Today is "Transgender Day of Visibility."
After returning to the US from Greece I entered the dreaded teenage years. As a teenager I was angry and sullen. My sense of wrong-ness with my body deepened with puberty. The changes to my body horrified me. The body hair that sprouted from my arms and the peach fuzz on my face saddened me it was a deepening difference between myself and the girl I knew that I was inside. Girls just didn't have hair on their face. I took up shaving which I deeply detest doing now. This facial hair wouldn't be a 5th so bad if I hadn't done so. My voice changing was sickening to me. Loosing the sweet girlish sounding voice I had as a child sent me into deep despair.
This all made me angry with myself, with my friends, with my family, and with humanity in general. This led to me doing the things teenagers do to rebel. I lied, shoplifted and broke into houses not to steal but simply to snoop around. The things I did were a cry for attention. And attention I received in spades. I got caught at both but instead of being charged with the crimes I was sent to counseling. During this time frame my parents caught me with a slip on under my shirt and pants. When this came up at counseling I wish to god I had told the therapist the truth. I wish I had screamed that I was a transsexual.
[For the full story, see here. And for an excellent link to Transgender resources, please see Susan's Place: Transgender Resources.]
We should be supportive of each other.
We should be respectful of each other’s choices/needs/wants.
We should recognize the vast wonderful differences that each of us has...
[Taken from A Life About Transition]
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL HELD IN ABEYANCE
So much for my being optimistic regarding the repeal of DADT relatively soon. And so much for "liberal" and "Gay friendly" President Obama:
Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates put it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."
[See here.]
Equal rights doesn't seem to be on Obama's "plate" right now!
Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates put it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."
[See here.]
Equal rights doesn't seem to be on Obama's "plate" right now!
Saturday, March 28, 2009
BUREAUCRATIC "ACTIVIST" CORPORATE SALARIES
In an article in the Washington Blade entitled, "How much do they make? A look at the compensation paid to leaders of the LGBT rights movement", the following is stated:
Craig Shniderman, executive director of Food & Friends, which provides meals and nutritional services for homebound people with HIV/AIDS in the Washington, D.C. area, had the highest salary among the heads of the nation’s most prominent LGBT advocacy groups and groups that provide AIDS-related services in Los Angeles, New York and D.C.
A survey of the compensation paid to heads of 30 LGBT and AIDS organizations, conducted by the Washington Blade, shows that Shniderman had a total salary and benefits package of $382,200 in 2008, the latest period for which the organizations’ salary and annual revenue data could be obtained for a completed fiscal year.
Shniderman’s earnings placed him ahead of Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT political advocacy group. Solmonese, who ranked second in the salary survey, received a total compensation package of $338,400 in 2008....
Geoff Kors, Equality California’s executive director, had a 2008 compensation of $171,000.
I don't know what criteria are used to determine or justify these exorbitant salaries of people who are deemed "activists" of one sort or another in regard to LGBT issues. However, those criteria should, and must, be made public so that people can see whether they are getting enough bang for the buck to justify what I consider to be outrageous salaries, particularly since we have hitherto seen very little accomplishment in the acquisition of full and equal Gay rights, and with the exception of the likely repeal of DADT, we are unlikely to see any further movement in equal rights for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps garnering these exorbitant salaries and perks occurs precisely because there has been such little accomplishment in acquiring equal rights for LGBT people; perhaps because rubbing elbows with politicos in Washington, D.C and elsewhere is helping to garner such salaries and perks when actually moving Gay rights forward in a meaningful way would offend those politicians and prevent such handsome remuneration of those corporate heads.
Perhaps if a lot of the money that goes into those salaries and perks were meaningfully spent in actually fighting for full and equal LGBT rights, much more in that area would have been accomplished by now.
Bureaucracies are self-perpetuating; bureaucrats are careerists who are usually far more interested in keeping and enhancing their careers than they are in achieving the goals they say they are interested in achieving. For, if they achieved their goals, they'd be without a job!
Sociologists call this phenomenon, "Goal Displacement," where the means by which the alleged goals are to be achieved become more important than the actual achievement of those goals. So, in this connection, it is possible that many "activists" who make "activism" a career might be far more interested in maintaining their positions, especially their well-paid positions, than they are in achieving the goals of equal rights that they say they are interested in achieving, and for which they are being ostensibly paid.
We don't know the answers to these questions, but it behooves people genuinely interested in full and equal civil rights for LGBT people to demand justification for granting this largesse to these and other corporate heads in the area of what is called "activism," and determine whether or not these salaries and perks are justified.
Craig Shniderman, executive director of Food & Friends, which provides meals and nutritional services for homebound people with HIV/AIDS in the Washington, D.C. area, had the highest salary among the heads of the nation’s most prominent LGBT advocacy groups and groups that provide AIDS-related services in Los Angeles, New York and D.C.
A survey of the compensation paid to heads of 30 LGBT and AIDS organizations, conducted by the Washington Blade, shows that Shniderman had a total salary and benefits package of $382,200 in 2008, the latest period for which the organizations’ salary and annual revenue data could be obtained for a completed fiscal year.
Shniderman’s earnings placed him ahead of Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT political advocacy group. Solmonese, who ranked second in the salary survey, received a total compensation package of $338,400 in 2008....
Geoff Kors, Equality California’s executive director, had a 2008 compensation of $171,000.
I don't know what criteria are used to determine or justify these exorbitant salaries of people who are deemed "activists" of one sort or another in regard to LGBT issues. However, those criteria should, and must, be made public so that people can see whether they are getting enough bang for the buck to justify what I consider to be outrageous salaries, particularly since we have hitherto seen very little accomplishment in the acquisition of full and equal Gay rights, and with the exception of the likely repeal of DADT, we are unlikely to see any further movement in equal rights for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps garnering these exorbitant salaries and perks occurs precisely because there has been such little accomplishment in acquiring equal rights for LGBT people; perhaps because rubbing elbows with politicos in Washington, D.C and elsewhere is helping to garner such salaries and perks when actually moving Gay rights forward in a meaningful way would offend those politicians and prevent such handsome remuneration of those corporate heads.
Perhaps if a lot of the money that goes into those salaries and perks were meaningfully spent in actually fighting for full and equal LGBT rights, much more in that area would have been accomplished by now.
Bureaucracies are self-perpetuating; bureaucrats are careerists who are usually far more interested in keeping and enhancing their careers than they are in achieving the goals they say they are interested in achieving. For, if they achieved their goals, they'd be without a job!
Sociologists call this phenomenon, "Goal Displacement," where the means by which the alleged goals are to be achieved become more important than the actual achievement of those goals. So, in this connection, it is possible that many "activists" who make "activism" a career might be far more interested in maintaining their positions, especially their well-paid positions, than they are in achieving the goals of equal rights that they say they are interested in achieving, and for which they are being ostensibly paid.
We don't know the answers to these questions, but it behooves people genuinely interested in full and equal civil rights for LGBT people to demand justification for granting this largesse to these and other corporate heads in the area of what is called "activism," and determine whether or not these salaries and perks are justified.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A BRILLIANT, POISED SPEECH ON EQUAL RIGHTS IN VERMONT
The following video is from the Vermont Senate marriage hearings prior to its affirmative vote regarding same-sex marriage. It is a speech and answers to questions by a very intelligent, poised, young man, James Neiley. Even if the Senators hadn't heard any other speech regarding the need for equal rights in Vermont, this young man would have persuaded any but those with the most hardened of hearts. If each state had a spokesperson like him, same-sex marriage would likely become a reality in all states far sooner than will otherwise occur.
[Thanks to Towleroad.]
[Thanks to Towleroad.]
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
GIVE FUNDAMENTALISM AN INCH AND IT WILL TAKE A MILE!
There is an interesting article entitled, "All homosexuals should be stoned to death, says Muslim preacher of hate" that I urge you to read.
Part of it reads as follows:
All homosexuals should face stoning to death, a Muslim preacher of hate declared yesterday.
Anjem Choudary, the firebrand cleric who wants to see Britain ruled by Sharia law, said such a regime was the only way to fix the country's ills.
Under it, adulterers and homosexuals would be killed by stoning.
The U.S. is far more tolerant of fundamentalism than is Britain, and from the above cited article, we see that unless fundamentalism is directly confronted, all Britons may well suffer for lethargy in the face of this danger.
The above cited article shows that the threats to Gay people are of one piece as are the threats to the very fabric of British society! The same is certainly true in the U.S!
As I've often written, if any one's civil rights are threatened, all of our civil rights are threatened!
We should make no mistake: Many, if not most, "Christian" fundamentalists have the same feelings as do these clerics, except that the former are usually not as honest about their feelings and agenda. An exception is the first and favorite child born of fundamentalism, "Dominionism."
In the U.S., the attempt to impose fundamentalist perceptions in the interpretation of our Constitution, as seen in Dominionism, is a very dangerous path that will allow the threats currently posed to Gay people to be posed to virtually everyone in the U.S.
And when fundamentalist biblical interpretations are inculcated in the electorate who then trust and use those interpretations to vote on the granting or removal of the Constitutional rights of a minority group, as seen in the vote on Prop. 8, that is Dominionism in action!
Moreover, we can expect that the uncertainties of the economy may well make fundamentalism and even Dominionism more seductive to increasing numbers of people who are disoriented by those uncertainties and who are captured by the need to grab on to simplistic ideas and sound bites in order to make sense out of the world and in a desperate attempt to feel better about themselves.
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," [D. James] Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." [For the full article, see here.]
Give fundamentalists an inch, and they'll take a mile!
Part of it reads as follows:
All homosexuals should face stoning to death, a Muslim preacher of hate declared yesterday.
Anjem Choudary, the firebrand cleric who wants to see Britain ruled by Sharia law, said such a regime was the only way to fix the country's ills.
Under it, adulterers and homosexuals would be killed by stoning.
The U.S. is far more tolerant of fundamentalism than is Britain, and from the above cited article, we see that unless fundamentalism is directly confronted, all Britons may well suffer for lethargy in the face of this danger.
The above cited article shows that the threats to Gay people are of one piece as are the threats to the very fabric of British society! The same is certainly true in the U.S!
As I've often written, if any one's civil rights are threatened, all of our civil rights are threatened!
We should make no mistake: Many, if not most, "Christian" fundamentalists have the same feelings as do these clerics, except that the former are usually not as honest about their feelings and agenda. An exception is the first and favorite child born of fundamentalism, "Dominionism."
In the U.S., the attempt to impose fundamentalist perceptions in the interpretation of our Constitution, as seen in Dominionism, is a very dangerous path that will allow the threats currently posed to Gay people to be posed to virtually everyone in the U.S.
And when fundamentalist biblical interpretations are inculcated in the electorate who then trust and use those interpretations to vote on the granting or removal of the Constitutional rights of a minority group, as seen in the vote on Prop. 8, that is Dominionism in action!
Moreover, we can expect that the uncertainties of the economy may well make fundamentalism and even Dominionism more seductive to increasing numbers of people who are disoriented by those uncertainties and who are captured by the need to grab on to simplistic ideas and sound bites in order to make sense out of the world and in a desperate attempt to feel better about themselves.
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," [D. James] Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." [For the full article, see here.]
Give fundamentalists an inch, and they'll take a mile!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
PROFESSING CHRISTIANS MUST FISH OR CUT BAIT
"Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease." (Proverbs 22:10)
The scorners and the contentious unfortunately comprise a significant number, if not the majority, of the institutional Church. These are the ones who advocate and/or remain silent amidst prejudice, discrimination, oppression, the bearing of false witness against others, and who seek to deprive Gay people of the civil rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States to all citizens.
The scorners and the contentious almost always align themselves with the reactionary political forces in society, and perversely tout as being "Christian" such destructive values as Americanism, jingoism, militarism, and capitalism.
They are little more than thugs who have taken their preconceived prejudices and hatreds and brought them into what is called "the church," and seek to justify those prejudices and hatreds by appealing to God Who, they erroneously contend, is on their side and is on the side of such blatantly anti-Christian values that they both hold and proclaim.
If the institutional Church has any hope of surviving; has any claim upon representing the Prince of Peace; is to have any credibility with Christians and other decent, sensitive people, its clergy and members must loudly speak out against this grotesque perversion of Christianity!
No Christian can sit idly by and allow Christianity and Jesus to be dragged through the mud by these homophobic and other wolves in sheep's clothing! And any professing Christian who does quietly allow the professing Christian thugs to define Christianity in the minds of others knows nothing of Christ and His call on our lives!
Any professing Christian who advocates demonic values, or remains silent when demonic values are expressed in the name of God, is slowly but surely eroding what credibility Christianity has in civilized society; turning intelligent, sensitive, decent people away from even exploring Christianity as "a reasonable faith"; demeaning Jesus and His values that even a cursory reading of the New Testament would tell anyone with even a scintilla of spiritual sensitivity.
So, every Christian worthy of the name must "cast out the scorner," the hater, from the midst of Christ's Church, lest Christians and Christianity fall in the estimation of intelligent, sensitive, and decent people even more than has already likely occurred.
And, most importantly, the professing Christian thugs are spitting in the face of God, and to allow them to continue to do so wreaks havoc on the Church and wreaks havoc on the souls of all those who profess to be Jesus' disciples and yet do nothing to stop this assault on God and on His Church.
So it is incumbent upon every single Christian to take to heart the following exhortation: "Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease." (Proverbs 22:10)
The scorners and the contentious unfortunately comprise a significant number, if not the majority, of the institutional Church. These are the ones who advocate and/or remain silent amidst prejudice, discrimination, oppression, the bearing of false witness against others, and who seek to deprive Gay people of the civil rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States to all citizens.
The scorners and the contentious almost always align themselves with the reactionary political forces in society, and perversely tout as being "Christian" such destructive values as Americanism, jingoism, militarism, and capitalism.
They are little more than thugs who have taken their preconceived prejudices and hatreds and brought them into what is called "the church," and seek to justify those prejudices and hatreds by appealing to God Who, they erroneously contend, is on their side and is on the side of such blatantly anti-Christian values that they both hold and proclaim.
If the institutional Church has any hope of surviving; has any claim upon representing the Prince of Peace; is to have any credibility with Christians and other decent, sensitive people, its clergy and members must loudly speak out against this grotesque perversion of Christianity!
No Christian can sit idly by and allow Christianity and Jesus to be dragged through the mud by these homophobic and other wolves in sheep's clothing! And any professing Christian who does quietly allow the professing Christian thugs to define Christianity in the minds of others knows nothing of Christ and His call on our lives!
Any professing Christian who advocates demonic values, or remains silent when demonic values are expressed in the name of God, is slowly but surely eroding what credibility Christianity has in civilized society; turning intelligent, sensitive, decent people away from even exploring Christianity as "a reasonable faith"; demeaning Jesus and His values that even a cursory reading of the New Testament would tell anyone with even a scintilla of spiritual sensitivity.
So, every Christian worthy of the name must "cast out the scorner," the hater, from the midst of Christ's Church, lest Christians and Christianity fall in the estimation of intelligent, sensitive, and decent people even more than has already likely occurred.
And, most importantly, the professing Christian thugs are spitting in the face of God, and to allow them to continue to do so wreaks havoc on the Church and wreaks havoc on the souls of all those who profess to be Jesus' disciples and yet do nothing to stop this assault on God and on His Church.
So it is incumbent upon every single Christian to take to heart the following exhortation: "Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease." (Proverbs 22:10)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
JUDICIAL BACKLASH AGAINST PROFESSING CHRISTIANS
This is an interesting article in that I agree that Christian groups should be able to exclude non-Christians from their membership if they so choose, given the fact that it is not inconceivable that, for example, militant atheists could join Christian groups and deliberately choose to sabotage those groups.
However, these professing Christian groups have brought this debacle upon themselves, by aligning themselves with haters, hate-mongers, reactionary politics, and those who demean and defame LGBT people!
This court's ruling can be seen to be judicial payback for the professing Christian haters painting Christianity as exclusionary in the worst sense of the word! And this ruling can be seen to be just the beginning of a backlash that will be felt by both the haters who mask themselves as Christians as well as by those who are Christians indeed.
And, everyone and every group that professes itself to be "Christian" that has either promoted discrimination against Gay people and/or has kept silent about this oppression of Gay people, even to the point of the promotion of the advocacy of denying Constitutional rights to Gay people as seen in the vote on Prop. 8 in California, deserves this kind of treatment from the courts!
And we can expect this kind of backlash to be just the beginning in not only the Judicial, but in virtually every other political, social, and institutional arena!
However, these professing Christian groups have brought this debacle upon themselves, by aligning themselves with haters, hate-mongers, reactionary politics, and those who demean and defame LGBT people!
This court's ruling can be seen to be judicial payback for the professing Christian haters painting Christianity as exclusionary in the worst sense of the word! And this ruling can be seen to be just the beginning of a backlash that will be felt by both the haters who mask themselves as Christians as well as by those who are Christians indeed.
And, everyone and every group that professes itself to be "Christian" that has either promoted discrimination against Gay people and/or has kept silent about this oppression of Gay people, even to the point of the promotion of the advocacy of denying Constitutional rights to Gay people as seen in the vote on Prop. 8 in California, deserves this kind of treatment from the courts!
And we can expect this kind of backlash to be just the beginning in not only the Judicial, but in virtually every other political, social, and institutional arena!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
JULIAN BOND SPEAKS ABOUT GAY RIGHTS
Please see the following video of Julian Bond speaking about Gay rights. No one should make the mistake of thinking that the struggle for LGBT rights is not just as important and just as essential as the struggle for African-American rights, and the rights of any and every other minority group, if we truly want to be a civil society in which all decent people want to live.
