With Friends like the S. Baptists, Gays Need No Enemies

[presidebt]

*Originally posted by Sauron *
**No, I’m trying to see where you’re coming from, and I honestly don’t see it. If you have a valid point, I don’t think you’re explaining it very well.

**

Okay, fair enough, I will try one more time.

I have two points, the first addresses your comment here:

*Originally posted by Sauron *
**It’s similar to someone objecting to a policy of the American government (or any government, for that matter), and then saying all Americans are ignorant fuckwads. Many Americans might actually object to the policy in question, and agree with the person voicing an objection to the policy. When the person expands their argument to say that all Americans are therefore stupid, ignorant, beer-swilling, ill-dressed, etc., I have a problem with that.
**

What I’m saying is that American and Southern Baptist are not analogous. The reason they are not analogous is that one is a choice and the other is not (generally speaking, obviously immigrants excluded–but that DOES NOT mean I object to immigration and shame on you for suggesting it). Even if you change your citizenship, you are still an American. Ask someone who has expatriated. The citizens of (insert adopted country here) will give you status as a citzen (if you meet their criteria), but they will generally always consider you an American. If you leave the SBC, that’s it, you are no longer Southern Baptist. BTW- the converse holds true here: There is a store owned and operated by a Palestinian fellow in my neighborhood. Not only do the members of the community think of and refer to him as Palestinian, he does too, even though he is a fully pledged citizen of America. Or do you deny that a lot of people who immigrate still claim their nationality as a self-identifier, and that a lot of American citizens born here also consider them thusly?

The second point I was trying to make is that it is disingenuous for you to express outrage over being stereotyped since you do it too. Most of us do, especially with groups like the Nazis and the Taliban. If you say “Nazi’s are evil, jackbooted thugs” you are doing just the same thing–stereotyping. Unless you have always added the qualifiers of some Nazis or most Taliban, then you haven’t a bitch in this really. It is reasonable for someone to refer (in words) to the group when discussing the wrongness or immorality of the group’s doctrine, even as they draw distinctions in their own mind*. Have you always used the qualifier of some or most when discussing certain groups?

*This is catagorically different than stereotyping a group based on physical characteristics or other inate characteristics. Doctrine can be changed, the other cannot.

Does that clear things up?

I just saw this:

*Originally posted by Sauron *
**Once again, my illustration of an American citizen being reviled for the policies of the American government addresses this. I might disagree with a policy the government enacts, yet by your standards someone from Canada, say, is perfectly free to lambast me over that policy, and I’m not allowed to say anything in my own defense. **

This still doesn’t work because there is a large, vocal group of Americans who take their leadership to task when they do idiotic things. I have seen no such movement within the Southern Baptist community, though if I am wrong about that, please correct me. However, disagreeing with the leadership and ignoring their directives are not that same as publicly, vocally taking the leadership to task.

Finally, you are allowed to say anything you want in your own defense–this thread proves that. But I think you’re barking up the wrong tree, and I am free to tell you that.

[mhendo]

To those of you who are calling on Southern Baptists who disagree with the church’s position on homosexuality to simply leave the church, let me ask you this:

If you are a member of the Democratic or the Republican party, or of any other political party for that matter, do you leave the party as soon as it takes a position on one issue that you disagree with? I’ll bet the answer is generally “no.”

For example: Many of the Democrats who have spent the last two and half years abusing Ralph Nader voters for “losing” the presidential election have been constantly harping on the point that, while the Democratic party may not be perfect, it is worth fighting to save it. I’d be willing to bet that many members and affiliates of the SBC feel the same way.

Personally, i could not support any political party or church (i’m not religious anyway) who felt the way that the SBC does about homosexuality. But i think that simply calling on Baptists to leave their church tends to ignore the fact that we all make certain compromises and live with certain hypocrisies in our lives. We are always happy to point out and ridicule the compromises and hypocrisies of others, but just as happy to ignore our own.

Originally posted by Aries 28
**And it’s that type of generalization that upset some of us to begin with.

Baptism is a big part of our faith and to me the above statement, even in jest, is offensive.

Just as I would find a joke bashing gay people or black people or any other group offensive.**

You know, i thought about this very closely. It was certainly rather gratuitous of me to put that quotation in this thread, and i would never put a similar joke about blacks or gays in such a discussion.

