Prayapolooza in Houston

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

It is a hard task to undo thousands of years of social convention in the course of a generation or two and anyone or any organization who labels those who don't get on board soon enough as haters, racists, etc., do their cause a dis-service.

---

Interesting point. I think ... the world moves a lot faster than it used to. We once had a convention that surely Some groups were less deserving or inferior to others. Africans were an inferior race, period. "Mongoloids" were next down on the list, etc. Very heirarchical, place-on-the-ladder organization of thought, without much shift at all. About 100 years ago, we moved as a society to shifting that heirarchy around. Ok maybe women weren't inferior, but surely African Americans were. Ok, well maybe not them either, but surely Hispanics. And so on. Basially reshuffling who stood where on the ladder.

It seems to me that the world may have reached a tipping point with this in recognizing that perhaps this isn't a ladder at all, and no group necessarily stands lower than any other. Not everyone has shifted this elemental way of organizing their thought process, there are still whole societies in which respect revolves around some un-chosen characteristic like sex or family of origin, one's "place" (on the ladder) but this basic internal organization strategy in the brain seems to have changed for many people.

I get what you're saying about patience, Alan, but I think the majority here on these boards have shifted their thoughts or if they are younger, were born without the heirarchy mind-set and are impatient for others to "see the light" as far as a non-heirarchical frame for any and every group. It's not really about gays, it's about rethinking the idea of listing groups in order of valor or virtue at all. For people coming from a non-heirarchical place, it's sort of mind boggling to think that each and every group still needs to be individually sniffed over for decades before being granted the respect and privilege that other groups enjoy. If you're coming from a place of non-heirarchy, arguing about the validity of gay rights seems as illogical as arguing whether blue is as good a color as green.

Patience IS a virtue, and a good tool for getting things done over time. But it's sandpaper on the soul for all of us to be coming from such varying perspectives and try to gently understand the POV of others that seems so obviously wrong. Maybe that's where patience really comes in. :-)

What is civil about responding to someone's post with what amounts to an accusation of bigotry? If she had directly called me a name - then would you have done something about it? The comparison to my views with slave-holding southerners in "Gone With the Wind" is again the cattiest, least profitable remark one can possibly make. Did that make a contribution to this discussion other than to make Peggy feel as if she sits in the morally superior postion and sneers down at the less-enlightened southerner? Usually these discussions are good for thought. Apparently I need some anti-venin cuz I have been snake-bit. You are right personal attacks do not add to the discussion, they shut it down. It could have been enlightening but it just stung - and not from truth - from viciousness.

Catwoman, I'm sorry for being so long in getting back to you....I just now got on.

I don't have any idea whatsoever of how the friendship, acquaintanceship, business relationship, etc., you may have with your husband's business partners, or employees who happen to be gay, works.

I can only speak from my own experience, or what is said to me from friends who are gay, and I would find it very unusual to have any kind of close relationship with a gay person these days, and not have gay issues, gay rights, discussions of discriminations faced, etc., talked about. My friends who are gay are intensely interested in all the things that affect their lives. And because of that interest, those issues are often discussed with their friends, including us.

So my ASSUMPTION (and please note, I am saying assumption, because I am not privy to the ins and outs or depth of your relationship with said people), my impression would be that you have a business relationship. It may be friendly and "warm", as you say, and YOU may consider those people your friends, but I would almost bet that were you able to get an unvarnished opinion from THEM, and they were honest, they would not consider what you describe as a real "friendship" at all. After all, a friendship with a Christian, very conservative Texas heterosexual, with all that connotes in political outlook, the attitude toward gay equality and gay rights, including marriage to most Christian, conservative, Texas heterosexuals, would be something very difficult to have to negotiate, if any real relationship were to be taking place.

And if that relationship carefully skirted around issues that are of extreme interest to gay people, sweeping them "under the rug" so to speak, it would be a business association, and not a real friendship at all. Of course the subject might not come up between you. Why would it? Do you really believe they don't understand completely your religious and political views?