Monday, March 16, 2009
RELIGION HAS MADE A MOCKERY OF GOD
And people of faith should ask themselves: What is the cumulative effect upon outside observers of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker living like lords on the largesse of the poor, multiplied by Jimmy Swaggart's pornography addiction, plus Eric Rudolph bombing Olympians and gays in the name of God, plus Muslims hijacking airplanes in the name of God, multiplied by the church that kicked out some members because they voted Democrat, divided by people caterwauling on courthouse steps as a rock bearing the Ten Commandments was removed, multiplied by the square root of Catholic priests preying on little boys while the church looked on and did nothing, multiplied by Muslims rioting over cartoons, plus the ongoing demonization of gay men and lesbians, divided by all those "traditional values" coalitions and "family values" councils that try to bully public schools into becoming worship houses, with morning prayers and science lessons from the book of Genesis? Then subtract selflessness, service, sacrifice, holiness and hope.
[For the full article, see here.]
Perhaps the major institutional instigator of homophobia is "religion!" Religion is human beings' institutionalization of the worship of the god whom most have created in their own image!
God is outside and far larger than any religious world-view can contain, and God is far more merciful and gracious toward God's creation than mere human beings can ever be!
The "religious" among us have sown to the wind and now religion as an institution is beginning to reap the whirlwind!
Actually, what the above article understates or omits is the increasing lack of religiosity among many people who do go to church, as witnessed by the fact that much of what is preached and believed by those who participate in religious institutions sounds incredible to most thinking and sensitive people. And it sounds incredible because it is incredible!
A basic fundamental of Christianity's view of God is that of "grace," or God's unmerited favor toward God's creation! Indeed, that grace, manifested by unconditional love, is what all Christians are enjoined by God and by the Bible to do!
Christians are to be agents of God's grace in this world!
Yet, we see very little of that love toward others among professing Christians, especially the showing of unconditional love toward Gay people! And that is one of the reasons I've long maintained that Gay people are God's gift to society and, most particularly, to the Church!
Gay people enable, and make patently clear, the separation of the wheat from the weeds within Christ's Church!
By Gay people being victimized and oppressed "in the name of God," the contradiction between the grace of God and the hatefulness of many of those who claim to represent God, shows forth to all who have eyes to see the absence of God within most of the institutional Church.
And although Gay people are the recipients of the hatred that often manifests itself in sanctimonious and unctuous intonations of a rhetoric of "love" by assorted clergy and professing Christians, institutions of "religion" are commensurately suffering the loss of members due to such transparent phoniness, and every Christian should be thankful for that.
And, most importantly, it is God Who suffers the most from such homophobia, and every single Christian knows that fact to be true!
[For the full article, see here.]
Perhaps the major institutional instigator of homophobia is "religion!" Religion is human beings' institutionalization of the worship of the god whom most have created in their own image!
God is outside and far larger than any religious world-view can contain, and God is far more merciful and gracious toward God's creation than mere human beings can ever be!
The "religious" among us have sown to the wind and now religion as an institution is beginning to reap the whirlwind!
Actually, what the above article understates or omits is the increasing lack of religiosity among many people who do go to church, as witnessed by the fact that much of what is preached and believed by those who participate in religious institutions sounds incredible to most thinking and sensitive people. And it sounds incredible because it is incredible!
A basic fundamental of Christianity's view of God is that of "grace," or God's unmerited favor toward God's creation! Indeed, that grace, manifested by unconditional love, is what all Christians are enjoined by God and by the Bible to do!
Christians are to be agents of God's grace in this world!
Yet, we see very little of that love toward others among professing Christians, especially the showing of unconditional love toward Gay people! And that is one of the reasons I've long maintained that Gay people are God's gift to society and, most particularly, to the Church!
Gay people enable, and make patently clear, the separation of the wheat from the weeds within Christ's Church!
By Gay people being victimized and oppressed "in the name of God," the contradiction between the grace of God and the hatefulness of many of those who claim to represent God, shows forth to all who have eyes to see the absence of God within most of the institutional Church.
And although Gay people are the recipients of the hatred that often manifests itself in sanctimonious and unctuous intonations of a rhetoric of "love" by assorted clergy and professing Christians, institutions of "religion" are commensurately suffering the loss of members due to such transparent phoniness, and every Christian should be thankful for that.
And, most importantly, it is God Who suffers the most from such homophobia, and every single Christian knows that fact to be true!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
FUNDAMENTALISM AND HOMOPHOBIA
This is an excellent essay on the "Fundamentalist Agenda," by Davidson Loehr. Although there are parts within it with which I don't agree, it deserves to be read in its entirety, as it gets at the root of the exclusion of all those who don't conform to the ideology of fundamentalists of all stripes, be they "religious" or secular; that fundamentalism can be seen to cause and comprise a large part of the reasons for homophobia.
The only way all fundamentalisms can have the same agenda is if the agenda preceded all the religions. And it did. Fundamentalist behaviors are familiar because we've all seen them so many times. These men are acting the role of “alpha males” who define the boundaries of their group's territory and the norms and behaviors that define members of their in-group. These are the behaviors of territorial species in which males are stronger than females. In biological terms, these are the characteristic behaviors of sexually dimorphous territorial animals. Males set and enforce the rules, females obey the males and raise the children; there is a clear separation between the in-group and the out-group. The in-group is protected; outsiders are expelled or fought.
It seems to me that the roots of homophobia are seated deep within a fundamentalist mind-set, be it "religious" or not, that takes its moral hegemony and heteronormativity for granted; seeks to resurrect a past that never really truly existed, but is a wish-fulfillment taken from an idealized version of our culture that never truly existed. In other words, fundamentalist thinking, thinking in black and white terms, thinking in one-dimensional terms, stems from both an idealized version of what is viewed as "reality" as well as from a fictional version of what is viewed as that same "reality."
Therefore, "success" is equated with the alpha male who is then viewed as representing the pinnacle of "success"; the one who represents "the real man" who is seen to be diametrically opposed to the usually false stereotype of the essentially effeminate gay male. Hence, the revulsion and discrimination of both secular and "religious" fundamentalists against gay males and, to a lesser degree, against lesbians who don't threaten alpha male status. (Indeed, many male heterosexuals get off on lesbian porn, whereas very few male heterosexuals are likely to get off on gay male porn.)
And when the name of God can be invoked in that fundamentalist mind-set, even the minority's civil rights can be prevented and removed if a seemingly credible argument can be made that the Bible and the Constitution should be coterminous. Hence, as the above cited article states: "Pat Robertson, again, has said that just as Supreme Court justices place a hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, so they should also place a hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." Only fundamentalist thinking can see our Democratic Republic as being coterminous with viewing our society as a Theocracy!
And, to complicate matters even further, many LGBT people have internalized this fundamentalist thinking, despite much rhetoric to the contrary, so that many live lives of unnecessary shame and guilt for being the way God created them; many who disdain the very Person of God have also internalized religious fundamentalism after hearing hateful rhetoric in the name of "religion" over the years, consciously and/or unconsciously viewing themselves as "deviant," as "sinners," as "depraved," as "going to hell."
These lies have so infused so many LGBT people that one can't even talk about a "Gay Civil Rights Movement," as the critical mass that would allow such a movement, and the outraged demand for dignity and civil rights at the current time seem quite removed from public discourse, and the gratitude for crumbs of incrementalism by many Gay people being so effusive, that it seems unlikely that equal rights will be won in this generation. The living up (or down) to the stereotypes placed on Gay people by the oppressor shows that fundamentalist thinking has done its job on both the fundamentalists and upon their targets of victimization!
The alpha male is so identified with "success," and is so well-respected, that anything that contravenes this status, be it a powerful woman or an effeminate male, is ripe for being a subject of derision! Hence, homophobia, just like misogyny, is largely a reaction to what is deemed to be the very opposite of both heteronormativity as well as "maleness" that is seen to be synonymous with "power," and "success." And, those who think in fundamentalist terms, in black and white terms, in one-dimensional terms, see these opposites as threats both to the way they think the world should work and as threats to their very own psyches.
Nostalgia for a past that never really existed and the deep desire to maintain a concept of self whereby one's world is not in any way rocked or threatened is crucial to all fundamentalists! Indeed, the very idea that being Gay is just as normal and natural as is being Straight is anathema to fundamentalists, and flies in the face of their "logic" that is largely based on the fiction that equal rights for Gay people threatens the very fabric of society which is, in reality, synonymous with the very fabric of what protects their own psyches.
We can never underestimate the fear that drives fundamentalists! One only has to listen to some of their rhetoric to see that fear that underlies such statements as made by the late Jerry Falwell: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'”
Clearly, any rational person sees the foolishness behind such a statement, yet fundamentalists are not rational, because people who operate from fear are rarely, if ever, rational! Their world-view is viewed by them as being under attack, and they lash out at anything that threatens that world-view and their very psyches. And their deep need to see the world and their place in the world in a certain way, frequently ascribed to being "God's way," is easily threatened when such seeming aberrations, threats, and uncertainties as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina occur, so they need to lash out at, and even blame, those whom they have come to view as "the other" who is, by definition, "not on God's side."
Clearly, repeated indoctrination of homophobia from assorted pulpits throughout the world have done little but reinforce discrimination as well as fundamentalist thinking, so that these consequences of such ignorant and hateful rhetoric "in the name of God" have nurtured and reinforced this fundamentalist thinking that has become viewed as normal and "Godly" by those who have been exposed to this indoctrination. Moreover, the incestuous socialization that occurs in so many churches have also helped reinforce such fundamentalist thinking and homophobia so that any attempt to rationally explain the fallacies of both are quite often met with a virulent rage that brings to light some of the worst aspects of the human heart and condition.
Rationality is no match for fundamentalism; sweet reason can never overcome fundamentalist thinking; there is no compromise with fundamentalism; making nice with fundamentalists is to be seen, and is seen by them, as operating from a position of weakness!
The only antidote to the ravages of fundamentalism and fundamentalist rhetoric regarding its impact on homophobia is enforced integration in positions of equality so that Straight and Gay people are put in positions of equality by law and, over time, acceptance and less fear will be generated by that very interaction. Hence, civil rights of any minority group such as Gay people can never be allowed to come to a vote of the electorate, as "inalienable rights" are Constitutional guarantees that must be demanded by people who have dignity and, therefore, have rage against being treated as second-class citizens; continue to bring that case to the Judiciary and Legislatures.
There is no "other side" to LGBT rights! Fundamentalism is based on fear and on myth that helps frightened people navigate their way in this uncertain world! Hence, there is no antidote to fundamentalism that meets certain crucial needs to psychologically fragile people!
Rather, meaningful activism must occur for full and equal civil rights to occur, and for that to occur there must be a "transformation of consciousness" whereby LGBT people and allies demand equal, Constitutionally guaranteed, rights, and don't seek some level playing field with fundamentalists, because there can be no such level playing field that doesn't diminish the dignity and rights of Gay people.
It is Gay people who have the dignity to demand full and equal rights who have the moral high ground; it is the fundamentalists who operate from a position of weakness because of their fearfulness! And this fact must never be forgotten by Gay people if full and equal civil and sacramental rights are to become a reality in the foreseeable future!
The only way all fundamentalisms can have the same agenda is if the agenda preceded all the religions. And it did. Fundamentalist behaviors are familiar because we've all seen them so many times. These men are acting the role of “alpha males” who define the boundaries of their group's territory and the norms and behaviors that define members of their in-group. These are the behaviors of territorial species in which males are stronger than females. In biological terms, these are the characteristic behaviors of sexually dimorphous territorial animals. Males set and enforce the rules, females obey the males and raise the children; there is a clear separation between the in-group and the out-group. The in-group is protected; outsiders are expelled or fought.
It seems to me that the roots of homophobia are seated deep within a fundamentalist mind-set, be it "religious" or not, that takes its moral hegemony and heteronormativity for granted; seeks to resurrect a past that never really truly existed, but is a wish-fulfillment taken from an idealized version of our culture that never truly existed. In other words, fundamentalist thinking, thinking in black and white terms, thinking in one-dimensional terms, stems from both an idealized version of what is viewed as "reality" as well as from a fictional version of what is viewed as that same "reality."
Therefore, "success" is equated with the alpha male who is then viewed as representing the pinnacle of "success"; the one who represents "the real man" who is seen to be diametrically opposed to the usually false stereotype of the essentially effeminate gay male. Hence, the revulsion and discrimination of both secular and "religious" fundamentalists against gay males and, to a lesser degree, against lesbians who don't threaten alpha male status. (Indeed, many male heterosexuals get off on lesbian porn, whereas very few male heterosexuals are likely to get off on gay male porn.)
And when the name of God can be invoked in that fundamentalist mind-set, even the minority's civil rights can be prevented and removed if a seemingly credible argument can be made that the Bible and the Constitution should be coterminous. Hence, as the above cited article states: "Pat Robertson, again, has said that just as Supreme Court justices place a hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, so they should also place a hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." Only fundamentalist thinking can see our Democratic Republic as being coterminous with viewing our society as a Theocracy!
And, to complicate matters even further, many LGBT people have internalized this fundamentalist thinking, despite much rhetoric to the contrary, so that many live lives of unnecessary shame and guilt for being the way God created them; many who disdain the very Person of God have also internalized religious fundamentalism after hearing hateful rhetoric in the name of "religion" over the years, consciously and/or unconsciously viewing themselves as "deviant," as "sinners," as "depraved," as "going to hell."
These lies have so infused so many LGBT people that one can't even talk about a "Gay Civil Rights Movement," as the critical mass that would allow such a movement, and the outraged demand for dignity and civil rights at the current time seem quite removed from public discourse, and the gratitude for crumbs of incrementalism by many Gay people being so effusive, that it seems unlikely that equal rights will be won in this generation. The living up (or down) to the stereotypes placed on Gay people by the oppressor shows that fundamentalist thinking has done its job on both the fundamentalists and upon their targets of victimization!
The alpha male is so identified with "success," and is so well-respected, that anything that contravenes this status, be it a powerful woman or an effeminate male, is ripe for being a subject of derision! Hence, homophobia, just like misogyny, is largely a reaction to what is deemed to be the very opposite of both heteronormativity as well as "maleness" that is seen to be synonymous with "power," and "success." And, those who think in fundamentalist terms, in black and white terms, in one-dimensional terms, see these opposites as threats both to the way they think the world should work and as threats to their very own psyches.
Nostalgia for a past that never really existed and the deep desire to maintain a concept of self whereby one's world is not in any way rocked or threatened is crucial to all fundamentalists! Indeed, the very idea that being Gay is just as normal and natural as is being Straight is anathema to fundamentalists, and flies in the face of their "logic" that is largely based on the fiction that equal rights for Gay people threatens the very fabric of society which is, in reality, synonymous with the very fabric of what protects their own psyches.
We can never underestimate the fear that drives fundamentalists! One only has to listen to some of their rhetoric to see that fear that underlies such statements as made by the late Jerry Falwell: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'”
Clearly, any rational person sees the foolishness behind such a statement, yet fundamentalists are not rational, because people who operate from fear are rarely, if ever, rational! Their world-view is viewed by them as being under attack, and they lash out at anything that threatens that world-view and their very psyches. And their deep need to see the world and their place in the world in a certain way, frequently ascribed to being "God's way," is easily threatened when such seeming aberrations, threats, and uncertainties as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina occur, so they need to lash out at, and even blame, those whom they have come to view as "the other" who is, by definition, "not on God's side."
Clearly, repeated indoctrination of homophobia from assorted pulpits throughout the world have done little but reinforce discrimination as well as fundamentalist thinking, so that these consequences of such ignorant and hateful rhetoric "in the name of God" have nurtured and reinforced this fundamentalist thinking that has become viewed as normal and "Godly" by those who have been exposed to this indoctrination. Moreover, the incestuous socialization that occurs in so many churches have also helped reinforce such fundamentalist thinking and homophobia so that any attempt to rationally explain the fallacies of both are quite often met with a virulent rage that brings to light some of the worst aspects of the human heart and condition.
Rationality is no match for fundamentalism; sweet reason can never overcome fundamentalist thinking; there is no compromise with fundamentalism; making nice with fundamentalists is to be seen, and is seen by them, as operating from a position of weakness!
The only antidote to the ravages of fundamentalism and fundamentalist rhetoric regarding its impact on homophobia is enforced integration in positions of equality so that Straight and Gay people are put in positions of equality by law and, over time, acceptance and less fear will be generated by that very interaction. Hence, civil rights of any minority group such as Gay people can never be allowed to come to a vote of the electorate, as "inalienable rights" are Constitutional guarantees that must be demanded by people who have dignity and, therefore, have rage against being treated as second-class citizens; continue to bring that case to the Judiciary and Legislatures.
There is no "other side" to LGBT rights! Fundamentalism is based on fear and on myth that helps frightened people navigate their way in this uncertain world! Hence, there is no antidote to fundamentalism that meets certain crucial needs to psychologically fragile people!
Rather, meaningful activism must occur for full and equal civil rights to occur, and for that to occur there must be a "transformation of consciousness" whereby LGBT people and allies demand equal, Constitutionally guaranteed, rights, and don't seek some level playing field with fundamentalists, because there can be no such level playing field that doesn't diminish the dignity and rights of Gay people.