I suppose all that i will say in my defense, and in Ivins’, is that the comment came, in each case, in direct response to particular actions or policy decisions by the SBC. Ivins, in making the comment, was actually quoting another man. In her column of April 23, 2003, she was talking about the intention of the SBC and other Christian groups to go to Iraq and convert people to Christianity. She said:

The Southern Baptists are poised to deploy en masse, reminding us of Texas newspaperman William Brann’s famous comment, “The trouble with our Texas Baptists is that we do not hold them under water long enough.”

Well, while i sort of understand that the SBC might feel that part of its religious charge is to convert Muslims and homosexuals to Christianity, i reserve the right to ridicule this proselytizing attitude. I realize that such an attitude may not apply to all southern Baptists, but if you are affiliated with the SBC then you have to take part of the responsibilty for their policies and actions. Just like members of political parties must take responsibility for the policies and actions of their parties, even if they happen to disagree with some of them.

[carrot]

If I may, I’d just like to step in here a moment and apologize to gobear; it was the ‘Southern Baptists in the trailers and all the beer bottles and such’ comment that got me, and I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now, I guess we can get back to the homosexual love fest.

Er, wait. That didn’t come out quite right.

Um…It didn’t sound quite right.

[Eve]

You bet if the Democratic Party came out with an official anti-gay platform I’d leave it!

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Sauron

Esprix: Think of the SBC as a club, if you will. Churches belong to it. But that doesn’t mean that every church in the club agrees completely with the club rules. So no, it’s not right to say that 16.5 million people agree completely with everything the SBC says.

I agree; however, it is perfectly valid to lambast the Southern Baptist Convention for its stance, and if that Convention is the representative body for the entire denomination, you and your church - as parts of that denomination - are going to feel some of the backlash.

And FTR, there is no representative body for the gay community, so you can’t logically point to one group within that community and say they represent the whole, whereas with Southern Baptists, you’ve got the Convention, which specifically does represent that community. Again, that makes things difficult for those of that denomination who don’t entirely agree with what the SBC says.

Esprix

[jlzania]

Thank you so much for your caring and thoughtful replies, Aries28 and Sauron.
I think that all any of us can ask of each other is compassion and a non-judgemental attitude.

My best friend died of AIDS in 1987. He came from a large RC family.
His biggest fear was not dying but the pain that his homosexuality would cause his very devout parents.
He had never been able to tell them.

My husband’s family are very devout Lutherans.
When my niece discovered that she was a lesbian, her biggest fear was that her parents would reject her out of hand because of her sexual orientation.

It hurts my heart that these children of Christians questioned their own parent’s love and acceptance because the leaders of their churches espoused the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin.

[mhendo]

*Originally posted by Eve *
**You bet if the Democratic Party came out with an official anti-gay platform I’d leave it! **

I’m sure you would.

But did you leave it when Clinton and Democratic members of congress began to support a whole bunch of legislation that abrogated the party’s long-standing commitment to the poor? Or did you continue to stick by it because you felt it was still better than the alternative?

Did you leave the Democrats when they meekly rolled over on issues such as civil liberties and granting the President excessive powers after 9/11? Did you leave when a whole bunch of Democrats did nothing to oppose the Patriot Act? Or did you continue to stick by them because you felt that they were better than the alternative?

The point i’m making here is that each person has his or her “deal breaking” issues. And what those issues are differ for different people.

[Polycarp]

FWIW, I had to go through much of what you two are undertaking, Sauron and Aries, and my conclusions, based on a bunch of reading and applying reason to what I’d been taught about the Bible, are as follows:

1. “We are free from the Law” – not free to sin, but free to live out the Law of love as expressed in Jesus’s Summary of the Law. That in itself takes care of any obligation from Leviticus.

2. Paul’s stuff in Romans 1 is clearly not talking about people who “were born gay” – IMHO, he’s talking about the First Century equivalent of “gay chic” where hedonistic pleasures are beginning to cloy and the ennui-laden folks with that focus turn to gay sex as a new way to get kicks. If you read the Scripture in context, you see that he’s condemning folks who have turned from God for the gratification available in this world – and pointing out to the Roman Christians in 2:1, which follows immediately on the anti-homosex passage, that some of them used to be that sort of people.

3. All the condemnations of homosexuality, from Leviticus to Jude, are focused on using it to gratify one’s lusts, and occur in a bunch of similar strictures about getting your rocks off at the expense of someone else. They don’t address committed loving relationships but rather selfish pleasure. (This ties in with the discussion over in GD about people before the 20th Century not identifying as being gay but in merely doing gay sex.) The condemnation is not of loving relationships, whether straight or gay, but of self-gratification by treating another person as merely a sex toy.

