people should not be demonized,” as you said here. Guess that sentiment goes right out the window the first time you have the opportunity to be so contemptibly craven as to try to use my faith as a weapon against me.
Anyone interested in knowing my opinions on the state of the debate over homosexuality in the UMC should review pages 4 and 5 of the long, nasty thread found here. Anyone curious about the UMC’s positions regarding homosexuality can find an unbiased account at religioustolerance.org, found here. Anyone who thinks I am in any way anti-gay or intolerant of gays can attempt to find a cite to prove it and, when they can’t, can go fuck themselves.
I’d rather be a member of an anti-gay organization trying to effect change from the inside out than a willfully ignorant bigot who makes no attempt to build consensus or foster tolerance. You think it bothers me that you consider the UMC “anti-gay”? The UMC is officially anti-gay, and so long as it remains so, you should mail me my medal for standing up for you – well, not you, at this point I pretty much stand up in spite of you – instead of leaving the Church, with all its power, influence, and structure, to those who would condemn you.
And anyone interested in the other side of the UMC question might take a look at the Affirmation website, found here. Just another bunch of anti-gay people spreading misery in the world. :rolleyes:
A thousand times over.
Way for you to miss the point. I have repeatedly said that I am not indicting all Christians.
Vast majority/= “all.” Who is being disingenuous here, really?
What I have said is that the wacko fundies are the mainstream. They outnumber you, don’t you see that? There are far, far more handwaving, Spirit-shouting fundies who actively work to oppress me and mine than there are decent liberal Christians like you who merely tolerate us.
Oh, please. I’m calling your organization, I repeat YOUR organization, on ITS bigotry, and you can muster nothing better than a weak tu quoque? As a member of the UMC, you are a participant in its anti-gay policies, so don’t hand me that “I’m on your side” crap. You remind me of Log Cabin Republicans who say they are working to moderate the GOP’s policies, but do nothing to oppose its rhetoric or its actions.
Oh, gee, the UMC thinks I’m a loathsome sinner, but hey, don’t kill me or beat me up. That’s mighty white of them. Hey toots, treating me like a diseased person who can be cured isn’t exactly tolerant.
You know why I’m giving up on consensus and tolerance, because all it gets is people like you condemning me for not kissing your ass because you don’t call me “faggot.” I’m tired of being told to be patient and to accept my inferior status.
Your whole attitude of “why aren’t these gay lepers grateful to me for talking to them?” is really stale. You don’t see me as an equal–as long as you act as if you have to the right to grant me the equality you enjoy as a birthright, you’re still a straight supremacist. Here’s a newsflash, marriage is my* right, too!
It’s like tanar’ri and baatezu teaming up to kill celestials. And I think I just broke my record for most obscure and most offensive simile of all time.
The problem I see is what if you are cubical dweller in sister company and you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Here is your boss, recently born again, now probably buying tickets for everyone to go see this wonderful film about how Jesus died for YOUR sins.
What do you do?
You can’t walk away because he is standing at the entrance to your cubical and there is only one exit.
Now what?
This guy clearly tried to intimidate TDiE with threats to call his boss so I think this is going on in his office.
I personally work for a movie studio, at a branch office in NY, and I actually hang up posters around the office. Of course we have poster cases to put them in for display. Now we do get other items. Like mobiles, or window clings or mini-posters. Now on the floor of the our offices are on, there are other companies all owned by the same media conglomerate. BUT, I’m not allowed by the building to put up stuff out there.
One, it may pose a fire hazard.
Two, stuff on the glass doors obscure the view of the receptionist/security guard or camera.
Three, taping stuff to a wall may damage the paint.
Four There is an approval process for some signs but those signs have to be about something for everyone, mostly HR stuff.
So even though this is ‘his’ office, (should I capitalize ‘his’) there are tons of reasons the building owners may say ‘no posters’.
I ain’t got a dog in this fight, but I do want to point out a couple of things:
- Despite protestations to the contrary, a large number of gay people apparently do not embrace the ideas of monogamy or personal responsibility. A study done by the CDC in 2002 indicated that in a random survey of gay men, 10 percent of them (around 570 out of 5,700) had AIDS. What’s truly sad is that 77 percent of those 570 had AIDS and did not know it (Cite.)Another study released at the same time was even more troubling: In examining blood samples of 40,000 high-risk people of all ages, the CDC found that gay and bisexual men contracted sexually transmitted diseases at a rate nine times higher than that of women or heterosexual men. Clearly, this is not a segment of the population that seems to value monogamy or personal responsibility.