It is Gay people who have the dignity to demand full and equal rights who have the moral high ground; it is the fundamentalists who operate from a position of weakness because of their fearfulness! And this fact must never be forgotten by Gay people if full and equal civil and sacramental rights are to become a reality in the foreseeable future!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
"IGNORANCE IS MY OPPRESSOR" BY DON CHARLES
The following post is by my good friend Don Charles who kindly allowed me to cross post it here; it was posted the other day on the Diary section of Pam's House Blend.
It's a beautiful statement as to much of what has retarded the acquisition of full and equal civil rights for LGBT people, and it states points that have to be constantly reiterated until increasing numbers of LGBT people take them to heart and act on them.
"Ignorance Is My Oppressor"
by: Stuffed Animal
Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 14:37:12 PM EDT
The Vital Voice is a Gay newspaper operating out of St. Louis, Missouri. Much of its February/March edition is given over to guest columnist Maurice Tracy. In fact, his lengthy essay on race and sexuality is featured on the front page. Here's an excerpt from the intro, edited slightly for style:
"I see the Gay Rights struggle as part of the Civil Rights struggle. To miss that point is to allow the struggle for Civil Rights to remain fragmented, incomplete, and under the ownership of one particular group and makes that group monolithic in nature . . . the Civil Rights Movement encompasses Gay individuals, women, racial minorities, class struggles, citizenship issues, gender identity and many other varying categories. In this respect, the Civil Rights Movement is not a Black movement or a Gay movement, but a queer(sic) movement. The notions of equality, fairness and access are not queer(sic) values in theory; they are queer(sic) values in practice."
WTF? "Queer values"? Talk about a letdown! Dude kicked off his essay like gangbusters, but within just a few sentences, his argument went straight to Hell. I've seen this sort of thing happen countless times. I swear, we LGBT folk trip ourselves up so often, you'd think we were born slapstick comedians! Read the online edition of The Vital Voice at: www.thevitalvoice.com
It's so ironic. Maurice Tracy spends pages and pages raising the consciousness of Vital Voice readers about Gay racism. Yet he repeatedly denigrates Gay identity with the word "queer". He desperately needs his own consciousness raised! Mr. Tracy, currently a doctoral candidate at St. Louis University, isn't the only clueless Black Gay pundit I know of: Pam Spaulding, Irene Munroe, Jafari Sinclaire Allen and the regrettably named "Queer Kid Of Color" are also blind to the toxic nature of this "reclaimed" sexual slur. They don't care about what I'm going to say here. No problem; I'm not saying it for their benefit. I'm saying it for yours.
"Queer" is a word with much cruelty, shame and emotional devastation attached to it. Those who use it casually either don't know Gay history, or worse, don't give a damn about it. "Queer" is a relic of the awful years not so long ago when Lesbians and Gay men were forcibly committed to mental institutions. Forty years ago, the word conjured up disturbing images of depraved, predatory individuals raping animals or children. For many people, especially our culturally conservative adversaries, it still does.
"Queer" does not, as some mendacious activists claim, merely mean "different". Not by a long shot! Look it up in the dictionary, and you'll find several nuances, but they all boil down to a single concept: abnormally different and/or sick. Those who embrace "queer" haven't done anything to redefine it, so whether they realize it or not, they also embrace this definition. At best, it's a sexist term that insults Gay identity by defining it according to heterosexual standards. At worst, it's a dehumanizing stigma that justifies the doctrine of brainwashing "ex-Gay" ministries.
Believe me, I've heard every excuse for "reclaiming" the word. Most aren't worth the time it would take me to discredit them. One does warrant scrutiny, though: the argument that we should adopt hurtful terms like "queer" in order to "deaden their sting". The premise is that we can drain these words of their toxicity by frequent use. This isn't a new idea; Lesbians and Gay men were co-opting anti-Gay labels long before Stonewall. And we all know about African-Americans' ironic use of the N-word.
However, "everybody's doing it" and "it's always been done" have never been valid reasons for bad behavior. They don't make a bogus theory any less bogus, either. As I think of how prevalent public use of the word "nigger" has become over the last two decades, and recall how long some Black people have been throwing it around (since slavery), I note that it's lost none of its racist baggage. If ever a "shock jock" lets "nigger" slip into a broadcast, or a public figure like Jesse Jackson is overheard uttering it, howls of outrage are sure to follow. Obviously, this "deaden the sting" strategy don't work so good!
Even if it did work, I wouldn't want it to. I see the "sting" of words like "nigger" and "queer" as a necessary component of the Gay Rights movement. For our own good, we shouldn't try to deaden the pain it causes. Yes, it hurts, but it also makes us angry. Anger fuels activism! Adopting sexual slurs is a tragically misguided attempt to stifle our righteous anger. What's the consequence of this stifling? We settle for a discriminatory status quo.
Too many of us shrug off insults. Too many of us shrug off mean-spirited media portrayals of ourselves. Lord knows, too many of us shrug off demonizing propaganda from organized religion. Too many of us shrug off banning from national institutions like the Boy Scouts and the US military. Too many of us shrug off laws that deny our families legal status. And the list of smoothed-over indignities grows longer. At the end of that list, we're going to find a nation full of hopelessly docile LGBT folk. The self-described "faggots", "dykes", "trannies" and "queers" will lay prone, ready and willing to be steamrolled by the forces of bigotry, and when it happens, there'll be hardly a whimper of protest. I don't think that's what the activists who rose in the wake of the Stonewall rebellion had in mind.
We deserve our righteous anger. We deserve the motivation to fight back. We deserve far better than identification with the demeaning labels that bigots have hurled at us . . . and by the way, bigots are still hurling them! Our enemies haven't given up using "queer", "dyke", "faggot", etcetera, and they never will, so we can't possibly "reclaim" those terms. Nor can we erase their ugly connotations. All we can do is confuse society about what we mean when we use them among ourselves, and when we invite others to do the same. Isn't there enough confusion about who and what we are?
Evidently, there isn't enough for folks like Maurice Tracy. Later in his essay, he laments the fact that no Black actors had featured roles on the "Queer As Folk" TV series. I imagine he's also disappointed that "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy's" Fab Five don't include a Black makeover stylist. Those are two instances where I'm thankful African-Americans were excluded. I never get upset about not being invited to Stupid People Parties!
When radical heterosexists spread lies about my kind, I am being oppressed! When White pundits at The Advocate opine that "Gay Is The New Black", I am being oppressed! When Black or White pundits insist on calling the Gay Rights movement a "queer movement", I am being oppressed, too!
Make no mistake, though: My oppressor is not James Dobson. My oppressor is not Peter LaBarbera. My oppressor is not Tony Perkins. Nor is my oppressor The Advocate's editorial board, or even Maurice Tracy. Ignorance is my oppressor! The promotion of ignorance is injurious to me, and it doesn't matter who the source of that ignorance is. If my enemy blows my brains out on purpose, or if my brother blows my brains out by accident, I'm just as dead either way!
The lyrics of an old Stealers Wheel song spring to mind: Clowns to the left of me/Jokers to the right/Here I am/Stuck in the middle with you.* More often than not, that's how I feel about living in a world where there's no escape from racism and heterosexism. In the Black community, I get raw hatred thrown in my face like a stinking scumbag. In Gay circles, I'm either invisible, or a threat, or a crude "homo-thug" fetish. I seek refuge among my Black Gay brethren, only to be labeled a "Black queer". Lord, deliver me! I'm so very sick and tired of being stuck in the middle of ignorant talk about race, gender and sexuality.
*excerpt from "Stuck In The Middle With You", words and music copyright 1978 by Joe Egan and Gerald Rafferty, published by Music of Stage Three (BMI)
Monday, March 9, 2009
A TERRIFIC VIDEO ON THE "RELIGIOUS" RIGHT
The following is a brief and terrific video of the views concerning the "religious" right by Frank Schaeffer, son of the noted late Francis Schaeffer. [Thanks to GayAgenda.com.]
Saturday, March 7, 2009
MIKE SIGNORILE'S TAKE ON THE FATE OF PROP. 8 MAY WELL BE CORRECT
Mike Signorile's take on the fate of Prop. 8 may well be correct.
After listening to the hearings on March 5th, and the deference with which Kenneth Star who advocated for Prop. 8 was treated by the justices, I'm afraid that my optimism as to the overturning of November's vote of the electorate in California might well have been incorrect.
Of course, it's not over until it's over, and even if the justices of the California State Supreme Court affirm Prop. 8, even with the caveat that those who were already married after the Court's May decision stating that the deprivation of marriage rights to same-sex couples is and always was unconstitutional, and prior to the vote of the electorate on the amendment, would still have valid marriages, we can expect a great deal of revulsion expressed and far more activism manifested should this slap in the face occur.
"Equality under the law" must still prevail, and if the current California Supreme Court bends to the tyranny of the majority, we can expect that one day in the near future enough activism will be evinced so that every state in the union will affirm same-sex marriage.
However, we must never forget that for there to be equal rights for any minority group, there must be, to use Martin Luther King's words, "a season of suffering."
And we should all hope that there is sufficient numbers of LGBT people and allies with the necessary fire in the belly to engage in meaningful activism, such as continuously picketing selected homophobic churches (as it is denominations and churches that have done the most to make possible the denigration of LGBT people); continuously picketing and mandating Marriage License bureaus to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples who are entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other citizen in this country; provoke the major LGBT rights organizations to become far more aggressive in asserting the demand for equal rights; educate people that we are under the Constitution of the United States and we are not a theocracy whereby religious convictions determine Constitutional rights.
Should the California State Supreme Court uphold Prop. 8 (and we will know their finding within 90 days), this should provoke increasing numbers of us to become far more political, less frivolous, and far more focused in realizing that we are engaged in a civil rights struggle no less important or urgent than the civil rights struggle that embroiled African Americans and their allies not all that long ago!
And if the Court affirms Prop. 8, whether or not those marriages that occurred within that window between the Court's May decision and the electoral vote in November are deemed valid, that finding may well be a blessing in disguise if it motivates LGBT people and allies, not only in California but in every state in the United States, to exponentially increase our anger, our rage, and our activism at the blatant injustice in enabling LGBT people to be consigned to second class citizenship bereft of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts!
After listening to the hearings on March 5th, and the deference with which Kenneth Star who advocated for Prop. 8 was treated by the justices, I'm afraid that my optimism as to the overturning of November's vote of the electorate in California might well have been incorrect.
Of course, it's not over until it's over, and even if the justices of the California State Supreme Court affirm Prop. 8, even with the caveat that those who were already married after the Court's May decision stating that the deprivation of marriage rights to same-sex couples is and always was unconstitutional, and prior to the vote of the electorate on the amendment, would still have valid marriages, we can expect a great deal of revulsion expressed and far more activism manifested should this slap in the face occur.
"Equality under the law" must still prevail, and if the current California Supreme Court bends to the tyranny of the majority, we can expect that one day in the near future enough activism will be evinced so that every state in the union will affirm same-sex marriage.
However, we must never forget that for there to be equal rights for any minority group, there must be, to use Martin Luther King's words, "a season of suffering."
And we should all hope that there is sufficient numbers of LGBT people and allies with the necessary fire in the belly to engage in meaningful activism, such as continuously picketing selected homophobic churches (as it is denominations and churches that have done the most to make possible the denigration of LGBT people); continuously picketing and mandating Marriage License bureaus to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples who are entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other citizen in this country; provoke the major LGBT rights organizations to become far more aggressive in asserting the demand for equal rights; educate people that we are under the Constitution of the United States and we are not a theocracy whereby religious convictions determine Constitutional rights.
Should the California State Supreme Court uphold Prop. 8 (and we will know their finding within 90 days), this should provoke increasing numbers of us to become far more political, less frivolous, and far more focused in realizing that we are engaged in a civil rights struggle no less important or urgent than the civil rights struggle that embroiled African Americans and their allies not all that long ago!
And if the Court affirms Prop. 8, whether or not those marriages that occurred within that window between the Court's May decision and the electoral vote in November are deemed valid, that finding may well be a blessing in disguise if it motivates LGBT people and allies, not only in California but in every state in the United States, to exponentially increase our anger, our rage, and our activism at the blatant injustice in enabling LGBT people to be consigned to second class citizenship bereft of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
WATCH THE HEARING ON PROP. 8 BEGINNING AT 9AM PST ON MARCH 5TH
The hearing tomorrow, March 5th, on Prop. 8 in California is scheduled from 9 am PST to 12 PM at the chambers of the California State Supreme Court that is located at at 350 McAllister St. in San Francisco.
There will be a live Webcast that can be seen by clicking this link.
So far, much of what I've read by the legal pundits discussing this issue is not optimistic, save for the possible keeping intact the marriages of same-sex couples in California who have become already married. Indeed, it is possible that many of the Justices may vote "conservatively" on this issue for fear of being voted out of office.
As summarized by one article:
...if history is any indication, those seeking to overturn the ballot measure are swimming upstream.
Because Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution, opponents can no longer rely on that document's guarantees of equal treatment and personal liberty to grant gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Instead, advocates of same-sex marriage argue that Prop. 8, by withdrawing fundamental rights the court had sought to protect, assaulted the state Constitution itself. [See here.]
I'm still optimistic that the California State Supreme Court will vote to overturn the clearly discriminatory vote on Prop. 8 for the following reasons:
1. None of the justices, save the most reactionary, wish to go down in history as favoring discrimination against a minority group.
2. The justices are not likely to want their previous ruling affirming the constitutionality of same-sex marriages in California to be overridden by a tyranny of the majority.
3. The fact that we are a Democratic Republic where the Judiciary has the final say on Constitutional matters must hold prominence.
4. To allow the vote of the majority to stand regarding the civil rights and civil liberties of any one group would be tantamount to obviating the need for a Supreme Court in California to adjudicate Constitutional matters.
5. Majority vote on matters that have to do with civil rights issues are fundamentally different than such votes on tax increases and the like.
6. The ruling last May of this Supreme Court that the prevention of same-sex marriages in California was, and always was, unconstitutional must vitiate any attempt to amend or revise that Constitution in a blatant attempt to exert the will or whim of any majority at any given time as final authority in adjudicating the constitutionality of such marriages.
7. To allow the "will of the majority" to be the final authority on the civil rights of any one minority group opens up a can of worms whereby every other minority group, such as African Americans, unions, Latinos, etc., can have one or more of their civil rights removed by majority vote. Such a ruling would provide a chilling effect in both California as well as in our whole society that is unlikely to be lost on the justices when they come to a decision on this matter.
I'm not an attorney or any kind of Constitutional scholar! However, it seems blatantly clear to me that any majority vote must not and should not trump the Judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution; that interpretation in regard to the constitutionality of same-sex marriages in California was made last May.
Please remember: There will be a live Webcast of the discussions of Prop. 8 beginning at 9 am PST on Thursday, March 5th, that can be seen by clicking this link.
There will be a live Webcast that can be seen by clicking this link.
So far, much of what I've read by the legal pundits discussing this issue is not optimistic, save for the possible keeping intact the marriages of same-sex couples in California who have become already married. Indeed, it is possible that many of the Justices may vote "conservatively" on this issue for fear of being voted out of office.
As summarized by one article:
...if history is any indication, those seeking to overturn the ballot measure are swimming upstream.
Because Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution, opponents can no longer rely on that document's guarantees of equal treatment and personal liberty to grant gays and lesbians the right to marry.
Instead, advocates of same-sex marriage argue that Prop. 8, by withdrawing fundamental rights the court had sought to protect, assaulted the state Constitution itself. [See here.]
I'm still optimistic that the California State Supreme Court will vote to overturn the clearly discriminatory vote on Prop. 8 for the following reasons:
1. None of the justices, save the most reactionary, wish to go down in history as favoring discrimination against a minority group.
2. The justices are not likely to want their previous ruling affirming the constitutionality of same-sex marriages in California to be overridden by a tyranny of the majority.
3. The fact that we are a Democratic Republic where the Judiciary has the final say on Constitutional matters must hold prominence.
4. To allow the vote of the majority to stand regarding the civil rights and civil liberties of any one group would be tantamount to obviating the need for a Supreme Court in California to adjudicate Constitutional matters.
5. Majority vote on matters that have to do with civil rights issues are fundamentally different than such votes on tax increases and the like.
6. The ruling last May of this Supreme Court that the prevention of same-sex marriages in California was, and always was, unconstitutional must vitiate any attempt to amend or revise that Constitution in a blatant attempt to exert the will or whim of any majority at any given time as final authority in adjudicating the constitutionality of such marriages.
7. To allow the "will of the majority" to be the final authority on the civil rights of any one minority group opens up a can of worms whereby every other minority group, such as African Americans, unions, Latinos, etc., can have one or more of their civil rights removed by majority vote. Such a ruling would provide a chilling effect in both California as well as in our whole society that is unlikely to be lost on the justices when they come to a decision on this matter.
I'm not an attorney or any kind of Constitutional scholar! However, it seems blatantly clear to me that any majority vote must not and should not trump the Judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution; that interpretation in regard to the constitutionality of same-sex marriages in California was made last May.
Please remember: There will be a live Webcast of the discussions of Prop. 8 beginning at 9 am PST on Thursday, March 5th, that can be seen by clicking this link.
Monday, March 2, 2009
ROBIN TYLER GETS IT!
It is naive, at best, to believe that appealing to "sweet reason," and the "better natures" of homophobic haters is going to do anything except make the marriage equality movement seem that much more pathetic.