Rest assured, whether you see it or not, it would be an extremely RARE gay person today who would not be very concerned about issues of equality, rights, etc. If they aren't talking to you about their concerns, it speaks volumes as to what the real, underlying relationship is between you, as opposed to just something that "just never comes up". YOUR idea of what constitutes a real friendship and theirs may be a very different thing.

And then again, who knows? These are people you are acquainted with in real life. Why not ask THEM how close your friendship is, and if it IS as close as you seem to feel it is, why they aren't talking to you about issues that affect their lives.

If they are anything like gay friends from back in the rural, very fundamentalist Christian area of PA where my sweetie came from and where we lived for many years, they are, even if "out of the closet", probably VERY interested in not "making waves" in a community where they cannot feel complete acceptance, since a large proportion of the population would see them as sinners, immoral, unnatural and perhaps even a threat to their children (as propagandized by the American Family Association). In a world where hellfire and brimstone is preached from the pulpit against homosexuality, I suspect that the heterosexual people they REALLY feel comfortable with are few and far between. JMHO

Actually LC, they are highly educated professionals - I want to say - Episcopalians - in a moderately sized coastal city, not your rural backwater, no banjos playing in the background.

hmmmm....just so YOU understand that a moderately sized coastal city in Texas is still not a really gay friendly place.... ;-)

So......even in a moderately sized, coastal city that has Episcopalians, there are still folks who think that gay rights or gay equality is just something "dreamed up as an issue by the left"? Just askin'...........however cosmopolitan it might be by Texas standards...........

Our rural area of PA hard along the NY border was close enough to places like Ithaca NY and Cornell University to go up there for lunch (when you began to think that the whole world must eat Wonder Bread and only iceberg lettuce), but there were plenty of figurative banjos there.......

right.... please tell me all about MY life...

and Yep, there are people who feel like I do in all parts of the nation and world, its not really a good idea to paint everyone with the same brush now, is it?

I know several gay couples and have known many through the years. My DW owned a beauty shop in Houston Galleria area for many years and she actually recruited gay hairdressers because they and their flamboyant attitudes were desirable.

Living in rural Central Texas I am now seldom exposed to the gay community (although everyone used to say that Austin was a mecca for gays in Texas) but a similar analogy for me is the religious community. I am a flaming liberal, always have been. I am constantly in conversations about conservative issues with my neighbors. Their reaction to me and my DW range from never speaking to us again after finding out we are heretics to others being totally non-judgmental with regard to religion (or at least to my face).

I don't think you can have much of any kind of relationship with people without some issues becoming a topic of conversation. Sex, religion, and work are common topics where I live. In the case of religon it is really the center of most people's live especially in a rural community - it is their way to connect with each other and believe me their opinions are strong publicly and privately.

I guarantee you that is the reason for Gov. Perry hosting this prayer festival. In Texas like most of the bible belt there is no better way to attract conservative voters than religion - it seems to be almost their purpose in life. So in that regard this is a clear message to the religious community and the more outrageous it is the better the right likes it. They have a cheerleader in Perry (formally a cheerleader at Texas A&M) for their agenda and there are not lines of separation between church and state for people like that.

For him to deny it is just not being truthful.

Peace

Catwoman.....you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. About anything. But if your viewpoint is to see gay rights and equality for gays, including the very basic right to enjoy the benefits of marriage the same as any other citizen, as something that gays are being manipulated into by "the left" for their own political reasons, you are going to find yourself in an ever decreasing minority. The country has moved on, just as it moved on in the question of civil rights for African-Americans.

I am old enough to have traveled in the south when there were "colored" bathrooms and water fountains. My own mother thought she was VERY enlightened because when they were home alone, she sat in the kitchen and had lunch with the maid. My grandmother called black people "darkies", and my very religious uncle pitched a fit when a black couple showed up to sit in HIS church.

Those were VERY common attitudes among whites in those days. Honestly, when I was young, I don't even remember QUESTIONING that the black people couldn't use the public swimming pool, and I was in junior high when schools were integrated after Brown vs. the Board of Education, although in the case in our school, it meant only that two very frightened young black girls came to our school, and when I talked to them in the lunchroom, I was ostracized by my other friends.