4. My job is not to judge somebody else’s sins or sex life, but to live my own life in the way God calls me to, keeping the promises I’ve made, and trying to work for His glory. For me, that includes standing firm against the abuse of gay people, particularly by my co-religionists.

Dunno if that helps any – but that’s where I’ve gotten to.

[macabresoul]

To Aries28 and Sauron, I was too harsh before, let me apoligize.

First off, I now realize you guys do care about stopping the injustice from within and I commend you for it. I harbor have harbored resentment towards certain religions because of things I have heard in the past. such as, “No I love gay people, they can come to church and pray just like me, just because they are gay doesn’t mean they have to have gay sex.” Which is basically saying they can be gay just not have sex with someone of the same sex because it’s a sin. It ticked me off hearing this because the statement is masked as loving, but deep down it is still a persecution of every gay person.

Too many personal feelings thrown into this debate, but I am willing to cast them away to say that I respect you Aries28 for sticking up for what you believe, and trying to make a change.

Sauron, you have great conviction and i do truely believe you are against what the SBC preaches in terms of intolerance. But if you could only kick your shoes off and walk in someone elses for a while, you would see both sides a lot better.

Keep up the good work

[Esprix]

I’m awful glad I got to meet you at the San Diego dopefest last week, macabresoul.

Esprix

[Sauron]

presidebt: I wasn’t attempting to say you were against immigration. I was trying to show you what I perceived to be a fallacy in your argument.

*Originally posted by presidebt *
BTW- the converse holds true here: There is a store owned and operated by a Palestinian fellow in my neighborhood. Not only do the members of the community think of and refer to him as Palestinian, he does too, even though he is a fully pledged citizen of America. Or do you deny that a lot of people who immigrate still claim their nationality as a self-identifier, and that a lot of American citizens born here also consider them thusly?

Okay, let me ask you this: If you went to the Palestinian fellow in your neighborhood and said, “What on earth is the PLO thinking with their recent actions? I swear, all Palestinians must be ignorant fuckwad shitstains, no better than the Taliban or the Nazis.”

Do you think your self-identifying Palestinian friend might be offended by that generalization? What you’ve done is take the actions and pronouncements of the PLO and applied them to every Palestinian. Similarly, some of those who object to the initiative announced by the SBC have directed their vitriol at all Southern Baptists. As I’ve tried to explain, that’s wrong.

The second point I was trying to make is that it is disingenuous for you to express outrage over being stereotyped since you do it too. Most of us do, especially with groups like the Nazis and the Taliban. If you say “Nazi’s are evil, jackbooted thugs” you are doing just the same thing–stereotyping. Unless you have always added the qualifiers of some Nazis or most Taliban, then you haven’t a bitch in this really. It is reasonable for someone to refer (in words) to the group when discussing the wrongness or immorality of the group’s doctrine, even as they draw distinctions in their own mind*. Have you always used the qualifier of some or most when discussing certain groups?

To my knowledge, I’ve never made blanket statements about any group. You seem to feel that I’ve done that – point it out to me. Stereotyping (of any type) is one of my hot buttons, and I try not to do it. Do I always succeed? No. But I try to recognize it when it happens, and speak out.

This still doesn’t work because there is a large, vocal group of Americans who take their leadership to task when they do idiotic things. I have seen no such movement within the Southern Baptist community, though if I am wrong about that, please correct me. However, disagreeing with the leadership and ignoring their directives are not that same as publicly, vocally taking the leadership to task.

Assuming there is no such movement because you haven’t seen proof of it is one thing; berating someone because of that assumption, without getting the facts first, is something else entirely. Actually, many churches are voting with their feet, so to speak, or with their money – they’re leaving the SBC, or not giving as much to it. I have no voice at the SBC, but I do have a voice at my church.

jlzania: My condolences on the loss of your friend.

macabresoul: Thank you for the apology. I agree that my worldview is sometimes limited. By the same token, I get extremely frustrated when I feel that my view is actually wider than others’, and my attempts to explain my position aren’t understood. That’s likely more my failing than anyone else’s.

Esprix: You’re exactly right when you say that Southern Baptists will feel backlash from the SBC’s position. My point all along has been that once it’s been proven that not all Southern Baptists feel the way the SBC apparently does, one should not continue to say “Southern Baptists” when one means the SBC. Does that make sense?

[Aries28]

*Originally posted by macabresoul *
**To Aries28 and Sauron, I was too harsh before, let me apoligize.

