(no subject)
Jun. 14th, 2005 03:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentia'Hell is full of good intenions or desires.' -- Bernard of Clairvaux, Apothegm
Think of it as the way in which homophobia hurts ministers and priests.
No matter how good your intentions are or how pure and loving your heart, if you quote from the Bible about the wrongness of homosexuality, you are, whether you intend so or not, contributing to the environment of fear under which queer people live.
Here's what it looks like from my perspective. Every day, I restrict and restrain my gender expression in myriad ways, big and small, because I am afraid. I'm afraid I might lose my job, and I'm afraid I will be violently victimized. I'm afraid I'll be laughed at and won't be able to do business. On several occasions I've witnessed verbal harrassment by Christians, and every time I read something like this or this or this, that fear is intensified.
So, if you are someone who supports the idea that it is sinful to be queer, I am automatically afraid of you. It's not relevent whether or not you do anything to encourage that fear or even if you try to reassure me -- that fear is still there. I cannot afford to distinguish you from the people who picket schools and funerals, because you might turn out to be the oddball whacko who thinks God told you to stab me.
I am not telling you to ignore God's word. I am asking you to consider that there exists an ethical dilemma not easily solved by appeal to moral absolutes. If you want to be a bridge to Christ for people who been expelled from homes, families, churches, and jobs, you will not accomplish that by contributing to our fear.
Here's a thought on this. The key to solving the dilemma was given by Jesus in what he said were the two greatest commandments, and in the litmus test of good fruit vs. bad fruit. What action will uphold your love for all people, and bear good fruit?
Meditate on this:
[Luke 18:9] To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
[10] "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
[11] The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.
[12] I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
[13] But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
[14] I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
The counsel of Jesus here is that one cannot gain assurance of righteousness in God's eyes by clinging to the letter of moral law. It seems like a sure-fire way to stay righteous, but if it results in bad fruits, then "the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brings death" (Romans 7:10)
In the episode of the accused adulteress (John 8:1-11), Jesus again stood against those who clung to the letter of the moral code to prove their righteousness at the cost of another. If Jesus were a moral absolutist, he would have had no choice but to agree with the woman's accusers. On the issue at hand, the Law of Moses is clear. However, his response -- to point out the men's hypocrisy -- was counter to the letter of the moral law, but still represents a satisfactory resolution to the moral dilemma based on the two greatest commandment and the good/bad fruit litmus test. I like to think that Jesus also did so because he knew that from the dawn of history, women have been persecuted for their sexuality and have lived in fear of being publically punished or executed for having sex. From his perspective, protecting her gave the best hope of reaching her soul and assuaging her fears.
But if the idea of supporting efforts against homophobia makes you worried that we don't know the Bible says homosexuality is bad, don't worry. It's safe to say we've all heard.
Think of it as the way in which homophobia hurts ministers and priests.
No matter how good your intentions are or how pure and loving your heart, if you quote from the Bible about the wrongness of homosexuality, you are, whether you intend so or not, contributing to the environment of fear under which queer people live.
Here's what it looks like from my perspective. Every day, I restrict and restrain my gender expression in myriad ways, big and small, because I am afraid. I'm afraid I might lose my job, and I'm afraid I will be violently victimized. I'm afraid I'll be laughed at and won't be able to do business. On several occasions I've witnessed verbal harrassment by Christians, and every time I read something like this or this or this, that fear is intensified.
So, if you are someone who supports the idea that it is sinful to be queer, I am automatically afraid of you. It's not relevent whether or not you do anything to encourage that fear or even if you try to reassure me -- that fear is still there. I cannot afford to distinguish you from the people who picket schools and funerals, because you might turn out to be the oddball whacko who thinks God told you to stab me.
I am not telling you to ignore God's word. I am asking you to consider that there exists an ethical dilemma not easily solved by appeal to moral absolutes. If you want to be a bridge to Christ for people who been expelled from homes, families, churches, and jobs, you will not accomplish that by contributing to our fear.
Here's a thought on this. The key to solving the dilemma was given by Jesus in what he said were the two greatest commandments, and in the litmus test of good fruit vs. bad fruit. What action will uphold your love for all people, and bear good fruit?