TIMES CHANGE......and they don't change evenly, or at a pace where the people who ARE in the privileged group think is appropriate or in line with their beliefs and views. And sometimes those people would like to pretend that the desire for change, and the push toward politicizing that change, which is necessary for it to happen, is something that some group (on the opposite political side of the abyss) is manipulating people who would otherwise be satisfied with the status quo, for their own reasons.

As Kib says.......this is fast becoming a moot point, especially with young people. Attitudes about gays and lesbians are almost polar opposites in the under 35 as opposed to the over 50 demographics. Demographics, if nothing else, will turn the old ideas of how gays should live, and what they should be "satisfied" to have on its head.

The attitudes displayed by the Christian fundamentalist right about gays are fast becoming obsolete. As is the long used refrain "but the Bible agrees with ME", when used to discriminate, just as it was used to support slavery, Jim Crow laws and all the other ways that a dominant group found to discriminate against others. Sorry.....that's just how it is.

edited to add: Gregg is correct.....you are to be commended for hanging in there on this discussion when you find yourself in such a minority. It's hard to be the person that many other are disagreeing with......I've found myself in that situation more than once, and it's not fun.

Well, even if my viewpoint is becoming obsolete...there are still a few Jews who keep kosher...I'm good with being a minority:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

As Kib says.......this is fast becoming a moot point, especially with young people. Attitudes about gays and lesbians are almost polar opposites in the under 35 as opposed to the over 50 demographics.

---

My own kids grew up with a gay uncle so its a no brainer for them. Several of their friends did not have anyone so close who was gay. Even so, I have yet to hear any person from that group (now up to age 27 or so) ever question that gays should have all the IDENTICAL rights and privileges that any of the rest of us do. Note: IDENTICAL, not special. Those friends are from a very wide demographic. The primary thread they all share as a link is education. Most of them met in school and most continued through college and beyond or are still there. Since it usually stands that our leaders are well educated I am quite hopeful that discrimination for something over which the individual has no control is quickly dying on the vine. The new up-and-coming leaders of this country will have other issues that need their undivided attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

My own kids grew up with a gay uncle so its a no brainer for them. Several of their friends did not have anyone so close who was gay. Even so, I have yet to hear any person from that group (now up to age 27 or so) ever question that gays should have all the IDENTICAL rights and privileges that any of the rest of us do. Note: IDENTICAL, not special. Those friends are from a very wide demographic. The primary thread they all share as a link is education. Most of them met in school and most continued through college and beyond or are still there. Since it usually stands that our leaders are well educated I am quite hopeful that discrimination for something over which the individual has no control is quickly dying on the vine. The new up-and-coming leaders of this country will have other issues that need their undivided attention.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

Catwoman.....you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. About anything. But if your viewpoint is to see gay rights and equality for gays, including the very basic right to enjoy the benefits of marriage the same as any other citizen, as something that gays are being manipulated into by "the left" for their own political reasons, you are going to find yourself in an ever decreasing minority. The country has moved on, just as it moved on in the question of civil rights for African-Americans.

I am old enough to have traveled in the south when there were "colored" bathrooms and water fountains. My own mother thought she was VERY enlightened because when they were home alone, she sat in the kitchen and had lunch with the maid. My grandmother called black people "darkies", and my very religious uncle pitched a fit when a black couple showed up to sit in HIS church.

Those were VERY common attitudes among whites in those days. Honestly, when I was young, I don't even remember QUESTIONING that the black people couldn't use the public swimming pool, and I was in junior high when schools were integrated after Brown vs. the Board of Education, although in the case in our school, it meant only that two very frightened young black girls came to our school, and when I talked to them in the lunchroom, I was ostracized by my other friends.

TIMES CHANGE......and they don't change evenly, or at a pace where the people who ARE in the privileged group think is appropriate or in line with their beliefs and views. And sometimes those people would like to pretend that the desire for change, and the push toward politicizing that change, which is necessary for it to happen, is something that some group (on the opposite political side of the abyss) is manipulating people who would otherwise be satisfied with the status quo, for their own reasons.