For example, the following is the Courage Campaign's video, entitled Fidelitythat beseeches the California State Supreme Court to overturn the popular vote taken last May on Proposition 8.
"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
They come hat in hand to beseech the Supreme Court to support equality for same-sex couples, and although this is a laudatory goal, the method by which they seek to achieve that goal shows that they come from a position of weakness and relative powerlessness.
The California State Supreme Court knows full well the many social and legal implications of allowing the popular vote on Prop. 8 to stand; coming from an emotional position advocating "fairness" and "decency" hold no water in the Judicial arena.
Rather, reminders as to the danger of the tyranny of the majority in adjudicating the civil rights of any minority group; the legal and social implications of allowing a State Supreme Court's prior adjudication of the State's Constitution to be trumped by the will and whim of the electorate that is mightily affected by lies and deceit by those who would limit civil rights of any citizen, must be emphasized.
In stark contrast, Robin Tyler gets it! She is not merely talking to the Supreme Court, but to all who would consider themselves Gay rights activists who can learn a great deal from her:
Some people have said, "Well, you can always put your right to equality back on the ballot in 2010." Excuse me? Since when was it OK for people to vote on a group's rights to basic equality and civil rights? Equality isn't a popularity contest. It's the right of all California citizens.
Nobody's rights should ever be put to a popular vote. That's why we have a court system. And that's why Diane and I are confident the court will show the courage it did when it not only ruled for marriage equality for same-sex couples but also declared that lesbians and gays were a suspect class, a legitimate minority entitled to all rights.
If the court does rule for us, tens of thousands of us will be on the streets that night celebrating a great victory -- not just for us but for everyone.
But if we lose and Prop. 8 stands, even if the court rules to uphold existing same-sex marriages, hundreds of thousands of us will be on the streets, angrier than we have ever been.
The time for saying "please" is over.
Part of what I wrote to a friend of mine regarding this article by Robin Tyler follows:
No more wimpering and seeking to play nice with those who hate Gay people and seek to deny them Constitutional rights! Robin Tyler and those very few like her are speaking the truth, and that truth will resonate with everyone who seeks equal justice and equal rights for everyone.
I am very optimistic that the California State Supreme Court will overturn the vote taken last May on Prop. 8!
As I wrote to another friend of mine regarding this issue:
I'm optimistic that the vote on Prop. 8 will be overturned by the Supreme Court, as not to do so would set a chilling precedent that would affect both Gay people as well as all minority groups in California. As a Democratic Republic we cannot have a tyranny of the majority that can remove constitutionally approved rights as adjudicated by a Supreme Court. Last May, the Calif. Supreme Court said that to deny same-sex marriage to Gay couples was unconstitutional, and had always been unconstitutional. Therefore, for them to now say that the will of the electorate prevails regarding Prop. 8 would nullify their role in interpreting the Calif. Constitution; vitiate the role of the Calif. State Supreme Court in adjudicating constitutional matters; set a chilling precedent that would affect every other minority group; have implications for other states in regard to minority group rights.
I truly believe that the Calif. Supreme Court will nullify that vote on Prop. 8, as the jurists are not oblivious to the truths and fall-out that condoning that vote would mean. A Pandora's Box would be open, leaving all minority group rights up for grabs, depending on the will and whim of the electorate. Moreover, civil rights are never to be decided by majority vote, and that's one of the main reasons our country was founded as a Democratic Republic and not as a mere Democracy where a tyranny of the majority could and would determine such rights.
We need a whole lot more Robin Tylers out there, demanding equality in every facet of life, including that of the designation of "Marriage" and all of the rights and privileges that are enjoyed by heterosexuals who have chosen to partake of that institution!
And there is no need to pathetically go hat in hand to achieve that goal, as to do so shows vulnerability and weakness, and is counterproductive to the acquisition of full and equal civil rights!
For example, the following is the Courage Campaign's video, entitled Fidelitythat beseeches the California State Supreme Court to overturn the popular vote taken last May on Proposition 8.
"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
They come hat in hand to beseech the Supreme Court to support equality for same-sex couples, and although this is a laudatory goal, the method by which they seek to achieve that goal shows that they come from a position of weakness and relative powerlessness.
The California State Supreme Court knows full well the many social and legal implications of allowing the popular vote on Prop. 8 to stand; coming from an emotional position advocating "fairness" and "decency" hold no water in the Judicial arena.
Rather, reminders as to the danger of the tyranny of the majority in adjudicating the civil rights of any minority group; the legal and social implications of allowing a State Supreme Court's prior adjudication of the State's Constitution to be trumped by the will and whim of the electorate that is mightily affected by lies and deceit by those who would limit civil rights of any citizen, must be emphasized.
In stark contrast, Robin Tyler gets it! She is not merely talking to the Supreme Court, but to all who would consider themselves Gay rights activists who can learn a great deal from her:
Some people have said, "Well, you can always put your right to equality back on the ballot in 2010." Excuse me? Since when was it OK for people to vote on a group's rights to basic equality and civil rights? Equality isn't a popularity contest. It's the right of all California citizens.
Nobody's rights should ever be put to a popular vote. That's why we have a court system. And that's why Diane and I are confident the court will show the courage it did when it not only ruled for marriage equality for same-sex couples but also declared that lesbians and gays were a suspect class, a legitimate minority entitled to all rights.
If the court does rule for us, tens of thousands of us will be on the streets that night celebrating a great victory -- not just for us but for everyone.
But if we lose and Prop. 8 stands, even if the court rules to uphold existing same-sex marriages, hundreds of thousands of us will be on the streets, angrier than we have ever been.
The time for saying "please" is over.
Part of what I wrote to a friend of mine regarding this article by Robin Tyler follows:
No more wimpering and seeking to play nice with those who hate Gay people and seek to deny them Constitutional rights! Robin Tyler and those very few like her are speaking the truth, and that truth will resonate with everyone who seeks equal justice and equal rights for everyone.
I am very optimistic that the California State Supreme Court will overturn the vote taken last May on Prop. 8!
As I wrote to another friend of mine regarding this issue:
I'm optimistic that the vote on Prop. 8 will be overturned by the Supreme Court, as not to do so would set a chilling precedent that would affect both Gay people as well as all minority groups in California. As a Democratic Republic we cannot have a tyranny of the majority that can remove constitutionally approved rights as adjudicated by a Supreme Court. Last May, the Calif. Supreme Court said that to deny same-sex marriage to Gay couples was unconstitutional, and had always been unconstitutional. Therefore, for them to now say that the will of the electorate prevails regarding Prop. 8 would nullify their role in interpreting the Calif. Constitution; vitiate the role of the Calif. State Supreme Court in adjudicating constitutional matters; set a chilling precedent that would affect every other minority group; have implications for other states in regard to minority group rights.
I truly believe that the Calif. Supreme Court will nullify that vote on Prop. 8, as the jurists are not oblivious to the truths and fall-out that condoning that vote would mean. A Pandora's Box would be open, leaving all minority group rights up for grabs, depending on the will and whim of the electorate. Moreover, civil rights are never to be decided by majority vote, and that's one of the main reasons our country was founded as a Democratic Republic and not as a mere Democracy where a tyranny of the majority could and would determine such rights.
We need a whole lot more Robin Tylers out there, demanding equality in every facet of life, including that of the designation of "Marriage" and all of the rights and privileges that are enjoyed by heterosexuals who have chosen to partake of that institution!
And there is no need to pathetically go hat in hand to achieve that goal, as to do so shows vulnerability and weakness, and is counterproductive to the acquisition of full and equal civil rights!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
CIVIL RIGHTS ARE LIKE BEING PREGNANT
Having civil rights is a lot like being pregnant! For many reasons, one can't get incremental civil rights and still be viewed as a full-fledged citizen, anymore than a woman can be "a little bit pregnant." She is or is not pregnant!
We have equal rights or we don't have equal rights, and there can be no such acceptable compromise with full-fledged citizenship as exists in the acceptance of incremental civil rights, such as Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions!
As you know by now, I've always been against incremental civil rights because they provide no allowance for the person to be viewed as having dignity and deserving of full and equal civil rights that are accorded and guaranteed to all citizens of the U.S. as demanded by the Constitution.
Just as there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, there is no such thing as equality when it is partial, or partially gained through incrementalism! We are treated equally under the law or we're not treated equally under the law, and incrementalism, by definition, nullifies the existence of equality under the law for Gay people.
Moreover, such incrementally gained rights can be easily removed by the mere stroke of a pen, be those rights Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions.
Here is one example:
The Incline Village General Improvement District board has decided to rescind health care insurance benefits to domestic partners of district employees.
The action, taken on a 3-2 vote Wednesday, reverses a similar board vote last August in favor of offering domestic partner benefits.
Board Chairman Ted Fuller says he voted to rescind the benefits because of the need to cut costs and the potential for abuse.
[For the full article, see here.]
There is no substitute for full marriage rights with the designation of "Married" accruing to same-sex couples who seek to make a lifetime commitment to each other. No substitute will do! And no substitute can be accepted!
It doesn't matter if we're told that every single right that married couples enjoy will be conferred on Domestic Partners or those in Civil Unions. The fact is that those expediently and politiclly manufactured institutions can be easily rescinded if and when the political and/or social and/or economic climate is viewed as conducive to their removal.
Moreover, to substitute those institutions for marriage still consigns same-sex love to being inferior to opposite-sex love, even if all marriage benefits are given to those couples with those other, lesser, designations. By accepting such incrementalism, it shows that the dignity, the legitimacy, and the normality of same-sex love is consigned to a nether world of second-class citizenship (despite rhetoric to the contrary); indicates the acceptance by the minority group of that inferiority, that "otherness," that still maintains the institutionalized belief in the inequality of same-sex love with opposite-sex love.
We are to make no mistake: any other designation than "Marriage" makes what civil rights that exist for Gay people up for grabs; dependent on the economic and/or social and/or political climate of a given time; institutionalizes the inherent inequality of same-sex couples and the nature of same-sex love.
Moreover, it is my contention that only with the institutionalization of "Marriage" for same-sex couples will virtually all other civil rights accrue to Gay people! "Marriage" confers a basic legitimacy to same-sex love and to the people entering that veritable and historically esteemed institution!
In this connection, it must be noted that it is heterosexuals who have tainted the institution of "marriage" through divorce; same-sex couples who seek marriage are a major hope that the institution of marriage will once again be accorded dignity and viability!
Gay people deserve no less than do Straight people!
And no amount of settling for inequality in any way, for any reason, be it for political expediency or for what is perceived to be the lesser of two evils, justifies the capitulation to anything less than the designation of "Marriage" for all same-sex couples who must expect and demand full and equal civil rights and the dignity that those rights are accorded and will afford them.
We have equal rights or we don't have equal rights, and there can be no such acceptable compromise with full-fledged citizenship as exists in the acceptance of incremental civil rights, such as Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions!
As you know by now, I've always been against incremental civil rights because they provide no allowance for the person to be viewed as having dignity and deserving of full and equal civil rights that are accorded and guaranteed to all citizens of the U.S. as demanded by the Constitution.
Just as there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, there is no such thing as equality when it is partial, or partially gained through incrementalism! We are treated equally under the law or we're not treated equally under the law, and incrementalism, by definition, nullifies the existence of equality under the law for Gay people.
Moreover, such incrementally gained rights can be easily removed by the mere stroke of a pen, be those rights Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions.
Here is one example:
The Incline Village General Improvement District board has decided to rescind health care insurance benefits to domestic partners of district employees.
The action, taken on a 3-2 vote Wednesday, reverses a similar board vote last August in favor of offering domestic partner benefits.
Board Chairman Ted Fuller says he voted to rescind the benefits because of the need to cut costs and the potential for abuse.
[For the full article, see here.]
There is no substitute for full marriage rights with the designation of "Married" accruing to same-sex couples who seek to make a lifetime commitment to each other. No substitute will do! And no substitute can be accepted!
It doesn't matter if we're told that every single right that married couples enjoy will be conferred on Domestic Partners or those in Civil Unions. The fact is that those expediently and politiclly manufactured institutions can be easily rescinded if and when the political and/or social and/or economic climate is viewed as conducive to their removal.
Moreover, to substitute those institutions for marriage still consigns same-sex love to being inferior to opposite-sex love, even if all marriage benefits are given to those couples with those other, lesser, designations. By accepting such incrementalism, it shows that the dignity, the legitimacy, and the normality of same-sex love is consigned to a nether world of second-class citizenship (despite rhetoric to the contrary); indicates the acceptance by the minority group of that inferiority, that "otherness," that still maintains the institutionalized belief in the inequality of same-sex love with opposite-sex love.
We are to make no mistake: any other designation than "Marriage" makes what civil rights that exist for Gay people up for grabs; dependent on the economic and/or social and/or political climate of a given time; institutionalizes the inherent inequality of same-sex couples and the nature of same-sex love.
Moreover, it is my contention that only with the institutionalization of "Marriage" for same-sex couples will virtually all other civil rights accrue to Gay people! "Marriage" confers a basic legitimacy to same-sex love and to the people entering that veritable and historically esteemed institution!
In this connection, it must be noted that it is heterosexuals who have tainted the institution of "marriage" through divorce; same-sex couples who seek marriage are a major hope that the institution of marriage will once again be accorded dignity and viability!
Gay people deserve no less than do Straight people!
And no amount of settling for inequality in any way, for any reason, be it for political expediency or for what is perceived to be the lesser of two evils, justifies the capitulation to anything less than the designation of "Marriage" for all same-sex couples who must expect and demand full and equal civil rights and the dignity that those rights are accorded and will afford them.
Friday, February 27, 2009
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF "LIBERAL CHRISTIANS" WAFFLING ON JUSTICE
...the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) task force has recommended a policy that will be considered at their biannual convention in August. The proposed policy would allow local congregations to decide whether or not those in “lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships” would be allowed to lead as clergy. [For the full text, see here.]
It must be noted that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is the "liberal" wing of the Lutheran denomination! Even here, we see that this "liberal" wing doesn't have the guts to do what is right and, as a denomination, blanketly allow openly Gay clergy into its ranks!
To merely allow local congregations to decide whether or not to allow openly Gay people to be pastors shows both bureaucratic and spiritual cowardice (called in bureaucracies "passing the buck"), as well as lack of commitment to social justice issues that is incumbent upon all decent people, especially Christians, to possess!
As I've often written, one can be a decent person, in favor of equality for all, and not be a Christian! However, it must be hammered home that every single Christian is a decent person who is in favor of equality for all; if a professing Christian, clergy or not, is not a decent person who is in favor of equality for all, then he or she is not a Christian, regardless of how many times he/she attends church or how many times he/she professes to be a Christian!
As Jesus says: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (Matthew 7:16) To ask the question is to answer it!
All one has to do is merely read the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament to see both the manifestations of a Christian and how the discerning between a Christian and a non-Christian is a no-brainer!
Christians are to be harmless; show unconditional love to others, even to one's enemies; trust God over and above seen circumstances; never judge or condemn any of God's children; be agents of God's grace in this world!
To do otherwise, is to disqualify oneself from being a Christian or even considered a Christian by others!
This is not to say that we don't all need to grow in these areas! However, we are to struggle to practice what Jesus teaches us about love and compassion; we are to never turn a blind eye to, or pass the buck regarding, discrimination or injustice visited upon any of God's children!
And when a "liberal" or any other Christian denomination seeks to waffle on any social justice matter, it shows the signs of a moribund bureaucracy that cares far more for its "reputation" and financial situation than it does for justice for others!
I'd much rather deal with reactionary haters because we know where they stand and they can be counted on to be consistent in their hateful and exclusionary stands! However, with "liberals," it seems that all too many are interested in "safety" at the expense of "justice"; have a disdain for any type of acrimony, even if that acrimony will eventually lead to equality for all of God's children.
No civil rights struggle is going to be successful without acrimony! Disdaining confrontation with the haters, and those professing Christians who disdain Jesus' values, avails us nothing in winning full and equal civil and sacramental rights for LGBT people!
In fact, trying to make nice with these haters (falsely assumed to be a manifestation of "Christian love") is to merely empower them and justify their oppression of others in the name of God! Moreover, this kind of perversion of "Christian love" is more than likely a mere cover for physical and/or moral cowardice!
There's no room for "I'm OK and you're OK" in any civil rights struggle, especially when God's name is constantly invoked by the haters, many of whom even have the temerity to oppress others in God's name!
But, then again, since when did the ELCA or most denominations within the institutional Church ever commit themselves to full equality for LGBT people?
Most all denominations have always played the caboose in civil rights struggles, taking their cues from such movements within secular society; by clergy, such as Martin Luther King, who operated apart from all denominations, especially those dominated by White people. And it was only when civil rights were won in secular society that most clergy and their followers within denominations "saw the light" and followed suit! And that speaks very poorly of, and is a profound tragedy for, the institutional Church and the reputation of Christianity!
To enable the denial of qualified known Gay clergy in any way, by direct fiat as we see in the Roman Catholic Church and in reactionary protestant denominations, or by ignoring the issue entirely, or passing the buck as we are now seemingly seeing in the ELCA, is both thwarting God's will for the ministry that God has called many of his Gay children to do, as well being a direct offense against God!
It must be noted that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is the "liberal" wing of the Lutheran denomination! Even here, we see that this "liberal" wing doesn't have the guts to do what is right and, as a denomination, blanketly allow openly Gay clergy into its ranks!