Meditate on this:
[Luke 18:9] To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
[10] "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
[11] The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.
[12] I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
[13] But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
[14] I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
The counsel of Jesus here is that one cannot gain assurance of righteousness in God's eyes by clinging to the letter of moral law. It seems like a sure-fire way to stay righteous, but if it results in bad fruits, then "the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brings death" (Romans 7:10)
In the episode of the accused adulteress (John 8:1-11), Jesus again stood against those who clung to the letter of the moral code to prove their righteousness at the cost of another. If Jesus were a moral absolutist, he would have had no choice but to agree with the woman's accusers. On the issue at hand, the Law of Moses is clear. However, his response -- to point out the men's hypocrisy -- was counter to the letter of the moral law, but still represents a satisfactory resolution to the moral dilemma based on the two greatest commandment and the good/bad fruit litmus test. I like to think that Jesus also did so because he knew that from the dawn of history, women have been persecuted for their sexuality and have lived in fear of being publically punished or executed for having sex. From his perspective, protecting her gave the best hope of reaching her soul and assuaging her fears.
But if the idea of supporting efforts against homophobia makes you worried that we don't know the Bible says homosexuality is bad, don't worry. It's safe to say we've all heard.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 07:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 07:44 pm (UTC)You got nothing to fear from this guy here. I won't confess to understand what it must be like to be you, but I know I don't want to be one of the people condemning someone like you for something that's not my affair (pun intended).
Speaking as one who has been condemned to the Christian Hell for being in love with
no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 07:58 pm (UTC)It saddens me that Thelema, Inc. got taken over in a palace coup by a bunch of vanilla heterosexuals, with extremely sub-urban attitudes along the lines of "Be just like us." Is that Thelema?
My out-reach into the LGBT Communities got be Re-Org'd out of Thelema, Inc.
We don't want your false take on Thelema here...
Thelema could have been a complete solution for the subject of Homophobia, since there is supposed to be NO distinction in the types of love permitted, straight, gay, bi, whatever, yet to be imagined.
A lot of this homophobia as Dogma to enforce seems, to me, to come out of the phenominon that on a strange level Christians are trying to do the Mitzvahs that Jews are supposed to do. Most of them are too strict for Jews, Gentiles, forget it!
Christianity would do itself a favor if it actually looked this in the eye and faced it. How many Christians do any of us know who are rabid about the anti-homosexuality laws they see in the bible, but how many of them actually try to fulfill the commandment of "Destroy all the descendants of Amelek?" The commandments about letting fields go fallow, etc. etc.
They pick and choose, or their leaders pick and choose for them.
Does Boston still have any Blue Laws on the books about Non-Heterosexuals? I recently found out I was illegally in Boston back in 1987, since they STILL have on the books a law prohibiting Indians in the city limits. And I have enough blood quantum to qualify. And at the time of my trip looked it.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 03:38 pm (UTC)My Kaballah Teacher, long before our falling out, believed strongly that ALL religions should NOT be tax free in AmeriKa. Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, etc...all need to get real jobs and stop living off the hard work of others.
Did Lady_Babalon share with you my pieces in the Templar Cross? I address some of these issues regarding the spiritual Atherosclerosis that is stroke'n out Thelema into just another Orthodoxy.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 01:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 08:19 pm (UTC)This reminds me of when I was going through my struggle and realized part of my problem was that I'd been taught to think in terms of black and white, but the world was really composed of shades of grey.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 08:28 pm (UTC)on a barely related note, when i was in kindergarten, we had a big picture of a tree on one of the boards and each of us had an apple with our name on it. during the fall parent-teacher conference, my teacher told my parents that i was a bad fruit and had fallen from the tree.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-14 11:20 pm (UTC)Also, it seems to me that if your goal is to get people to follow God your way, sex is just a symptom that distracts you so, so much from the root problem you want to fix.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 12:34 am (UTC)Then there's the Secret Gospel of Mark, my favorite to bring up when the religious homophobes get going.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 02:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 03:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 01:02 am (UTC)And there's the basic problem. Prejudice. Not just of those who feel the insane need to do violence to homosexuals but also of those that refuse to distinguish between principled objection and that violence.