As Kib says.......this is fast becoming a moot point, especially with young people. Attitudes about gays and lesbians are almost polar opposites in the under 35 as opposed to the over 50 demographics. Demographics, if nothing else, will turn the old ideas of how gays should live, and what they should be "satisfied" to have on its head.

The attitudes displayed by the Christian fundamentalist right about gays are fast becoming obsolete. As is the long used refrain "but the Bible agrees with ME", when used to discriminate, just as it was used to support slavery, Jim Crow laws and all the other ways that a dominant group found to discriminate against others. Sorry.....that's just how it is.

edited to add: Gregg is correct.....you are to be commended for hanging in there on this discussion when you find yourself in such a minority. It's hard to be the person that many other are disagreeing with......I've found myself in that situation more than once, and it's not fun.

---

Sorry you encountered racist attitudes in your family. Its very disheartening. Do you consider all Christians to be fundamentalist wackos? Your post seems to say so. Correct me if I am wrong. Do you routinely ask people about their sexual orientation? Do you think all Christians hate gays? I know I am tossing out a lot of questions, but I would be interested in hearing your reply. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

What is civil about responding to someone's post with what amounts to an accusation of bigotry? If she had directly called me a name - then would you have done something about it? The comparison to my views with slave-holding southerners in "Gone With the Wind" is again the cattiest, least profitable remark one can possibly make. Did that make a contribution to this discussion other than to make Peggy feel as if she sits in the morally superior postion and sneers down at the less-enlightened southerner? Usually these discussions are good for thought. Apparently I need some anti-venin cuz I have been snake-bit. You are right personal attacks do not add to the discussion, they shut it down. It could have been enlightening but it just stung - and not from truth - from viciousness.

---

Oh chill out! Step back, take a breath, and invite one of those 'good friends' over for a cup of coffee and have a heart to heart. If you are such good friends as you think, they will appreciate it more than you can imagine. A good friend might start with something like, "people keep saying gays are discriminated against. Are you? I really want to know because what affects my good friends affects me. What is important to my good friends is important to me."
Try that, then get back with us.

Oh and I will ignore your insults and calls for censure. I realize you feel very, very, VERY strongly about this. In view of this society and how it's changing, you're wrong, of course, but that doesn't change your feelings and I can accept that.
You find an accusation of bigotry insulting? Well, I find actual bigotry insulting.

I 'll tell you one thing though. It is heartening to see how many different people of different ages, from all walks of life, represented by the folks on this board, are tired of the bigotry and discrimination. It tells me that it won't be long before we will look back on this time and wonder what ever took us so long. Like granting rights to blacks and women.
My beautiful daughter thanks you all.

Thanks Peggy. I assume you speak on behalf of the forum with your "Try that and get back to us." advice. There is nothing I could say to you right now that would be appropriate. The smug arrogance with which you dispense advice must be a comfort to you. Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

You mis-interpret me. Rights are not granted, they are inalienable. Entitlements are granted, and laws which take away freedom of choice, freedom of association and freedom of expression are heinous. Simply declaring something a right doesn't make it so IMHO.

Any group which attempts to use the legal system to grant themselves an entitlement or take away others freedom of association and expression will find resistance. It is a hard task to undo thousands of years of social convention in the course of a generation or two and anyone or any organization who labels those who don't get on board soon enough as haters, racists, etc., do their cause a dis-service.

---

I know we've had this discussion before Alan, what is a right. I still believe rights are something that is granted by your society/group/clan whatever. Nothing is inalienable, which means it is unable to be taken away or transferred. I guess a few things are inalienable, like your intelligence or your personality. Those things can't be transferred or taken away. (ok maybe with the use of drugs, but that's getting into a strange and grey area) who your parents are is inalienable.
But life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can absolutely be taken away. Or granted. Even life itself isn't inalienable in that the next bigger, stronger one can come and snuff yours out.
We, as a civilized society, came together and decided which rights we, the citizens, would enjoy. Life, of course. Murder is against the law, our laws. Liberty, sure. If you haven't murdered. Then you lose your liberty. The pursuit of happiness. That's a tough one, with lots of qualifiers. Those who are drowning in debt from a catastrophic illness aren't at liberty to pursue happiness. Gays who only want to marry the one they love aren't allowed to pursue this very basic happiness. We have inalienable rights because WE said they were, which kind of cancels out the inalienable part. But, this is an old discussion for another thread. :)

Change is hard, but sometimes necessary. And sometimes it's necessary to drag the last 'defenders' kicking and screaming into the next reality. Cause if we just wait for them, then nothing will happen. It's time. This is going to happen, and we, the people, have said it will be so.