To merely allow local congregations to decide whether or not to allow openly Gay people to be pastors shows both bureaucratic and spiritual cowardice (called in bureaucracies "passing the buck"), as well as lack of commitment to social justice issues that is incumbent upon all decent people, especially Christians, to possess!
As I've often written, one can be a decent person, in favor of equality for all, and not be a Christian! However, it must be hammered home that every single Christian is a decent person who is in favor of equality for all; if a professing Christian, clergy or not, is not a decent person who is in favor of equality for all, then he or she is not a Christian, regardless of how many times he/she attends church or how many times he/she professes to be a Christian!
As Jesus says: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (Matthew 7:16) To ask the question is to answer it!
All one has to do is merely read the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament to see both the manifestations of a Christian and how the discerning between a Christian and a non-Christian is a no-brainer!
Christians are to be harmless; show unconditional love to others, even to one's enemies; trust God over and above seen circumstances; never judge or condemn any of God's children; be agents of God's grace in this world!
To do otherwise, is to disqualify oneself from being a Christian or even considered a Christian by others!
This is not to say that we don't all need to grow in these areas! However, we are to struggle to practice what Jesus teaches us about love and compassion; we are to never turn a blind eye to, or pass the buck regarding, discrimination or injustice visited upon any of God's children!
And when a "liberal" or any other Christian denomination seeks to waffle on any social justice matter, it shows the signs of a moribund bureaucracy that cares far more for its "reputation" and financial situation than it does for justice for others!
I'd much rather deal with reactionary haters because we know where they stand and they can be counted on to be consistent in their hateful and exclusionary stands! However, with "liberals," it seems that all too many are interested in "safety" at the expense of "justice"; have a disdain for any type of acrimony, even if that acrimony will eventually lead to equality for all of God's children.
No civil rights struggle is going to be successful without acrimony! Disdaining confrontation with the haters, and those professing Christians who disdain Jesus' values, avails us nothing in winning full and equal civil and sacramental rights for LGBT people!
In fact, trying to make nice with these haters (falsely assumed to be a manifestation of "Christian love") is to merely empower them and justify their oppression of others in the name of God! Moreover, this kind of perversion of "Christian love" is more than likely a mere cover for physical and/or moral cowardice!
There's no room for "I'm OK and you're OK" in any civil rights struggle, especially when God's name is constantly invoked by the haters, many of whom even have the temerity to oppress others in God's name!
But, then again, since when did the ELCA or most denominations within the institutional Church ever commit themselves to full equality for LGBT people?
Most all denominations have always played the caboose in civil rights struggles, taking their cues from such movements within secular society; by clergy, such as Martin Luther King, who operated apart from all denominations, especially those dominated by White people. And it was only when civil rights were won in secular society that most clergy and their followers within denominations "saw the light" and followed suit! And that speaks very poorly of, and is a profound tragedy for, the institutional Church and the reputation of Christianity!
To enable the denial of qualified known Gay clergy in any way, by direct fiat as we see in the Roman Catholic Church and in reactionary protestant denominations, or by ignoring the issue entirely, or passing the buck as we are now seemingly seeing in the ELCA, is both thwarting God's will for the ministry that God has called many of his Gay children to do, as well being a direct offense against God!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
LISTEN TO LANCE BLACK AND INTERNALIZE HIS WISE WORDS!
God bless Lance Black!
"If Harvey Milk were alive today, I think he’d want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian children out there who have been told that they are less than by their churches or by the government or by their families that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures who have value,” he said, looking straight into the camera. “No matter what anybody tells you, God does love you and that very soon I promise you ... you will have equal rights federally across this great nation of ours.”
I just pray that every young (and older) Gay person internalizes these words from Lance Black! [Pictured.]
This winner of the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for the film, "Milk," not only spoke from his heart, but spoke the truth that needs to be learned and kept in the hearts of every young and older LGBT person!
And by incorporating those words, there will hopefully arise a fire in the belly in all Gay people and in all decent people, especially those who profess to be Christians, to no longer allow anyone to be treated as a second class citizen who is denied dignity, respect, and equal rights afforded to every other citizen in the United States and in all countries that presume to call themselves "civilized."
I strongly urge you to see the film, "Milk," if you haven't already seen it!
The kind of activism exhibited by Harvey Milk, Rev. Troy Perry, Frank Kameny, Barbara Gittings, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, and a whole host of other activists who caught the vision that being Gay is just as normal as is being Straight; who refused to believe or feel shamed by the ignorant and hateful stereotypes with which Gay people were and are branded; who absolutely refused to heed the ignorant and hateful words coming from the mouths and pens of assorted clergy and mental health professionals; who had and have the guts to confront the ignorance and hatred that seeks to inculcate shame and self-loathing in all too many LGBT people, must be continued by the current and next generation of Gay people and allies so that equal rights becomes a reality; the truth of Jesus' words rings loudly and clearly in the lives of all of God's children: "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8:36)
"If Harvey Milk were alive today, I think he’d want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian children out there who have been told that they are less than by their churches or by the government or by their families that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures who have value,” he said, looking straight into the camera. “No matter what anybody tells you, God does love you and that very soon I promise you ... you will have equal rights federally across this great nation of ours.”
I just pray that every young (and older) Gay person internalizes these words from Lance Black! [Pictured.]
This winner of the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for the film, "Milk," not only spoke from his heart, but spoke the truth that needs to be learned and kept in the hearts of every young and older LGBT person!
And by incorporating those words, there will hopefully arise a fire in the belly in all Gay people and in all decent people, especially those who profess to be Christians, to no longer allow anyone to be treated as a second class citizen who is denied dignity, respect, and equal rights afforded to every other citizen in the United States and in all countries that presume to call themselves "civilized."
I strongly urge you to see the film, "Milk," if you haven't already seen it!
The kind of activism exhibited by Harvey Milk, Rev. Troy Perry, Frank Kameny, Barbara Gittings, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, and a whole host of other activists who caught the vision that being Gay is just as normal as is being Straight; who refused to believe or feel shamed by the ignorant and hateful stereotypes with which Gay people were and are branded; who absolutely refused to heed the ignorant and hateful words coming from the mouths and pens of assorted clergy and mental health professionals; who had and have the guts to confront the ignorance and hatred that seeks to inculcate shame and self-loathing in all too many LGBT people, must be continued by the current and next generation of Gay people and allies so that equal rights becomes a reality; the truth of Jesus' words rings loudly and clearly in the lives of all of God's children: "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8:36)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
"EDUCATORS FAIL GAY STUDENTS OF COLOR"
In an excellent, albeit tragic article by Deb Price entitled: "Educators Fail Gay Students Of Color, she shows how nothing has really changed over the years regarding the taunting and cruelty visited upon young Gay people in our schools.
Some of the key findings related in her article are:
• Biased barbs: More than 80 percent of LGBT youth of color often heard the phrase "that's so gay" or similar uses of "gay" at school to put people down. Two-thirds heard "faggot," "dyke" and other anti-gay name-calling.
In a particularly alarming finding, more than half of these students said they had heard teachers, principals or other adults at their school make homophobic remarks.
• Ignored cries for help: Only about one-fifth of students reported that school officials "most of the time" or "always" stepped in when anti-gay remarks were made in their presence.
Report co-author Joseph Kosciw says some educators are sending the message that anti-gay remarks "aren't just tolerated in school but acceptable."
Only about one in 10 students of color said other students stepped in when they heard anti-gay comments.
It is unacceptable for teachers and administrators in our schools to provoke or even allow homophobic statements and actions to exist in our schools; any teacher or administrator who allows harassment or physical attacks upon students for any reason, such as that of sexual orientation, or perceived sexual orientation, must be removed from any position of responsibility where children are concerned.
The allowing of such teachers and administrators who turn a blind eye to such assaults, be they verbal or physical, or who help foment these assaults by their actions and/or inactions, betrays the fact that such teachers and administrators have no place dealing with children, as what they do by their hateful responses, or hateful lack of responses, is nothing short of "Child Abuse."
And the victims of this Child Abuse are both the Gay kids as well as the Straight kids who are taught that it's OK to discriminate against others, thereby helping to assure that such hatred is continued on to the next generation of adults.
It is up to parents and others of good will who really care about the welfare of all children to agitate to get rid of such offenders in our schools who so abuse children!
Some of the key findings related in her article are:
• Biased barbs: More than 80 percent of LGBT youth of color often heard the phrase "that's so gay" or similar uses of "gay" at school to put people down. Two-thirds heard "faggot," "dyke" and other anti-gay name-calling.
In a particularly alarming finding, more than half of these students said they had heard teachers, principals or other adults at their school make homophobic remarks.
• Ignored cries for help: Only about one-fifth of students reported that school officials "most of the time" or "always" stepped in when anti-gay remarks were made in their presence.
Report co-author Joseph Kosciw says some educators are sending the message that anti-gay remarks "aren't just tolerated in school but acceptable."
Only about one in 10 students of color said other students stepped in when they heard anti-gay comments.
It is unacceptable for teachers and administrators in our schools to provoke or even allow homophobic statements and actions to exist in our schools; any teacher or administrator who allows harassment or physical attacks upon students for any reason, such as that of sexual orientation, or perceived sexual orientation, must be removed from any position of responsibility where children are concerned.
The allowing of such teachers and administrators who turn a blind eye to such assaults, be they verbal or physical, or who help foment these assaults by their actions and/or inactions, betrays the fact that such teachers and administrators have no place dealing with children, as what they do by their hateful responses, or hateful lack of responses, is nothing short of "Child Abuse."
And the victims of this Child Abuse are both the Gay kids as well as the Straight kids who are taught that it's OK to discriminate against others, thereby helping to assure that such hatred is continued on to the next generation of adults.
It is up to parents and others of good will who really care about the welfare of all children to agitate to get rid of such offenders in our schools who so abuse children!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
WE MUST STOP FEEDING THE LIONS OF HATE
Check out these two videos of Utah State Senator Chris Buttars:
Now, as ignorant and as hateful as are such statements as Buttars made, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why so many people take these kinds of sentiments seriously, and why Gay people are still viewed as second class citizens and why DADT is still on the books, as is DOMA, neither of which, particularly the latter, is likely to go away any time soon. And, to make matters exponentially worse, there are many "victims" of this hate who are seeming to do their best to give credibility to even the most unhinged hatred spewing from the mouths of virulent homophobes.
Now check out these videos, if you have the stomach for them, or at least read this summary of this obscenity that merely serves to show up Gay people as maladjusted freaks who are "the other," "the deviant," "the outsider" that seems to lend credence to the hateful spewing of the homophobic haters of the world.
Unless there is strong grass roots and organizational revulsion expressed at these traitors and saboteurs of the cause of equal rights; unless self-loathing closet cases, or those in denial, or those who identify being Gay with being sexually obsessed hedonists and seek to paint all Gay people with that brush are confronted as not in any way representing the Gay communities, we can expect Gay people to remain consigned to second class citizenship and continue to be grateful (or not) for the crumbs of incrementalism tossed them by "liberal" politicians who would rather play it safe to enhance their careers than do the right thing and demand equal rights for all of America's citizens!
Such outrage won't be expressed by politicians such as President Obama (Who has made is crystal clear that he is not in favor of same-sex marriage; won't unilaterally rescind DADT, and is asking for further "discussion" of the issue.) or anyone else, but will have to come from within the Gay communities themselves for that revulsion and outrage to have any impact. In that way, and only in that way, will the Chris Buttars of the world never again feel free to spew such hate!
Buttars may have lost his seat on the Senate judicial committee he chaired, for calling Gay people as being equivalent to radical Muslims and the greatest threat that America faces. However, in my opinion, it would be a great mistake to think that he is alone in having those sentiments!
We are to make no mistake: Although he was somewhat punished for these egregious remarks, there are a whole host of people out there, most all of whom would and do vote against basic civil rights for Gay people, such as the right to marriage or even the right to federal civil rights protections, who feel exactly as he does.
And the tragic truth is that all too many Gay people are seemingly not sufficiently outraged to demand that civil rights organizations be far more aggressive in creating a climate where such hate speech would be totally unacceptable; initiating class action suits for defamation of character and deprivation of Constitutionally mandated rights of equality under the law; meaningfully organize through grassroots activism to demand full and equal civil rights as citizens of the United States.
And we can't afford to have Gay people painted with the brush of being "deviant freaks" by those in the media and even by some of those from within the bosom of the Gay communities themselves, if we really want equal rights to become a reality in the foreseeable future.
I urge everyone who is genuinely concerned about equal rights for LGBT people to express their revulsion both against the "religious," political, and media homophobic haters of America, and also against the traitors and saboteurs from within the Gay communities who are unwittingly or wittingly playing the role of agent provocateurs, providing what seems to be credible ammunition to the visible and often well-known homophobic haters of the world so that they can point to the traitors and the images they provide and then seemingly credibly castigate all Gay people as being a threat to "the family," "to children," "to our way of life," and thereby sound believable, even to potential Straight allies who are very much needed in this civil rights struggle!
No decent person, Gay or Straight, can idly sit by and allow to go unchallenged any encumbrance, whether emanating from without and/or from within the Gay communities, to the cause of equal rights!
For to do so is, by default, to align oneself with the lying purveyors of hate and their gullible followers who have hitherto prevented full and equal rights for Gay people from becoming a reality!
Now, as ignorant and as hateful as are such statements as Buttars made, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why so many people take these kinds of sentiments seriously, and why Gay people are still viewed as second class citizens and why DADT is still on the books, as is DOMA, neither of which, particularly the latter, is likely to go away any time soon. And, to make matters exponentially worse, there are many "victims" of this hate who are seeming to do their best to give credibility to even the most unhinged hatred spewing from the mouths of virulent homophobes.
Now check out these videos, if you have the stomach for them, or at least read this summary of this obscenity that merely serves to show up Gay people as maladjusted freaks who are "the other," "the deviant," "the outsider" that seems to lend credence to the hateful spewing of the homophobic haters of the world.
Unless there is strong grass roots and organizational revulsion expressed at these traitors and saboteurs of the cause of equal rights; unless self-loathing closet cases, or those in denial, or those who identify being Gay with being sexually obsessed hedonists and seek to paint all Gay people with that brush are confronted as not in any way representing the Gay communities, we can expect Gay people to remain consigned to second class citizenship and continue to be grateful (or not) for the crumbs of incrementalism tossed them by "liberal" politicians who would rather play it safe to enhance their careers than do the right thing and demand equal rights for all of America's citizens!
Such outrage won't be expressed by politicians such as President Obama (Who has made is crystal clear that he is not in favor of same-sex marriage; won't unilaterally rescind DADT, and is asking for further "discussion" of the issue.) or anyone else, but will have to come from within the Gay communities themselves for that revulsion and outrage to have any impact. In that way, and only in that way, will the Chris Buttars of the world never again feel free to spew such hate!
Buttars may have lost his seat on the Senate judicial committee he chaired, for calling Gay people as being equivalent to radical Muslims and the greatest threat that America faces. However, in my opinion, it would be a great mistake to think that he is alone in having those sentiments!
We are to make no mistake: Although he was somewhat punished for these egregious remarks, there are a whole host of people out there, most all of whom would and do vote against basic civil rights for Gay people, such as the right to marriage or even the right to federal civil rights protections, who feel exactly as he does.
And the tragic truth is that all too many Gay people are seemingly not sufficiently outraged to demand that civil rights organizations be far more aggressive in creating a climate where such hate speech would be totally unacceptable; initiating class action suits for defamation of character and deprivation of Constitutionally mandated rights of equality under the law; meaningfully organize through grassroots activism to demand full and equal civil rights as citizens of the United States.
And we can't afford to have Gay people painted with the brush of being "deviant freaks" by those in the media and even by some of those from within the bosom of the Gay communities themselves, if we really want equal rights to become a reality in the foreseeable future.
I urge everyone who is genuinely concerned about equal rights for LGBT people to express their revulsion both against the "religious," political, and media homophobic haters of America, and also against the traitors and saboteurs from within the Gay communities who are unwittingly or wittingly playing the role of agent provocateurs, providing what seems to be credible ammunition to the visible and often well-known homophobic haters of the world so that they can point to the traitors and the images they provide and then seemingly credibly castigate all Gay people as being a threat to "the family," "to children," "to our way of life," and thereby sound believable, even to potential Straight allies who are very much needed in this civil rights struggle!
No decent person, Gay or Straight, can idly sit by and allow to go unchallenged any encumbrance, whether emanating from without and/or from within the Gay communities, to the cause of equal rights!
For to do so is, by default, to align oneself with the lying purveyors of hate and their gullible followers who have hitherto prevented full and equal rights for Gay people from becoming a reality!
Thursday, February 19, 2009
FLEE TOXIC RELIGION LIKE THE PLAGUE THAT IT IS
In the pathetic attempt to deal with the "homosexual problem" that they themselves, the Vatican and most of the clergy within the Roman Catholic Church, have created, "ministries" to Gay Roman Catholics are occurring within many parishes to help Gay people deal with their "problem" and thereby presumably remain closer to God.
I have absolutely no illusion that I am any closer to God than anyone else out there. Nor do I have any inside track as to what God wants for anyone else's life! Like the Pope and the clergy within the Roman Catholic Church, and the clergy within the Protestant churches, I am a mere human being, and I would never presume to speak for God when it comes to anyone else's life!