By making that blanket statement, though, I’m obviously insulting those members of the gay or bisexual community who do value monogamy and personal responsibility. It is unfair to take a segment of the population (regardless of its size) and apply its values and characteristics to the population as a whole. As a cite, I give you the classic Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Hugh,” wherein a Borg became an individual. 
-
At the heart of every Christian-based religion is the belief that all humans are “loathsome sinners.” Many Christians feel that being gay is a sin. However, even if God does view homosexuality as a sin (and I’m not the person to say that He does), that sin is no worse than any other sin. As the Bible says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” In other words, even if gay people are sinners because they are gay, their plight before God is no worse than any other person’s. Ain’t nobody good enough on their own to stand before God, according to any Christian doctrine. Those Christians who proclaim otherwise have forgotten this.
-
If Jesus were writing this post, at this point He would pause and say “Hi, Opal!” But He’s not, so we’ll dispense with that.
-
Jesus gave those Christians who want to proselytize the example to follow. He didn’t beat people over the head with His faith, and in some cases we’re not told if He even mentioned God to them. He met their physical needs first, if appropriate.
-
If Jesus were walking the earth today, I seriously doubt He would tell His followers to use a poster as a method of witnessing to people. He was only confrontational with the religious leaders of His day. He was (for the most part) patient and loving toward Joe Average. And although He, more so than anyone else who ever lived, had the right to claim superiority over everyone else and look down upon them, He never did so. I suspect the owner of SisterCo. is feeling a bit too smug about his recent conversion of faith, and I hope he overcomes that.
jodi, I am not going to quote your entire post, as that would make for a rather long and unreadable reply. There are some points that you make I would like to respond to, however.
I am not ignorant to the fact that there are some liberal Christians out there that, at very least, are not actively contributing to the misery of their fellow humans and, in fact, are doing things that add good to the world. Point in fact, until a couple of years ago I was part of one such congregation, and I can make the distinction between what they were trying to do in the world and, to use a specific example, what the church down the street that would regularly picket us was trying to do.
That being said, when I look at the world with a critical eye, it is my contention that these liberal and open/affirming elements of Christianity are in the minority. Moreover, unlike the more fundamentalist elements of Christianity, they seem far less interested in enacting social change on any large scale, and indeed more concerned with damage control.
So, if it helps, I can restate my position thus: insofar as all available data points to the fact that the more fundamentalist elements of Christianity seem to be in the majority, and as these elements of Christianity seem to be actively hostile to the things that I hold dear, it is a reasonable conclusion on my part that when I encounter someone who professes to be Christian that they are a part of a group that is hostile to me and the people I love. I will resolve to keep an open mind, and should they show through words or actions that this is not the case I will gladly embrace them and call them brother.
It may be that the liberal Christians should either start calling themselves something else, or start taking active and aggressive steps to reclaim their religion from the intolerant folks that seem to have hijacked it.
Consider this: you seem to be one of those liberal Christians with whom I have absolutely no problem, in my view this puts you in the minority within the subset of Christianity as a whole. We have established that you are tolerant of gay people (although I would like a better term for this, as it really is not something to be tolerant of in my opinion). How is your tolerance of fundamentalists?
A final point that I should make is this: As it happens, I have absolutely no idea what it means and what it feels like to be a gay man. I really don’t think that it matters, but I happen to be a member of the uber-majority in this country (white hetero male). That being said, I am not blind to the horrible oppression that dear friends of mine who happen to be gay have suffered, and I will say that it was not a secular humanist that was dishing out the abuse.
Damn, Bianarydome stole my thunder, however I would like to point out that while I can totally accept that you are not homophobic in the least, Jodi, you are self-identifying with an organization that is, and as such you should be prepaired for fall out from that. It’s as if (Please note, I am NOT comparing the UMC to the KKK) someone joined the KKK, not because they hated blacks and jews, but because they had a sheet fetish and enjoyed the cookouts. They might never participate in a hate march or a cross burning, but by belonging to a racist organization they are naturally going to be assumed to be racist.
[aside]
My wife’s old parish is now pastored by the guy who led the UMC’s charge against the minister who married gay couples. There are reasons she doesn’t go there anymore.
[/aside]
You might as well add politics, current events, sports and entertainment to that list as well. God forbid that anything but work-related stuff be discussed or brought up at work! What morons!!
Well, at the end of the day we are not at work to chitchat.
Leaving that aside for a moment, it is clear that you have some strong opinion about this issue. Would you care to express it or do you simply get off by taking pot shots at other posters?
Huh. I thought that was the list of things not to be discussed in a bar after about, oh, say 11 o’clock or so.