This politician, who wants to lead and write legislation, and make laws, aligning himself with this hate group is George Wallace standing in the school house door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

There are several people in my life that I consider friends who happen to be gay, a few of them I've met through my brother who is also gay. I've never had any problem posing any question to them and they certainly have no problem discussing the gay topic du jour with me. In fact gay (rights) issues often make up a significant portion of our conversation. What I can not imagine is having someone you care about in your life who is gay and NOT spending time discussing these topics. I guess "friend" is a subjective term with a different meaning to everyone.

On a related note, my brother turned me on to a story of a group of clergy in my very conservative home state of Nebraska. It seems more than 100 ordained (Christian) ministers have signed a proclamation stating that they do not believe homosexuality is a sin. One of the signers, a Rev. Eric Elnes, said, "We believe homosexuality is not a sin. It’s not a birth defect or a choice. God created people this way. And if God created them this way, they need to be honored for who they are, and fully included in church life and wider society". I don't know how you could say it any better than that. I am VERY proud that a group with such an enlightened view was able to put this together in Nebraska. It should give hope to all y'all down there in Te-jas. Here is a link to the story...

http://www.ketv.com/r/28214658/detail.html?taf=oma

---

As another fellow Cornhusker this makes me very, very glad to learn! Thank you for sharing, Gregg. I can only hope that the rest of Nebraska clergy feels this way and not only the "more enlightened big city Omaha clergy."

"Sorry you encountered racist attitudes in your family. Its very disheartening. Do you consider all Christians to be fundamentalist wackos? Your post seems to say so. Correct me if I am wrong. Do you routinely ask people about their sexual orientation? Do you think all Christians hate gays? I know I am tossing out a lot of questions, but I would be interested in hearing your reply. Thank you." (poetry_writer)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The racial attitudes expressed in my family (and in many, many white families in the fifties.......remember the "white flight" to the suburbs, to get away from "THEM"?) were very common at the time. With time, my family's attitudes changed. My father was one of the first in his business to hire and promote minority managers, which was a huge step forward for him. My mother grew and changed, began to see the error of seeing African-Americans as somehow "less than" she and her family and friends, although, sadly, my grandmother, even in her last illness, embarassed us all by pitching a fit because she was placed in a room in the hospital with a black woman (who, luckily had far more grace and dignity than my grandmother), died without changing her viewpoints. My uncle came to accept black families in his church, and his son, who became a Lutheran minister, not only worked for civil rights, but has never shown prejudice and has friends of all races, religions and sexual orientation.

SO....it is possible to change, although change is hard, and seems to come more easily to the young than to those who are very set in their ways.

And, of course I don't think all Christians "hate gays". I'm not even sure that very bigoted fundamentalist Christians "hate" them, but rather, fear them, fear that somehow their own families will be "sullied" by the "sinfulness", etc., which makes gays and lesbians who grow up in fundamentalist Christian families have a hard row to hoe, but many, many Christians, as they were in the matter of civil rights for African-Americans, not only accept, but support equality for gays, marriage for gays, and full civil rights, as they would support for anyone else.

To me, (and you may disagree), it is not the "Christianness" that is the problem, it is the fundamentalist, black and white thinking, which is really no different in many ways from the black and white thinking of the Muslim fundamentalists and the Taliban, or those of any other religion who hold absolute, "my way or the highway" viewpoints, and use passages from religious books to reinforce and amplify their prejudices. (Although, conveniently ignoring other passages, with which they do not agree).