Too many personal feelings thrown into this debate, but I am willing to cast them away to say that I respect you Aries28 for sticking up for what you believe, and trying to make a change.

Keep up the good work **

Thank you.

And Homebrew thank you for the links. I have scanned over them but I will print it out tonight and read it at home.

So I’m guessing Sunday is going to get REAL interesting in our class.

[Otto]

Aries 28

Umm…Hi? Have you read my earlier posts where we DO speak up and will continue to speak up?

Honestly, no. I was more focusing on Sauron’s posts although I did read several of your earlier posts which I took to be, frankly, reflecting a certain apathy on the issue. I apologize if I did not read your posts closely enough to glean your actual stance and actions.

Sauron

Once again, my illustration of an American citizen being reviled for the policies of the American government addresses this. I might disagree with a policy the government enacts, yet by your standards someone from Canada, say, is perfectly free to lambast me over that policy, and I’m not allowed to say anything in my own defense.

First, nothing I wrote can properly be construed as claiming that you’re “not allowed to say anything in (your) own defense.” Feel free to defend yourself all you want. I for one am not attacking you for what the SBC says or does. I am lambasting you for any failure to directly confront the SBC on their shit and the “la la la, well my church runs a food pantry and a Sunday School so it’s not my fault what the leaders do” attitude I get from your posts.

(If you honestly see no difference between Fred Phelps’ message, which would probably have been acceptable to the SBC 40 years ago, and what they announced this week, then we have absolutely no common ground for communication.)

I see a difference in language but not in intent. Phelps believes being gay is a sin. The SBC believes that being gay is a sin. Phelps believes “repent or perish and burn.” SBC believes “repent or perish and burn.” Just because SBC wants to be our “friends” and Phelps doesn’t does not mean that both are not equally reprehensible and equally worthy of condemnation.

[Sauron]

*Originally posted by Otto *
I am lambasting you for any failure to directly confront the SBC on their shit and the “la la la, well my church runs a food pantry and a Sunday School so it’s not my fault what the leaders do” attitude I get from your posts.

I see. So because my church actually does some small amount of good in the world, you’re allowed to ignore it and trivialize it because it’s not on fire for your issue.

The next time I’m named as a delegate to the Southern Baptist Convention, I’ll be sure to raise the objections you want me to. Until that happens, though, all I can do is work through my local church. One may object to George Bush being president, but that doesn’t mean one can automatically remove him from office.

I see a difference in language but not in intent. Phelps believes being gay is a sin. The SBC believes that being gay is a sin. Phelps believes “repent or perish and burn.” SBC believes “repent or perish and burn.” Just because SBC wants to be our “friends” and Phelps doesn’t does not mean that both are not equally reprehensible and equally worthy of condemnation.

Phelps and his followers make signs that say “God hates fags.” You may think that’s also the SBC’s opinion; from what I’m seeing of their current statements, you’re wrong. I can certainly tell you it’s not MY opinion, nor the opinion (I believe) of any of the Southern Baptist friends I have.

Incidentally, “repent or perish and burn” is the essential philosophy of most Christian denominations when you boil it down.

[Aries28]

Otto

I hope I have not come across as sounding apathetic. I’m not. I have many thought, concerns, questions on much of what we have all discussed here. As I posted earlier in response to jlzania I completely think hatred and persecution of ANY group is wrong.

Can I ask you a completely unrelated question? Can I not disagree with an issue as a whole but still think the people who believe in that issue deserve every right I am entitled to even if I disagree with them? (Boy I hope that isn’t as confusing as it sounds when I read it again…)

For instance, can I disagree with abortion in the majority of cases but still think it is horrible for clinics to be bombed and doctors killed over their involvement in them?

Can I disagree with homosexuality as a whole but still think it is absolutely awful for homosexuals to be treated the way they are in many cases? And again, if you will read my earlier response to jlzania I am questioning what I have always been taught.

As ** Sauron ** said…it’s not my call if something is a sin or not. I’m just trying to do my best to educate myself and to love everyone as I was commanded to do by Jesus.

Not love them as in try to convert them over to my way of thinking but love them unconditionally…no matter what they believe.

Fair enough?

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
2. Paul’s stuff in Romans 1 is clearly not talking about people who “were born gay” – IMHO, he’s talking about the First Century equivalent of “gay chic” where hedonistic pleasures are beginning to cloy and the ennui-laden folks with that focus turn to gay sex as a new way to get kicks. If you read the Scripture in context, you see that he’s condemning folks who have turned from God for the gratification available in this world – and pointing out to the Roman Christians in 2:1, which follows immediately on the anti-homosex passage, that some of them used to be that sort of people.