In what I view as a cynical attempt to "minister" to Gay Roman Catholics so as to keep the gullible and self-loathing Gay people and their families remaining in that Church, and hopefully attract other Gay people and their families to join the Roman Catholic Church, some parishes have begun facing this "issue" (an "issue" that they, themselves, have helped create) by initiating a program called "Courage." "Courage" views homosexuality as a "problem to be overcome!"
So, the Vatican helps define and create being Gay as a "problem"; seeks to deprive and/or rescind civil and human rights protections from Gay people; calls being Gay "intrinsically disordered"; calls Gay relationships "sinful." And many Roman Catholic clergy now have the chutzpa to create a "ministry" to deal with the fallout from their (and other toxic religions') nefarious creation, and their condemnation of the very essence of a person made in God's image; seek to do so by reinforcing the correctness of their equation of Gay "inclinations" as being "disordered" and Gay relations as being "sinful." And they call "Courage" a "ministry," and undoubtedly view that "ministry" as being a "loving outreach" to "disordered" people!
The Rev. James Fukes, pastor of St. Julia Catholic Church in Siler City, N.C., who will serve as the spiritual director for Courage, said the new ministry was added at the request of parishioners.
"There have been some people who asked for some ministry by the Catholic Church to help them deal with the challenges and difficulties they have and remain close to God," he said.
Next month, the Rev. Paul Check, national director of Courage, will lead a workshop in Raleigh for priests and lay leaders. A priest in the Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., Check has written widely on homosexuality, including one article in which he suggests that gay men come from broken homes or grew up alienated from their fathers and overprotected by their mothers.
"For example, many men with same sex attraction lack hand-eye coordination and as a result were spurned or the subject of jokes by their fathers or the neighborhood boys because they could not play certain sports easily," Check wrote in the St. Austin Review's November-December 2008 edition.
[For the full article, see here.]
All people, Gay and Straight, regardless of the pull of inertia, must flee toxic religion like the plague that it is, at all costs, given the tremendous harm it does to people's psyches and, often, to their very lives!
"Christianity" is the epitome of showing love and compassion; respecting and honoring all of God's creation; being harmless and never judging or condemning others; trusting God over and above seen circumstances and one's own prejudices; being agents of God's grace in this world!
The pathetic assertion of Rev. Paul Check, the national director of "Courage" that being Gay results from "lack of hand-eye coordination and as a result [being] spurned or the subject of jokes by their fathers or the neighborhood boys because they could not play certain sports easily," or that "gay men come from broken homes or grew up alienated from their fathers and overprotected by their mothers," would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically ignorant, simplistic, and downright dangerous.
Frankly, if being Gay resulted from the old discarded theory that one is Gay because of having strong mothers and weak or absent fathers, then I suggest that virtually everyone would be Gay! And I can't even find the words to deal with the asserted "lack of hand-eye coordination" and the ensuing reactions and their relationship to being Gay. This kind of arrogant ignorance boggles the mind!
But such arrogant ignorance is part and parcel of the discrimination and hateful rhetoric visited upon Gay people and their families by assorted clergy in most denominations of the institutional Church as well as by all too many professing "Christians," by some politicians, and even by many youngsters in schools.
And, it's that kind of arrogant ignorance, if not downright hateful stupidity, that leads emotionally vulnerable Gay kids and adults to live lives of shame and self-loathing, resulting in lives lived in quiet and sometimes not so quiet desperation. All sorts of risk taking behaviors are likely to ensue, as well as many suicides. And the verbal and physical assaults and even murders of Gay people, or murders of people perceived to be Gay, can also be seen to be the direct result of such arrogant stupidity ironically spoken with oracular authority "in the name of God."
Regarding the Roman Catholic Church: here we have presumably celibate clergy, and many of their followers, whose Church has been rife with, and tainted by, assorted ephebophilia scandals by not too few of their clergy, and their systematic coverups by assorted Bishops (who, in my opinion, would be serving hard time in prison for criminal facilitation, if they were not associated with the powerful Roman Catholic Church) presuming to lecture the rest of us on criteria of "morality," as well as on love and sex!
Let's make it crystal clear: God doesn't make junk! God doesn't make mistakes! Being Gay is a gift from God! To deny or seek to suppress this gift is not honoring to God or to the person who seeks to repress this wonderful gift!
To be a Christian is to be a conduit for the love of God to others! And anyone who dares condemn in the name of God what God has made, is a heretic who, wittingly or unwittingly, is a tool of the devil!
Shun and run from toxic religion for your own sake and for the sake of all of God's children! And always trust your own experience and never let other people define your reality for you or put you into bondage to their ways of thinking!
So, who do you trust? God and the reality of your own awareness and life-experience OR those who invoke the name of God to justify their prejudices, and spew ignorant hate-speech couched in sanctimony, falsely invoking the name of God in so doing?
You decide!
I have absolutely no illusion that I am any closer to God than anyone else out there. Nor do I have any inside track as to what God wants for anyone else's life! Like the Pope and the clergy within the Roman Catholic Church, and the clergy within the Protestant churches, I am a mere human being, and I would never presume to speak for God when it comes to anyone else's life!
In what I view as a cynical attempt to "minister" to Gay Roman Catholics so as to keep the gullible and self-loathing Gay people and their families remaining in that Church, and hopefully attract other Gay people and their families to join the Roman Catholic Church, some parishes have begun facing this "issue" (an "issue" that they, themselves, have helped create) by initiating a program called "Courage." "Courage" views homosexuality as a "problem to be overcome!"
So, the Vatican helps define and create being Gay as a "problem"; seeks to deprive and/or rescind civil and human rights protections from Gay people; calls being Gay "intrinsically disordered"; calls Gay relationships "sinful." And many Roman Catholic clergy now have the chutzpa to create a "ministry" to deal with the fallout from their (and other toxic religions') nefarious creation, and their condemnation of the very essence of a person made in God's image; seek to do so by reinforcing the correctness of their equation of Gay "inclinations" as being "disordered" and Gay relations as being "sinful." And they call "Courage" a "ministry," and undoubtedly view that "ministry" as being a "loving outreach" to "disordered" people!
The Rev. James Fukes, pastor of St. Julia Catholic Church in Siler City, N.C., who will serve as the spiritual director for Courage, said the new ministry was added at the request of parishioners.
"There have been some people who asked for some ministry by the Catholic Church to help them deal with the challenges and difficulties they have and remain close to God," he said.
Next month, the Rev. Paul Check, national director of Courage, will lead a workshop in Raleigh for priests and lay leaders. A priest in the Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., Check has written widely on homosexuality, including one article in which he suggests that gay men come from broken homes or grew up alienated from their fathers and overprotected by their mothers.
"For example, many men with same sex attraction lack hand-eye coordination and as a result were spurned or the subject of jokes by their fathers or the neighborhood boys because they could not play certain sports easily," Check wrote in the St. Austin Review's November-December 2008 edition.
[For the full article, see here.]
All people, Gay and Straight, regardless of the pull of inertia, must flee toxic religion like the plague that it is, at all costs, given the tremendous harm it does to people's psyches and, often, to their very lives!
"Christianity" is the epitome of showing love and compassion; respecting and honoring all of God's creation; being harmless and never judging or condemning others; trusting God over and above seen circumstances and one's own prejudices; being agents of God's grace in this world!
The pathetic assertion of Rev. Paul Check, the national director of "Courage" that being Gay results from "lack of hand-eye coordination and as a result [being] spurned or the subject of jokes by their fathers or the neighborhood boys because they could not play certain sports easily," or that "gay men come from broken homes or grew up alienated from their fathers and overprotected by their mothers," would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically ignorant, simplistic, and downright dangerous.
Frankly, if being Gay resulted from the old discarded theory that one is Gay because of having strong mothers and weak or absent fathers, then I suggest that virtually everyone would be Gay! And I can't even find the words to deal with the asserted "lack of hand-eye coordination" and the ensuing reactions and their relationship to being Gay. This kind of arrogant ignorance boggles the mind!
But such arrogant ignorance is part and parcel of the discrimination and hateful rhetoric visited upon Gay people and their families by assorted clergy in most denominations of the institutional Church as well as by all too many professing "Christians," by some politicians, and even by many youngsters in schools.
And, it's that kind of arrogant ignorance, if not downright hateful stupidity, that leads emotionally vulnerable Gay kids and adults to live lives of shame and self-loathing, resulting in lives lived in quiet and sometimes not so quiet desperation. All sorts of risk taking behaviors are likely to ensue, as well as many suicides. And the verbal and physical assaults and even murders of Gay people, or murders of people perceived to be Gay, can also be seen to be the direct result of such arrogant stupidity ironically spoken with oracular authority "in the name of God."
Regarding the Roman Catholic Church: here we have presumably celibate clergy, and many of their followers, whose Church has been rife with, and tainted by, assorted ephebophilia scandals by not too few of their clergy, and their systematic coverups by assorted Bishops (who, in my opinion, would be serving hard time in prison for criminal facilitation, if they were not associated with the powerful Roman Catholic Church) presuming to lecture the rest of us on criteria of "morality," as well as on love and sex!
Let's make it crystal clear: God doesn't make junk! God doesn't make mistakes! Being Gay is a gift from God! To deny or seek to suppress this gift is not honoring to God or to the person who seeks to repress this wonderful gift!
To be a Christian is to be a conduit for the love of God to others! And anyone who dares condemn in the name of God what God has made, is a heretic who, wittingly or unwittingly, is a tool of the devil!
Shun and run from toxic religion for your own sake and for the sake of all of God's children! And always trust your own experience and never let other people define your reality for you or put you into bondage to their ways of thinking!
So, who do you trust? God and the reality of your own awareness and life-experience OR those who invoke the name of God to justify their prejudices, and spew ignorant hate-speech couched in sanctimony, falsely invoking the name of God in so doing?
You decide!
Monday, February 16, 2009
TD JAKES' AND JEREMIAH JAKES' DILEMMAS AT THEIR RESPECTIVE CROSSROADS
TD Jakes is certainly not the most homophobic preacher out there! However, he is certainly no friend to LGBT people either:
Jakes has called homosexuality a "brokenness" and says he would not hire a sexually active gay person. It is a common position among conservative religious leaders (Graham, for instance, called homosexuality a sin), but gay Americans would have no reason at all to consider Jakes their preacher.
[See here.]
Similarly:
On same-sex marriage, Jakes once told USA Today: "To date, I have not
seen scriptural authority that allows me to stand on behalf of God and
say I now pronounce you husband and husband, and wife and wife. This
is an issue the government is undecided about. The Bible is not." [See here.]
Now, we have heard, concerning his son Jermaine:
The son of Bishop T.D. Jakes, pastor of the Potter’s House, faces a charge of indecent exposure related to an incident in a southern Dallas park last month, Dallas police said.
Jermaine Jakes, 29, is accused of exposing himself in front of an undercover Dallas police vice detective at Kiest Park, near West Kiest Boulevard and South Hampton Road, on the night of Jan. 3, police said.
He was detained at the scene and released.
[See here.]
[The Affidavit for Jermaine's arrest warrant is located here.]
In an irony that should not be lost by anyone, Bishop Jakes, in response to his son's arrest, in part said the following as part of a statement to his congregation:
"As parents, we occasionally feel that our children do not live up to our highest and best ideals. When they do not, we don't diminish our love for them as recompense for our disapproval... It is in moments like these that I am so grateful that we do not preach that we are the solution, but we look to Christ for resolution."
[See here.]
The full text of Bishop Jakes' statement is as follows:
"As parents, we occasionally feel that our children do not live up to our highest and best ideals. When they do not, we don't diminish our love for them as recompense for our disapproval. Like our children, we also are not infallible nor do we profess to be. Our now adult son Jermaine is 29, but when he was at home he was a recipient of correction, compassion and wise counsel. We hope that the light of what we believe will guide him through times of contradiction and moments of concern as he continues to mature.
In spite of the family pain we feel from this unfortunate situation, it has given us a chance to show him the same help, support, and restorative grace for which our family and church is noted. Through our ministry at The Potter’s House, as well as our own home, we have for years offered help in the time of need to all adults, our five children and other people’s children.
It is in moments like these that I am so grateful that we do not preach that we are the solution, but we look to Christ for resolution. So then, as a very human family with real issues, like many other people, we will draw from the same well of grace to which we have led others to drink and be refreshed."
[Thanks to Towleroad.]
Given the fact that the arrest occurred last month, it is questionable as to whether or not Bishop Jakes knew of his son's arrest at that time, or that his son was most likely Gay. Since his son was outed in this humiliating manner, and in a manner which highlights the disconnect between his support of his father's lucrative ministry on the one hand, and TD's homophobia as well as his presumed knowledge of his son's likely sexuality on the other, calls into question as to whether or not Bishop Jakes will reconcile his homophobia with his own son's presumed same-sex attractions.
Risk taking, such as soliciting sex in public parks, is one of the signs of embarrassment and self-loathing due to being surrounded by disapproval for one's sexuality as well as to the shame that has been falsely inculcated by all too many religious leaders.
In this case, the humiliation visited on Jermaine and the disconnect between having a presumably Gay son and at the same time preaching and advocating discrimination against Gay people by his father, places both son and father at a cross roads of their lives. And it will be interesting to see what choices each makes while facing their respective crossroad.
Jermaine now must decide whether to come out as a Gay man and divest himself from the toxic trappings of the false gospel that condemns what God has made, or do the Haggard dance where he states that he is merely a heterosexual with issues.
TD Jakes must now decide whether or not to continue to preach that Gay people are broken and that he would still not hire any sexually active Gay people, even though his son is presumably one. [I say "presumably" because given the many complexities of life, just because one wants furtive same-sex activity, in and of itself, though certainly suggestive of one's being Gay, does not in and of itself necessarily warrant the designation of "Gay," as being Gay encompasses both an emotional as well as a sexual component, and there isn't enough data in this one incident regarding the making of a definitive assessment regarding Jermaine's sexual orientation.]
However, it is certainly suggestive that Jermaine is Gay and both he and his father now share a time of decision: 1. Continue to live a lie and preaching and living lies regarding the lives of Gay people whose sexuality is one of God's gifts; 2. Changing their mind-sets, and divesting themselves of their prejudices, to allow that the grace of God trumps preconceived notions as to the basic normality and morality of being Gay; one can be Gay and be a mature Christian, as there is no inconsistency between the two.
Hence, both son and father are now in the position of realizing that being Gay is as normal as is being Straight, and is as equally life-affirming, and that they both were wrong in their respective mind-sets and prejudices prior to Jermaine's arrest.
Their respective decisions will determine for all the world to see whether they truly trust God Who makes us all in God's image; whether they truly trust in the grace of God as TD said after Jermaine's arrest came to light; whether or not they have the courage to publicly admit that they were wrong: the elder Jakes that he was preaching a false gospel of exclusion; the younger Jakes that he was living a lie and was inauthentic before God and his fellow human beings.
And, if Jermaine was in any way aiding and abetting his father's preaching of homophobia, that he gains the courage before God and his fellow human beings to publicly repent of that aid and comfort that he gave to the preaching of that false gospel.
Their respective decisions will show their true mettle, and might well be one of the best things that could have occurred to both of them on the one hand, and to so many people who listen to, and take to heart, the popular preaching of TD Jakes, be those listeners Gay or Straight.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
THE RELIGIOUS ROOTS OF HOMOPHOBIA: THE ALLURE OF FUNDAMENTALISM AND "THE ILLUSION OF CERTAINTY"
It has always seemed remarkable to me how the Gospel of Jesus, the God Who preached and lived a life of unconditional love; Who told us that the only Commandments we were to live out are the love of God and the love of others, and we are to never judge or condemn anyone, could be perverted in such a way that many professing Christians see no contradiction between proclaiming themselves to be Christians on the one hand, and then advocating and preaching discrimination against Gay people, and historically other minority groups, on the other.
What could be the roots of this clear disconnect between the Gospel of grace and love on the one hand and the vituperation of many professing Christians directed against our LGBT sisters and brothers on the other hand? After wrestling with this problem for many years, I wrote an article entitled, "The Illusion of Certainty," which is an updated revision that is currently appearing in my weekly newspaper column entitled, "Christianity and Society," that appears in the newspaper, "The Sacramento Valley Mirror." I've reprinted that article below this introduction.
The allure of fundamentalism in religious and other circles bespeaks: 1. An intolerance of ambiguity that is a direct threat to people fearful of life as it exists and who want to hearken back to a fantasy life of "tradition" and "safety" that they are falsely assured once existed in the past. 2. The need of many "religious" leaders to create sources of potential financial contributors to "the cause" that the creation of out-groups facilitates. 3. The creation of "out-groups," "enemies," so that in-group solidarity can be strengthened and that such a creation helps fulfill. 4. The creation of "the other," "the deviant," "the enemy," that helps in strengthening some people's fragile egos and weak self-concepts, by seeking to align with others of like mind so that feelings of moral superiority are strengthened, and the externalization of internalized rage, born of assorted sources of frustrations in their lives that cause that rage, is given a target that is viewed as being safe, and even justified as "Godly," to persecute.
The very obvious irrationality of the Prince of Peace being used as a vehicle to justify such overt discrimination and oppression that, in turn, creates all sorts of infliction of harm, suffering, suicides, assaults, and murders on Gay people and their families, shows that it is not Christianity that is causing these predations upon one or more minority groups, but the perversion of Christianity that meets the needs of those whose lack of emotional/sexual intactness and/or lack of sufficient cognitive intelligence makes them either unable and/or unwilling to confront the many gray areas, the many ambiguities, of life that offend their own rather simplistic and "comfortable" one-dimensional mind-sets as to what comprises life as it is supposed to be lived in a society.