I don't "routinely" ask people their sexual orientation, and honestly don't need to, as most gay and lesbian people, and straight people, for that matter, are open as to their orientation, making it obvious, as we get to know them. I'm sure that I know people very peripherally that I have no idea whether or not they are gay or straight, but most people that I actually KNOW, it's an open acknowledgement and knowledge, and people are accepted for themselves, with gayness or straightness just one more aspect of their personhood, not necessarily the defining factor, any more than my straightness is a defining factor for me.....just part of who I am.

Here's what I think. I think that people who have fears and prejudices (and yes, extending into bigotry sometimes), have a tendency to look to their religion, for example, to buttress what they already believe. So, some Christians, having fears and dislike of gays, or fears about their "sinfulness" (and that it might, somehow, be "catching"), look in the Bible, search the Old Testament, and say, "see.....see......the Bible agrees with me!". (there was someone famous one time who said, "isn't it amazing that people's gods all seem to have the same prejudices that they have?").

The fact that they consider themselves followers of Jesus, and Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality, and a great deal to say about accepting one's brothers and sisters, and loving all people, caring for the poor, etc., doesn't seem to compute. Only the words in the Old Testament that reinforce their own prejudices are used for buttressing their argument.

They don't boycott the Red Lobster because people are in there eating shellfish, or think that people should be put to death for not honoring the sabbath, or disrespecting their parents. They don't believe it is o.k. to sell their daughters into slavery, etc. All things that are in that same Old Testament, but are things they no longer believe. But the things that are in the Old Testament that agree with their own feelings are somehow sacrosanct. It doesn't make sense.

Which is why attitudes are changing, because the religious arguments against gay rights and gay marriage have no more basis in fact than forbidding marriage between races, or using the bible to justify Jim Crow laws in the south back in the day, or slavery (because it was in the bible) even earlier.

Prejudices die hard....it takes awhile. But they never change unless we go through these uncomfortable times, upset some sacred applecarts, and finally, have the last generation that still holds the prejudices to move onto their next appointed existence. That is slowly happening with African-Americans......(who, born during WWII, and growing up before civil rights, could have believed back in the fifties that we would elect a mixed race President?), and attitudes of racial prejudice are far more prevalent in older people than in younger ones. It's the same with sexual orientation....older people, especially people of a specifically fundamentalist religious belief, have a very hard time with it, but younger people see it as almost a "non-event", and have a hard time even imagining why gay people even have to fight for their rights, such as being able to marry the person they love, or in areas like serving in our military, where gays have ALWAYS served, even if closeted, and where pretty much every other democratic country in the world has been having them serve openly for a long time. We're really in the backwater in that area, too.

I go on and on, but I hope I've answered your questions. Change is harder for some people than for others, and some cling to old prejudices long past the time to have laid them down. But time will solve the problem. That, and people being willing to stand up for justice, civil rights and fairness. It is, after all, the American Way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

"Sorry you encountered racist attitudes in your family. Its very disheartening. Do you consider all Christians to be fundamentalist wackos? Your post seems to say so. Correct me if I am wrong. Do you routinely ask people about their sexual orientation? Do you think all Christians hate gays? I know I am tossing out a lot of questions, but I would be interested in hearing your reply. Thank you." (poetry_writer)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The racial attitudes expressed in my family (and in many, many white families in the fifties.......remember the "white flight" to the suburbs, to get away from "THEM"?) were very common at the time. With time, my family's attitudes changed. My father was one of the first in his business to hire and promote minority managers, which was a huge step forward for him. My mother grew and changed, began to see the error of seeing African-Americans as somehow "less than" she and her family and friends, although, sadly, my grandmother, even in her last illness, embarassed us all by pitching a fit because she was placed in a room in the hospital with a black woman (who, luckily had far more grace and dignity than my grandmother), died without changing her viewpoints. My uncle came to accept black families in his church, and his son, who became a Lutheran minister, not only worked for civil rights, but has never shown prejudice and has friends of all races, religions and sexual orientation.

SO....it is possible to change, although change is hard, and seems to come more easily to the young than to those who are very set in their ways.