Poly, my reading of Paul, combined with some stuff I’ve been told (and saw in books and such) of the polytheistic and hedonistic practices of some of the captors of the Jewish people (Romans and Greeks), as well as persecutors of the first Christians, has suggested to me that he may have been trying to say “hey, those people who beat all y’all up are icky people because they do all these things like they lie and steal and they’re polytheistic and have open relationships and things like that. So God likes you, even if it doesn’t seem like that when those evil Romans kill your friends for daring to proclaim the word of God. Rock on!” IE he wasn’t speaking out against homosexuality or specific sexual acts per se so much as he was saying “hey, these guys are icky because they do things we think are icky.”

Does this strike in contrast to what you have learned? It’s not something I’ve seen supported in many places, but I also don’t exactly go hunting down people to ask them;)

[Pixiesnix]

I forgot to add my good wishes to gobear. I’m sorry.

[Guinastasia]

Oh matt--I was wrong-it was ACT UP I was thinking of. It doesn’t seem like the Sisters throw things at nuns and school kids. Sorry 'bout that-I got the two of them confused.

[Polycarp]

*Originally posted by iampunha *
**Poly, my reading of Paul, combined with some stuff I’ve been told (and saw in books and such) of the polytheistic and hedonistic practices of some of the captors of the Jewish people (Romans and Greeks), as well as persecutors of the first Christians, has suggested to me that he may have been trying to say “hey, those people who beat all y’all up are icky people because they do all these things like they lie and steal and they’re polytheistic and have open relationships and things like that. So God likes you, even if it doesn’t seem like that when those evil Romans kill your friends for daring to proclaim the word of God. Rock on!” IE he wasn’t speaking out against homosexuality or specific sexual acts per se so much as he was saying “hey, these guys are icky because they do things we think are icky.”

Does this strike in contrast to what you have learned? It’s not something I’ve seen supported in many places, but I also don’t exactly go hunting down people to ask them;) **

There’s more than a little truth in that, although you’ll find that there was a very strict morality – not the one our forefathers would consider proper, but a strict one nonetheless – connected with the Roman and Greek faith systems. It was the folks who no longer held to these beliefs and were hedonistic, so far as they can be said to have a philosophy at all, that Paul seems to have been speaking of in that first chapter. But you’re right in that the target of Paul’s ire was not First Century homosexuality but rather the Roman equivalent of the jet set and establishment Rome of the day. But His4Ever’s exegesis of the Sodom story should demonstrate to you that accuracy in exegesis is not one of evangelicalism’s strong points – she went against the precise words of Scripture (in Isaiah and Ezekiel) in re the sin of Sodom to prove that it was homosexuality “according to the Bible.” (Needless to say, this too is a stereotype – I know of several decent evangelicals who would never stoop to such a thing, but read the Bible and learn from it.)

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Sauron

Esprix: You’re exactly right when you say that Southern Baptists will feel backlash from the SBC’s position. My point all along has been that once it’s been proven that not all Southern Baptists feel the way the SBC apparently does, one should not continue to say “Southern Baptists” when one means the SBC. Does that make sense?

I see what you’re saying - don’t assume the individual believes everything as the the organization does - but when someone says “Southern Baptists believe X,” it’s the truth, if the SBC has said, “Southern Baptists believe X.” It’s their job to define Southern Baptism. I applaud your work, and I appreciate you standing up for your own personal beliefs, but it is not inappropriate to talk about what southern Baptists believe.

Now, there are limits to this; for example, you would be hard pressed to say “Christianity believes X” because there is no one defining, governing body of all of Christianity, as there are a hundred different denominations of the same “parent religion” - the Baptists do not believe what the Methodists believe, as they interpret the Bible differently (and the Bible is about the only thing that could be considered a “defining authority,” if it weren’t for the fact that everyone interprets it differently, which in and of itself sounds like a Great Debate). Similarly, as there is no “defining organization” for the gay community, you can’t say “The GLBT community believes X;” you can say “many members believe X” or “the NGLTF believes X,” but we don’t have a tribal council to decide these things.

I acknowledge you’re in a sticky wicket as the SBC speaks for all of Southern Baptism and you do not agree that it speaks for all individual Southern Baptists, but you have to accept the fact that people can - and will - talk about “what Southern Baptism believes” and it will be completely within the bounds of debate.

IMHO, that is.

Esprix