Indeed, the many gray areas of life and of people, largely attendant upon living in a pluralistic society with its many cultures, subcultures, and countercultures, are also seen, to one degree or another, within each and every one of us, as none of us is purely one dimensional but, rather, is comprised of ambiguities, gray areas, of which even we, ourselves, are frequently unaware.
And when this awareness threatens to rear its head within a rather limited human being who is observing other people who express those ambiguities, their own worlds are rocked; their own comfort zones are threatened and invaded to such a point that many observers of these ambiguities or gray areas of life who lack emotional/sexual intactness feel that they have to lash out at these "others."
They often feel the desperate need to lash out at these "others," because these "others" are unwittingly holding a mirror up to their very own faces to show them that they, too, are multidimensional and that they, too, possess traits that, to one degree or another, reflect the very same traits that are seen in that "other," that "enemy," that these people who lack emotional/sexual intactness have constructed, so that they can maintain the fiction of what they falsely think is the inherent one-dimensional reality that they desperately need to believe comprises the composition of themselves and of each "normal" human being.
So, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people greatly threaten what it means to be "a man" or "a woman" in the eyes of many of these one-dimensional thinkers who see gender and sexuality in dualistic terms: "men" as being whatever the culture prescribes as appropriate gender performance for males; "women" as being whatever the culture prescribes as appropriate gender performance for women.
So, to those who lack sufficient emotional/sexual intactness, a gay male poses a threat to the definition of "manhood" as culturally defined; a lesbian poses a threat to the definition of "womanhood" as culturally defined, despite the fact that gay men can be "masculine" and lesbians can be "feminine" in regard to culturally approved gender performance, but not in the imaginations of homophobes (many, if not most, of whom are heteronormative and misogynistic) who need to see sexuality, gender performance, themselves, and most things that impact their lives in terms of dualities that are largely, if not solely, defined as being appropriate by the culture, and by religious sources that, unfortunately, all too often largely take their cues from the culture in which they are enmeshed, and which erroneously and tragically depart from the reality of human existence.
And, as I have written so many times before, those religious institutions are all too often enmeshed with the most reactionary forces within society, and help lead the charge against the expression of assorted ambiguities in and of life, such as in the realm of that which is our most primal urge: the sexual urge and its expression that is all too glibly and often labelled as "sin," unless it is reflected and expressed within the context of heterosexual marriage and, in many religious circles, to largely be justified and engaged in for procreative purposes and not solely, if at all, for "mere" pleasure.
Whenever evil is done there is almost always the appeal to virtue! Hence, many professing Christians who are to obey Jesus' commands to love God and to love others, and not judge or condemn others, see no contradiction between defaming and bearing false witness against Gay people because they really believe that they are doing God's work in engaging in that discrimination and oppression, because all too many religious leaders and their blind followers are so often propagandizing them with that big lie of inherent dualism and one-dimensional thinking as being equated with "God's will" that only the strongest and most spiritually discerning person can see is a lie, and not the truth, with which they are being inundated.
The following is my article entitled, "The Illusion of Certainty," that is currently appearing in three parts in my column, "Christianity and Society," that appears in the newspaper, "The Sacramento Valley Mirror,". This article tries to flesh out some of the dynamics of why there has been such an appeal to fundamentalism, to dualism and one-dimensional thinking that is part and parcel of fundamentalism, to the degree that this relatively recent phenomenon (That, rather than emanating from historical orthodox Christianity can more profitably been seen as having originated as more of a sect directed against science and modernism.) has come to replace in many people's minds, including many professing Christians' minds, Christianity itself.
Although I concentrate on Christian fundamentalism, all religious (and secular) fundamentalism is destructive to the psyches, bodies, and souls of all people: both participants in that framework of the perversion of the Gospel, as well as, and especially, the recipients of that perversion that has caused untold lives of unnecessary suffering, as well as untold numbers of suicides, assaults, and deaths to those who have been labelled as a threat by and to those who must see the world, others, and themselves in dualistic and one-dimensional terms, given their intolerance for the ambiguities and mysteries of life that greatly threaten their concepts of self, as well as their very holds on life, as they have come to more or less comfortably know and count on them for their psychological survival.
And, even more to the point, these fundamentalists are driven to insist that their mind-set represents "The Truth," and, "in the name of God" they are driven to seek to impose that "Truth" onto others, even to the point of contravening the very Gospel and the very God that they say they represent.
The following is the article to which I have referred, "The Illusion of Certainty":
THE ILLUSION OF CERTAINTY
“For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
(Galatians 5:1)
Like many Christians, I have been curious and dismayed about what seems to be the increasing appeal of fundamentalism and fundamentalist thinking within Christianity. Actually, “fundamentalism,” rather than being within the mainstream of orthodox Christianity, may more profitably be seen as a relatively recent phenomenon that may be seen to be a sect that has grown out of Christianity, rather than existing as a movement within the rubric of orthodox Christianity itself. It is, therefore, indeed ironic that many people have come to equate fundamentalism with Christianity itself, and very often view Christianity as a legalistic religion when, in fact, and quite the opposite, it is a call to freedom in Christ, and is a religion of grace, love, and peace.
The term "Fundamentalism" originated as a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were written by some leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergy as well as in Seminaries. It was the emphasis on biblical criticism within Germany, as well as the beginning popularity of Darwin's theory of evolution dealing with the origin of the universe, to which conservative churchmen responded. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws coined the term "fundamentalist" as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."
“The Bible is the sacred text of the Christian Fundamentalists. Indeed, if there is one single thing which binds Fundamentalists together, it is their insistence that the Bible is to be understood as literally true. Further, Fundamentalists see themselves as the guardians of the truth, usually to the exclusion of others' interpretation of the Bible. Fundamentalism in other faith traditions similarly proclaims guardianship of truth.” (Religious Movements Home Page Project at the University of Virginia, located at http://web.archive.org/web/20060907005952/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relmove/)
None of us want to have our comfort zones invaded or have our worlds rocked in any way! Many of us are relatively uncomfortable with ideas and behaviors that call into question those ideas that we have come to revere as deeply held truths, particularly when these “deeply held truths,” and various ideas and behaviors, have been given approval by God as asserted by assorted clergy over the last several decades. Similarly, if any idea or any behavior is viewed by fundamentalists as contradicting “God’s Word,” as they interpret it from the Bible, they feel duty bound to condemn that idea or that behavior and, despite rhetoric to the contrary, condemn the people holding that idea or who engage in that behavior.
Fundamentalism’s main attraction seems to be its promise of “certainty” in a very uncertain world! I’m reminded of what Jesse Jackson said upon the murder of Enos Cosby, Bill Cosby’s son: “We act as if life is certain and death is uncertain when, in fact, death is certain and life is very uncertain.” We’re frightened of this uncertainty and many people are, understandably, attracted to a voice that assures them that there is a certainty to be had by following the dictates of the Bible, or any other book viewed as “holy,” as interpreted and espoused by clergy and others who claim a mantle of authority to interpret that book.
It seems to me that most people who gravitate to “progressive” and mainline churches are likely to be somewhat more comfortable coping with ambiguity or, at least, are likely to be more willing to explore the many gray and multidimensional aspects of life and the spirit than those who attend fundamentalist churches. Moreover, they are usually much more likely to see the need to integrate social justice concerns with their understanding of the Gospel.
Clearly, when one is fearful and/or antagonistic to the uncertainties of life, one of the likely byproducts of the ensuing fundamentalism is the need for association with like-minded people, resulting in the creation of a "them" so that there can be an "us." Hence, the incestuous socialization that we find in so many churches where people who aren't in total agreement with the mind-set of the pastor and the congregation are considered "outsiders" and even "enemies" of both the people themselves but also are considered enemies of the "Truth" as the congregation sees that "Truth" as they interpret it from the Bible.
The need, sometimes the desperate need, to live in “certainty” drives many to torture logic, and deny even the most basic axioms of rationality, and assert such fallacies as the earth merely being about ten thousand years old, the lack of the existence of dinosaurs on the earth as the Bible doesn’t mention them, denial of the possibility of evolution as they (erroneously) think that it contradicts the existence of a Creator, etc. Although fundamentalism is attractive to many for malignant reasons, as well as to those with insufficient intelligence to deal with the many ambiguities of life, many people live in fear, and fundamentalism promises deliverance from fear by hammering home a view of God, the Bible, the world, and of people that breeds the illusion of “certainty” in an uncertain world, controlled by a God they have the temerity to claim they understand.
“We are fearful people….Fear has become an obvious dwelling place, an acceptable basis on which to make our decisions and plan our lives. Those we fear have a great power over us. Those who can make us afraid can also make us do what they want us to do.
”People are afraid for many reasons, but I am convinced that the close connection between power and fear deserves special attention. So much power is wielded by instilling fear in people and keeping them afraid… As long as we are kept in fear we can be made to act, speak, and even think as slaves…The agenda of our world – the issues and items that fill newspapers and newscasts – is an agenda of fear and power. It is amazing, yes frightening, to see how easily that agenda becomes ours.
”But fearful questions never led to love-filled answers; underneath every fearful question many other fearful questions are hidden…. Fear engenders fear. Fear never gives birth to love. A careful look at the gospels shows that Jesus seldom accepted the questions posed to him. He exposed them as coming from the house of fear. ‘Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? How often must I forgive my brother if he wrongs me? Is it against the law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever? What authority do you have for acting like this? … Are you the king of the Jews? Lord, has the hour come? Are you
going to restore the kingdom to Israel?…’ To none of these questions did Jesus give a direct answer. He gently put them aside as questions emerging from false worries. They were raised out of concern for prestige, influence, power, and control. They did not belong to the house of God. Therefore Jesus always transformed the question by his answer. He made the question new – and only then worthy of his response.” (Henri Nouwen, Lifesigns: Intimacy, Fecundity, and Ecstasy in Christian Perspective, 16-19).
As Nouwen pointed out, “fear engenders fear. Fear never gives birth to love.” Because those who seek out Fundamentalism are likely to be very fearful people questing the certainty that fundamentalism promises, and which they perceive it provides, they are not likely be particularly loving people.
My wife and I spent about fifteen years in fundamentalist churches, for reasons that are best left for another article. In any case, we never really understood why most, though by no means all, of the people there were not particularly loving people. For example, when they thought I was dying in the hospital from Pancreatitis, my wife was a wreck and she called a “friend” and “prayer warrior” who was very well respected in the church we all attended. My wife asked her to pray for me because I was dying. This prayer warrior, who daily read and quoted from the Bible, and who led women’s prayer groups, said, “I
can’t. I’m too busy now.” Believe me, if it didn’t happen to us, I’d have trouble believing it myself. In another instance, when my wife was diagnosed with cancer not one of her “friends” or acquaintances, many of whom went to the fundamentalist church we went to, even picked up the phone to call her and ask her how she was feeling, let alone offer to help her in any way. Even the pastor never called! We were on our own! In another fundamentalist church the pastor’s wife told my then sixteen year old daughter that she was “a tool of Satan” because she listened to rock music. An acquaintance of mine,
who went to a fundamentalist church, recently told me that the pastor’s wife approached him and said that she had heard that he was thinking of leaving that church. He replied, “I’m praying about it.” She replied, “I suggest you leave now.”
When one is afraid, one usually doesn’t have the psychic energy to empathize with another person, particularly when it is felt that the other person might conceivably be a “burden” in one way or another. Chronic fear, like any other type of neurosis, breeds self-absorption and, therefore, makes it rather unlikely that that person will seek to help out another person, since virtually all of that person’s psychic energy is being spent on “keeping it together.” And, fundamentalism’s success is that is does, in fact, help those who are fearful of life, of ambiguity, of the unknown, and of the complex multidimensional
aspects of life and of God, “keep it together.”
For many people, fundamentalism is a desperately needed form of psychotherapy! This fact is not all bad! Most of us want safe places, safe havens, in which to rest, even if it means having our complex and existential problems addressed by a simple Bible verse, or by a rather trite remark such as, “God doesn’t give us any more than we can handle.”
This illusion of certainty, although it serves a needed psychological and social purpose for many of those who seek out fundamentalism, has another, much more dangerous, downside. Fundamentalism, by its very nature, requires that there be scapegoats! In the fundamentalist frame of mind, there has to be an “us,” and for there to be an “us” there has to be a “them.” And the current “them,” the enemy du jour, is LGBT people!
The psychological need for certainty morphs over to the social need for bonding with like-minded believers. Therefore, it’s “us” against “them!” Anyone who is viewed as not seeing God, the Bible, or the world as that person does is viewed as the outsider, the enemy. In my experience, many people in fundamentalist churches don’t even see those who go to “progressive” (Seeking to apply biblical principles, rather than apply every biblical and cultural practice, to contemporary social problems and
issues.) churches as being “Christian.”
Furthermore, those who don’t believe or act in the way that fundamentalists believe is in the will of God, which is usually consistent with their own prejudices and stated behaviors, is viewed as “the other,” “the enemy.” And, to preserve our way of life, and be true to “God’s Word,” as these fundamentalists insist and perceive it, they come to deny “the other” the dignity and civil rights and civil liberties that they, the fundamentalists, take for granted are their God-given right to possess. Clearly, such a mind-set is not merely putting oneself in a psychological prison, quite contrary to the fact of the Apostle Paul’s assertion in the Scripture verse that precedes this article, but is ripe for fostering a climate of fascism that pays off for many politicians and religious leaders who frequently work hand-in-hand with each other for their own mutual material, financial, and what many perceive to be their own spiritual gain.
By its very nature, the psychological and social needs of most fundamentalists require that there be a scapegoat! There must be some constructed “enemy” against which to rail, so that one’s world-view is reinforced, and so that in-group solidarity is maintained. The famous sociologist, Emile Durkheim, gave us what is probably the closest thing to a law in social life. He said that when you have a threatening out-group, the in-group unites to protect itself against it.
Therefore, in order for there to be in-group solidarity, there must be an out-group which must be fought against. Even if there is no ready-made out-group(s), the in-group, the fundamentalists in this context, will actively, perhaps unconsciously, seek to create them until they find one or more that are viewed as “politically correct,” relatively “safe,” and “appropriate” to persecute. At one time the group was women; at another time it was African Americans; now it’s gay people. Even when it is no longer politically correct or appropriate to oppress gay people, fundamentalists will tenaciously seek out another out-group, as fundamentalism requires at least one out-group for it to not only flourish, but to even exist. In fundamentalism, there must be an “us,” and there can’t be an “us” without a “them!”
It’s always important to remember that Christians are principally defined by only two characteristics: the love for God, in that we trust God over and above seen circumstances; loving other people. One’s theology is relatively unimportant, in that there can be a wide variety of theologies and Christology among Christians. “Love” is what is important in the Christian life but, as shown above, since love can’t be a priority among those who live in fear and require black and white answers in a very grey world, fundamentalists emphasize one’s “theology” as being the criterion for membership in the Christian community.
Christians know the truth that “It is better to be of a lowly spirit among the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud.” (Proverbs 16:19) Most fundamentalists can’t psychologically or socially afford to absorb this central tenet of the Christian life. They may mouth such shibboleths as, “Hate the sin and love the sinner,” but the fact is (and, frequently, the consequences of their words and actions are) that they show themselves to hate those who they view as in any way opposing their views of God and of the world.
Freedom and humility are antithetical to fundamentalism! The Gospel of grace, faith, love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness is antithetical to the arrogance that is part and parcel of fundamentalism! “Humility” is inconsistent with the belief that only one’s own views are the right ones, and all other views are wrong; those who claim divergent views, or engage in behaviors deemed ungodly or inappropriate by those who claim sole authority in interpreting the Bible and knowing “God’s will” are, therefore, usually viewed as not “moral” or “Christian,” or “in the will of God.”
Fundamentalist and allied churches meet deeply felt psychological needs of increasing numbers of people, and provide a safe space for incestuous socialization that reinforces the one-dimensional thinking and view of the world of many of these people, and provide a measure of comfort for their angst in wrestling with a world and a with a God none of us can really comprehend.
These churches are currently meeting deeply felt psychological and social needs of people. At a time of rapid economic, social, and technological changes, and the consequent fears that they generate, increasing numbers of people are looking for a measure of “certainty” that fundamentalism promises to provide.
And, many people tenaciously seek to grab on to this “certainty,” despoiling their own potential for psychological growth, and even and unwittingly do so at the expense of preserving and enriching the very fabric of civility of their society, even if this “certainty” is ultimately an illusion.
What could be the roots of this clear disconnect between the Gospel of grace and love on the one hand and the vituperation of many professing Christians directed against our LGBT sisters and brothers on the other hand? After wrestling with this problem for many years, I wrote an article entitled, "The Illusion of Certainty," which is an updated revision that is currently appearing in my weekly newspaper column entitled, "Christianity and Society," that appears in the newspaper, "The Sacramento Valley Mirror." I've reprinted that article below this introduction.
The allure of fundamentalism in religious and other circles bespeaks: 1. An intolerance of ambiguity that is a direct threat to people fearful of life as it exists and who want to hearken back to a fantasy life of "tradition" and "safety" that they are falsely assured once existed in the past. 2. The need of many "religious" leaders to create sources of potential financial contributors to "the cause" that the creation of out-groups facilitates. 3. The creation of "out-groups," "enemies," so that in-group solidarity can be strengthened and that such a creation helps fulfill. 4. The creation of "the other," "the deviant," "the enemy," that helps in strengthening some people's fragile egos and weak self-concepts, by seeking to align with others of like mind so that feelings of moral superiority are strengthened, and the externalization of internalized rage, born of assorted sources of frustrations in their lives that cause that rage, is given a target that is viewed as being safe, and even justified as "Godly," to persecute.