They're both prejudice. I can't be held responsible for your prejudice any more than you can be held responsible for mine.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 02:40 am (UTC)On my end though I don't have the luxury of walking away from it, because it follows me: I am statistically much more likely to be the victim of harrassment, assault, rape, and murder than someone who is heterosexual.
It makes no sense to argue that I am in exactly the same situation with respect to prejudice as someone who is homophobic. Blame the ones perpetuating the oppression. Like I said in the first sentence of my post, think of it as one way in which homophobia hurts you: it clouds our communication.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 03:48 am (UTC)On my end though I don't have the luxury of walking away from it, because it follows me: I am statistically much more likely to be the victim of harrassment, assault, rape, and murder than someone who is heterosexual.
And, yet again, hear me right. I deplore such behaviour. I also deplore your repeated insistence that I am not permitted to distance myself from it.
It makes no sense to argue that I am in exactly the same situation with respect to prejudice as someone who is homophobic. Blame the ones perpetuating the oppression. Like I said in the first sentence of my post, think of it as one way in which homophobia hurts you: it clouds our communication.
But every time, as in your original post, you refuse to allow a distinction between principled opposition to homosexual behaviour and the violence which some perpetrate then you are the one clouding communication.
I hear you good and fine. I understand your position. You, on the other hand, refuse to do anything but publicly associate my stance with that of violence. You are the one engaged in misrepresentation and the extension of prejudice.
That is my complaint. You are more than free to pursue your own choices in life and I am free to disagree with them and vice versa. What you are not free to do is to persistently label my position as something which I have repeatedly denounced. That is a blatant extension of prejudice and an encouragement of prejudice on the part of others.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 04:09 am (UTC)I'm struggling to find a way to explain how this looks from my point of view. It's not logical, but then, oppression is not logical.
I am merely attempting to verbalize a message that is communicated to me and all other queer people 24 hours a day: that the people with power and prestige and respect and money and influence around me think I am degenerate, though they have never met me, and will look the other way if I am brutalized. This awareness causes me to live in fear. As a result of living in constant fear I am conditioned to respond to "principled and nonviolent teaching against homosexuality" as if it were the same thing as a direct threat.
An abused spouse learns to recognize even seemingly innocuous glances or gestures as threats of violence, and this colors the way she reacts. She has no choice; her life depends on appeasing her abuser, anticipating his moods.
THAT is the level of fear with which I live every day. When I hear a Christian talking about how she hates homosexuality, I respond with fear. Do you think I want to react that way?
It's not something I'm promoting; I'm describing something that is the daily reality for many people in this world. I cannot make this fear go away for the sake of a logical, principled conversation. I would very much love to. But it's not up to me. I'm sorry you don't like what I'm saying, I don't like it either. But blaming me is like blaming an abuse survivor.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 04:38 am (UTC)I understand that. But you have to realise that you are responsible for what you write. Any oppression that you suffer does not excuse you encouraging other oppression.
I am merely attempting to verbalize a message that is communicated to me and all other queer people 24 hours a day: that the people with power and prestige and respect and money and influence around me think I am degenerate, though they have never met me, and will look the other way if I am brutalized. This awareness causes me to live in fear. As a result of living in constant fear I am conditioned to respond to "principled and nonviolent teaching against homosexuality" as if it were the same thing as a direct threat.
You have a choice. You can take responsibility in the forums in which you operate to make the distinction. By refusing to do you perpetrate as bad a prejudice as that which you rightly complain about.
you are obviously aware of the distinction, so then it is telling that you will not affirm it.
It's not something I'm promoting; I'm describing something that is the daily reality for many people in this world. I cannot make this fear go away for the sake of a logical, principled conversation. I would very much love to. But it's not up to me. I'm sorry you don't like what I'm saying, I don't like it either. But blaming me is like blaming an abuse survivor.