The very obvious irrationality of the Prince of Peace being used as a vehicle to justify such overt discrimination and oppression that, in turn, creates all sorts of infliction of harm, suffering, suicides, assaults, and murders on Gay people and their families, shows that it is not Christianity that is causing these predations upon one or more minority groups, but the perversion of Christianity that meets the needs of those whose lack of emotional/sexual intactness and/or lack of sufficient cognitive intelligence makes them either unable and/or unwilling to confront the many gray areas, the many ambiguities, of life that offend their own rather simplistic and "comfortable" one-dimensional mind-sets as to what comprises life as it is supposed to be lived in a society.
Indeed, the many gray areas of life and of people, largely attendant upon living in a pluralistic society with its many cultures, subcultures, and countercultures, are also seen, to one degree or another, within each and every one of us, as none of us is purely one dimensional but, rather, is comprised of ambiguities, gray areas, of which even we, ourselves, are frequently unaware.
And when this awareness threatens to rear its head within a rather limited human being who is observing other people who express those ambiguities, their own worlds are rocked; their own comfort zones are threatened and invaded to such a point that many observers of these ambiguities or gray areas of life who lack emotional/sexual intactness feel that they have to lash out at these "others."
They often feel the desperate need to lash out at these "others," because these "others" are unwittingly holding a mirror up to their very own faces to show them that they, too, are multidimensional and that they, too, possess traits that, to one degree or another, reflect the very same traits that are seen in that "other," that "enemy," that these people who lack emotional/sexual intactness have constructed, so that they can maintain the fiction of what they falsely think is the inherent one-dimensional reality that they desperately need to believe comprises the composition of themselves and of each "normal" human being.
So, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people greatly threaten what it means to be "a man" or "a woman" in the eyes of many of these one-dimensional thinkers who see gender and sexuality in dualistic terms: "men" as being whatever the culture prescribes as appropriate gender performance for males; "women" as being whatever the culture prescribes as appropriate gender performance for women.
So, to those who lack sufficient emotional/sexual intactness, a gay male poses a threat to the definition of "manhood" as culturally defined; a lesbian poses a threat to the definition of "womanhood" as culturally defined, despite the fact that gay men can be "masculine" and lesbians can be "feminine" in regard to culturally approved gender performance, but not in the imaginations of homophobes (many, if not most, of whom are heteronormative and misogynistic) who need to see sexuality, gender performance, themselves, and most things that impact their lives in terms of dualities that are largely, if not solely, defined as being appropriate by the culture, and by religious sources that, unfortunately, all too often largely take their cues from the culture in which they are enmeshed, and which erroneously and tragically depart from the reality of human existence.
And, as I have written so many times before, those religious institutions are all too often enmeshed with the most reactionary forces within society, and help lead the charge against the expression of assorted ambiguities in and of life, such as in the realm of that which is our most primal urge: the sexual urge and its expression that is all too glibly and often labelled as "sin," unless it is reflected and expressed within the context of heterosexual marriage and, in many religious circles, to largely be justified and engaged in for procreative purposes and not solely, if at all, for "mere" pleasure.
Whenever evil is done there is almost always the appeal to virtue! Hence, many professing Christians who are to obey Jesus' commands to love God and to love others, and not judge or condemn others, see no contradiction between defaming and bearing false witness against Gay people because they really believe that they are doing God's work in engaging in that discrimination and oppression, because all too many religious leaders and their blind followers are so often propagandizing them with that big lie of inherent dualism and one-dimensional thinking as being equated with "God's will" that only the strongest and most spiritually discerning person can see is a lie, and not the truth, with which they are being inundated.
The following is my article entitled, "The Illusion of Certainty," that is currently appearing in three parts in my column, "Christianity and Society," that appears in the newspaper, "The Sacramento Valley Mirror,". This article tries to flesh out some of the dynamics of why there has been such an appeal to fundamentalism, to dualism and one-dimensional thinking that is part and parcel of fundamentalism, to the degree that this relatively recent phenomenon (That, rather than emanating from historical orthodox Christianity can more profitably been seen as having originated as more of a sect directed against science and modernism.) has come to replace in many people's minds, including many professing Christians' minds, Christianity itself.
Although I concentrate on Christian fundamentalism, all religious (and secular) fundamentalism is destructive to the psyches, bodies, and souls of all people: both participants in that framework of the perversion of the Gospel, as well as, and especially, the recipients of that perversion that has caused untold lives of unnecessary suffering, as well as untold numbers of suicides, assaults, and deaths to those who have been labelled as a threat by and to those who must see the world, others, and themselves in dualistic and one-dimensional terms, given their intolerance for the ambiguities and mysteries of life that greatly threaten their concepts of self, as well as their very holds on life, as they have come to more or less comfortably know and count on them for their psychological survival.
And, even more to the point, these fundamentalists are driven to insist that their mind-set represents "The Truth," and, "in the name of God" they are driven to seek to impose that "Truth" onto others, even to the point of contravening the very Gospel and the very God that they say they represent.
The following is the article to which I have referred, "The Illusion of Certainty":
THE ILLUSION OF CERTAINTY
“For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
(Galatians 5:1)
Like many Christians, I have been curious and dismayed about what seems to be the increasing appeal of fundamentalism and fundamentalist thinking within Christianity. Actually, “fundamentalism,” rather than being within the mainstream of orthodox Christianity, may more profitably be seen as a relatively recent phenomenon that may be seen to be a sect that has grown out of Christianity, rather than existing as a movement within the rubric of orthodox Christianity itself. It is, therefore, indeed ironic that many people have come to equate fundamentalism with Christianity itself, and very often view Christianity as a legalistic religion when, in fact, and quite the opposite, it is a call to freedom in Christ, and is a religion of grace, love, and peace.
The term "Fundamentalism" originated as a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were written by some leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergy as well as in Seminaries. It was the emphasis on biblical criticism within Germany, as well as the beginning popularity of Darwin's theory of evolution dealing with the origin of the universe, to which conservative churchmen responded. The result was the pamphlets. In 1920, a journalist and Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws coined the term "fundamentalist" as a designation for those who were ready "to do battle royal for the Fundamentals."
“The Bible is the sacred text of the Christian Fundamentalists. Indeed, if there is one single thing which binds Fundamentalists together, it is their insistence that the Bible is to be understood as literally true. Further, Fundamentalists see themselves as the guardians of the truth, usually to the exclusion of others' interpretation of the Bible. Fundamentalism in other faith traditions similarly proclaims guardianship of truth.” (Religious Movements Home Page Project at the University of Virginia, located at http://web.archive.org/web/20060907005952/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relmove/)
None of us want to have our comfort zones invaded or have our worlds rocked in any way! Many of us are relatively uncomfortable with ideas and behaviors that call into question those ideas that we have come to revere as deeply held truths, particularly when these “deeply held truths,” and various ideas and behaviors, have been given approval by God as asserted by assorted clergy over the last several decades. Similarly, if any idea or any behavior is viewed by fundamentalists as contradicting “God’s Word,” as they interpret it from the Bible, they feel duty bound to condemn that idea or that behavior and, despite rhetoric to the contrary, condemn the people holding that idea or who engage in that behavior.
Fundamentalism’s main attraction seems to be its promise of “certainty” in a very uncertain world! I’m reminded of what Jesse Jackson said upon the murder of Enos Cosby, Bill Cosby’s son: “We act as if life is certain and death is uncertain when, in fact, death is certain and life is very uncertain.” We’re frightened of this uncertainty and many people are, understandably, attracted to a voice that assures them that there is a certainty to be had by following the dictates of the Bible, or any other book viewed as “holy,” as interpreted and espoused by clergy and others who claim a mantle of authority to interpret that book.
It seems to me that most people who gravitate to “progressive” and mainline churches are likely to be somewhat more comfortable coping with ambiguity or, at least, are likely to be more willing to explore the many gray and multidimensional aspects of life and the spirit than those who attend fundamentalist churches. Moreover, they are usually much more likely to see the need to integrate social justice concerns with their understanding of the Gospel.
Clearly, when one is fearful and/or antagonistic to the uncertainties of life, one of the likely byproducts of the ensuing fundamentalism is the need for association with like-minded people, resulting in the creation of a "them" so that there can be an "us." Hence, the incestuous socialization that we find in so many churches where people who aren't in total agreement with the mind-set of the pastor and the congregation are considered "outsiders" and even "enemies" of both the people themselves but also are considered enemies of the "Truth" as the congregation sees that "Truth" as they interpret it from the Bible.
The need, sometimes the desperate need, to live in “certainty” drives many to torture logic, and deny even the most basic axioms of rationality, and assert such fallacies as the earth merely being about ten thousand years old, the lack of the existence of dinosaurs on the earth as the Bible doesn’t mention them, denial of the possibility of evolution as they (erroneously) think that it contradicts the existence of a Creator, etc. Although fundamentalism is attractive to many for malignant reasons, as well as to those with insufficient intelligence to deal with the many ambiguities of life, many people live in fear, and fundamentalism promises deliverance from fear by hammering home a view of God, the Bible, the world, and of people that breeds the illusion of “certainty” in an uncertain world, controlled by a God they have the temerity to claim they understand.
“We are fearful people….Fear has become an obvious dwelling place, an acceptable basis on which to make our decisions and plan our lives. Those we fear have a great power over us. Those who can make us afraid can also make us do what they want us to do.
”People are afraid for many reasons, but I am convinced that the close connection between power and fear deserves special attention. So much power is wielded by instilling fear in people and keeping them afraid… As long as we are kept in fear we can be made to act, speak, and even think as slaves…The agenda of our world – the issues and items that fill newspapers and newscasts – is an agenda of fear and power. It is amazing, yes frightening, to see how easily that agenda becomes ours.
”But fearful questions never led to love-filled answers; underneath every fearful question many other fearful questions are hidden…. Fear engenders fear. Fear never gives birth to love. A careful look at the gospels shows that Jesus seldom accepted the questions posed to him. He exposed them as coming from the house of fear. ‘Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? How often must I forgive my brother if he wrongs me? Is it against the law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever? What authority do you have for acting like this? … Are you the king of the Jews? Lord, has the hour come? Are you
going to restore the kingdom to Israel?…’ To none of these questions did Jesus give a direct answer. He gently put them aside as questions emerging from false worries. They were raised out of concern for prestige, influence, power, and control. They did not belong to the house of God. Therefore Jesus always transformed the question by his answer. He made the question new – and only then worthy of his response.” (Henri Nouwen, Lifesigns: Intimacy, Fecundity, and Ecstasy in Christian Perspective, 16-19).
As Nouwen pointed out, “fear engenders fear. Fear never gives birth to love.” Because those who seek out Fundamentalism are likely to be very fearful people questing the certainty that fundamentalism promises, and which they perceive it provides, they are not likely be particularly loving people.
My wife and I spent about fifteen years in fundamentalist churches, for reasons that are best left for another article. In any case, we never really understood why most, though by no means all, of the people there were not particularly loving people. For example, when they thought I was dying in the hospital from Pancreatitis, my wife was a wreck and she called a “friend” and “prayer warrior” who was very well respected in the church we all attended. My wife asked her to pray for me because I was dying. This prayer warrior, who daily read and quoted from the Bible, and who led women’s prayer groups, said, “I
can’t. I’m too busy now.” Believe me, if it didn’t happen to us, I’d have trouble believing it myself. In another instance, when my wife was diagnosed with cancer not one of her “friends” or acquaintances, many of whom went to the fundamentalist church we went to, even picked up the phone to call her and ask her how she was feeling, let alone offer to help her in any way. Even the pastor never called! We were on our own! In another fundamentalist church the pastor’s wife told my then sixteen year old daughter that she was “a tool of Satan” because she listened to rock music. An acquaintance of mine,
who went to a fundamentalist church, recently told me that the pastor’s wife approached him and said that she had heard that he was thinking of leaving that church. He replied, “I’m praying about it.” She replied, “I suggest you leave now.”
When one is afraid, one usually doesn’t have the psychic energy to empathize with another person, particularly when it is felt that the other person might conceivably be a “burden” in one way or another. Chronic fear, like any other type of neurosis, breeds self-absorption and, therefore, makes it rather unlikely that that person will seek to help out another person, since virtually all of that person’s psychic energy is being spent on “keeping it together.” And, fundamentalism’s success is that is does, in fact, help those who are fearful of life, of ambiguity, of the unknown, and of the complex multidimensional
aspects of life and of God, “keep it together.”
For many people, fundamentalism is a desperately needed form of psychotherapy! This fact is not all bad! Most of us want safe places, safe havens, in which to rest, even if it means having our complex and existential problems addressed by a simple Bible verse, or by a rather trite remark such as, “God doesn’t give us any more than we can handle.”
This illusion of certainty, although it serves a needed psychological and social purpose for many of those who seek out fundamentalism, has another, much more dangerous, downside. Fundamentalism, by its very nature, requires that there be scapegoats! In the fundamentalist frame of mind, there has to be an “us,” and for there to be an “us” there has to be a “them.” And the current “them,” the enemy du jour, is LGBT people!
The psychological need for certainty morphs over to the social need for bonding with like-minded believers. Therefore, it’s “us” against “them!” Anyone who is viewed as not seeing God, the Bible, or the world as that person does is viewed as the outsider, the enemy. In my experience, many people in fundamentalist churches don’t even see those who go to “progressive” (Seeking to apply biblical principles, rather than apply every biblical and cultural practice, to contemporary social problems and
issues.) churches as being “Christian.”
Furthermore, those who don’t believe or act in the way that fundamentalists believe is in the will of God, which is usually consistent with their own prejudices and stated behaviors, is viewed as “the other,” “the enemy.” And, to preserve our way of life, and be true to “God’s Word,” as these fundamentalists insist and perceive it, they come to deny “the other” the dignity and civil rights and civil liberties that they, the fundamentalists, take for granted are their God-given right to possess. Clearly, such a mind-set is not merely putting oneself in a psychological prison, quite contrary to the fact of the Apostle Paul’s assertion in the Scripture verse that precedes this article, but is ripe for fostering a climate of fascism that pays off for many politicians and religious leaders who frequently work hand-in-hand with each other for their own mutual material, financial, and what many perceive to be their own spiritual gain.
By its very nature, the psychological and social needs of most fundamentalists require that there be a scapegoat! There must be some constructed “enemy” against which to rail, so that one’s world-view is reinforced, and so that in-group solidarity is maintained. The famous sociologist, Emile Durkheim, gave us what is probably the closest thing to a law in social life. He said that when you have a threatening out-group, the in-group unites to protect itself against it.
Therefore, in order for there to be in-group solidarity, there must be an out-group which must be fought against. Even if there is no ready-made out-group(s), the in-group, the fundamentalists in this context, will actively, perhaps unconsciously, seek to create them until they find one or more that are viewed as “politically correct,” relatively “safe,” and “appropriate” to persecute. At one time the group was women; at another time it was African Americans; now it’s gay people. Even when it is no longer politically correct or appropriate to oppress gay people, fundamentalists will tenaciously seek out another out-group, as fundamentalism requires at least one out-group for it to not only flourish, but to even exist. In fundamentalism, there must be an “us,” and there can’t be an “us” without a “them!”
It’s always important to remember that Christians are principally defined by only two characteristics: the love for God, in that we trust God over and above seen circumstances; loving other people. One’s theology is relatively unimportant, in that there can be a wide variety of theologies and Christology among Christians. “Love” is what is important in the Christian life but, as shown above, since love can’t be a priority among those who live in fear and require black and white answers in a very grey world, fundamentalists emphasize one’s “theology” as being the criterion for membership in the Christian community.
Christians know the truth that “It is better to be of a lowly spirit among the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud.” (Proverbs 16:19) Most fundamentalists can’t psychologically or socially afford to absorb this central tenet of the Christian life. They may mouth such shibboleths as, “Hate the sin and love the sinner,” but the fact is (and, frequently, the consequences of their words and actions are) that they show themselves to hate those who they view as in any way opposing their views of God and of the world.
Freedom and humility are antithetical to fundamentalism! The Gospel of grace, faith, love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness is antithetical to the arrogance that is part and parcel of fundamentalism! “Humility” is inconsistent with the belief that only one’s own views are the right ones, and all other views are wrong; those who claim divergent views, or engage in behaviors deemed ungodly or inappropriate by those who claim sole authority in interpreting the Bible and knowing “God’s will” are, therefore, usually viewed as not “moral” or “Christian,” or “in the will of God.”
Fundamentalist and allied churches meet deeply felt psychological needs of increasing numbers of people, and provide a safe space for incestuous socialization that reinforces the one-dimensional thinking and view of the world of many of these people, and provide a measure of comfort for their angst in wrestling with a world and a with a God none of us can really comprehend.
These churches are currently meeting deeply felt psychological and social needs of people. At a time of rapid economic, social, and technological changes, and the consequent fears that they generate, increasing numbers of people are looking for a measure of “certainty” that fundamentalism promises to provide.
And, many people tenaciously seek to grab on to this “certainty,” despoiling their own potential for psychological growth, and even and unwittingly do so at the expense of preserving and enriching the very fabric of civility of their society, even if this “certainty” is ultimately an illusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)