You are an intelligent person. Not only that but you are taking a deliberate choice to talk about this issue in a public forum. That means you have certain responsibilities. At the moment it appears as if the wrong that has been done to you is being used as an excuse to avoid having to nuance your response to those that you disagree with. You complain about a closing down of dialogue but, by refusing to understand those that you disagree with in the same way that you insist they understand you, you are yourself responsible for closing down dialogue.
Simply put, you've shut your ears to the detail of what is being said and are producing a monologue as bad as the one which you complain about. But, worse, it's hypocritical.
I take no joy in saying this. I genuinely want to be able to discuss these issues with you because you're intelligent and articulate but you simply fail to apply to myself and others like me the plea to "understand me" that you ask of me. That means there can be no dialogue and, sadly, it also makes it your fault.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 11:16 am (UTC)What other oppression?
You have a choice. You can take responsibility in the forums in which you operate to make the distinction.
I acknowledge the distinction. But I think that not enough Christians understand why from our perspective, emotionally, it is difficult to see it, because we experience fear and conditioning that is rarely mentioned by anyone in this dialogue. Saying, "Oh, yes, in my brain I understand the difference," is not really very meaningful because my emotional response will still be what has been conditioned.
It is presumed that if we are all intelligent and rational then we are all on a "level playing field" and that we are debating in "the free marketplace of ideas," when the unmentioned elephant in the room is the presence of fear in the people on one side of the debate.
And so from my perspective, when Christians continue to pound away at us with preaching, in every forum, not allowing us one avenue without showing up and protesting, it looks like they're trying to hound us until we get scared and tired and shut up. Even if that is not the intension, that is the effect. There's more of you than there are of us, and you don't come to this discussion full of fear.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 12:27 pm (UTC)What other oppression?
Your persistent misrepresentation of those that disagree with you as being complicit in violence.
And so from my perspective, when Christians continue to pound away at us with preaching, in every forum, not allowing us one avenue without showing up and protesting, it looks like they're trying to hound us until we get scared and tired and shut up. Even if that is not the intension, that is the effect. There's more of you than there are of us, and you don't come to this discussion full of fear.
Well, from where I'm standing it looks exactly the same way, but reversed. The Gay lobby are everywhere, making a noise about everything.
You see? It's just the same. You want a level playing field? Stop digging furrows.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-15 01:12 pm (UTC)That's not oppression. Prejudice, yes.
Well, from where I'm standing it looks exactly the same way, but reversed. The Gay lobby are everywhere, making a noise about everything.
Ah. I can understand the impression you have then.
It bears pointing out that while the gay lobby may be vocal and may be having an effect on law and public opinion, we are still vastly outnumbered in the population, still disadvantaged in employment and housing, still much more likely to suffer random acts of hate-inspired violence, and we still live in a society where the majority of public officials, business leaders, and religious leaders are vitriolic in their hatred for us.
There are those with influence who want Christians to think you are being set upon by rampaging queers because they make lots of money from that perception. Suddenly, now, we're "everywhere" -- like something out of Stalin's handbook, we're accused in the media of doing what is being done to us.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 06:41 am (UTC)Well, take it from me - it's oppressive. It creates environments where people with my position feel very unsafe.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 11:45 am (UTC)If I am prejudiced, I want to overcome it.
Would you mind telling me about a time or two when you've felt threatened or unsafe?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 12:27 pm (UTC)But, if I comment in an arena - particularly your own journal - where I am likely to be in a minority then the replies can be very oppresive.
I'm not really sure, now, how to dredge through comments that I've made in the past looking for examples. I do remember a while ago going through the experience, while commenting on your journal, of basically getting told by everyone how evil and rightwing I was.
d
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 12:57 pm (UTC)Have you had any experiences of feeling physically intimidated by gay or lesbian or transgendered activists in your presence? Or have you been in a situation around groups of GLBT people where you felt you had to keep from expressing your beliefs out of fear? That's more the kind of thing I meant.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 01:11 pm (UTC)but this point is this: If I had then I wouldn't brand everyone with the same label.
That's my issue. You won't allow there to be someone like myself who disagrees with you but refuses to be associated with violence.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 01:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 05:07 am (UTC)I'm saying that you have a responsibility not to perpetuate that kind of feeling and impression on others.