And, of course I don't think all Christians "hate gays". I'm not even sure that very bigoted fundamentalist Christians "hate" them, but rather, fear them, fear that somehow their own families will be "sullied" by the "sinfulness", etc., which makes gays and lesbians who grow up in fundamentalist Christian families have a hard row to hoe, but many, many Christians, as they were in the matter of civil rights for African-Americans, not only accept, but support equality for gays, marriage for gays, and full civil rights, as they would support for anyone else.

To me, (and you may disagree), it is not the "Christianness" that is the problem, it is the fundamentalist, black and white thinking, which is really no different in many ways from the black and white thinking of the Muslim fundamentalists and the Taliban, or those of any other religion who hold absolute, "my way or the highway" viewpoints, and use passages from religious books to reinforce and amplify their prejudices. (Although, conveniently ignoring other passages, with which they do not agree).

I don't "routinely" ask people their sexual orientation, and honestly don't need to, as most gay and lesbian people, and straight people, for that matter, are open as to their orientation, making it obvious, as we get to know them. I'm sure that I know people very peripherally that I have no idea whether or not they are gay or straight, but most people that I actually KNOW, it's an open acknowledgement and knowledge, and people are accepted for themselves, with gayness or straightness just one more aspect of their personhood, not necessarily the defining factor, any more than my straightness is a defining factor for me.....just part of who I am.

Here's what I think. I think that people who have fears and prejudices (and yes, extending into bigotry sometimes), have a tendency to look to their religion, for example, to buttress what they already believe. So, some Christians, having fears and dislike of gays, or fears about their "sinfulness" (and that it might, somehow, be "catching"), look in the Bible, search the Old Testament, and say, "see.....see......the Bible agrees with me!". (there was someone famous one time who said, "isn't it amazing that people's gods all seem to have the same prejudices that they have?").

The fact that they consider themselves followers of Jesus, and Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality, and a great deal to say about accepting one's brothers and sisters, and loving all people, caring for the poor, etc., doesn't seem to compute. Only the words in the Old Testament that reinforce their own prejudices are used for buttressing their argument.

They don't boycott the Red Lobster because people are in there eating shellfish, or think that people should be put to death for not honoring the sabbath, or disrespecting their parents. They don't believe it is o.k. to sell their daughters into slavery, etc. All things that are in that same Old Testament, but are things they no longer believe. But the things that are in the Old Testament that agree with their own feelings are somehow sacrosanct. It doesn't make sense.

Which is why attitudes are changing, because the religious arguments against gay rights and gay marriage have no more basis in fact than forbidding marriage between races, or using the bible to justify Jim Crow laws in the south back in the day, or slavery (because it was in the bible) even earlier.

Prejudices die hard....it takes awhile. But they never change unless we go through these uncomfortable times, upset some sacred applecarts, and finally, have the last generation that still holds the prejudices to move onto their next appointed existence. That is slowly happening with African-Americans......(who, born during WWII, and growing up before civil rights, could have believed back in the fifties that we would elect a mixed race President?), and attitudes of racial prejudice are far more prevalent in older people than in younger ones. It's the same with sexual orientation....older people, especially people of a specifically fundamentalist religious belief, have a very hard time with it, but younger people see it as almost a "non-event", and have a hard time even imagining why gay people even have to fight for their rights, such as being able to marry the person they love, or in areas like serving in our military, where gays have ALWAYS served, even if closeted, and where pretty much every other democratic country in the world has been having them serve openly for a long time. We're really in the backwater in that area, too.

I go on and on, but I hope I've answered your questions. Change is harder for some people than for others, and some cling to old prejudices long past the time to have laid them down. But time will solve the problem. That, and people being willing to stand up for justice, civil rights and fairness. It is, after all, the American Way.

---

Have you met any atheistic or agnostics kooks or just Christians? I seldom see it mentioned but I have indeed met atheistic nutballs.

"Well, even if my viewpoint is becoming obsolete...there are still a few Jews who keep kosher...I'm good with being a minority") (catwoman)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's fine. And, so long as those Jews don't try to paint others, who are not even Jewish as "sinful", "unnatural", or dangerous if they don't keep kosher, too, and so long as they don't try to influence the passage of legislation that would force people who are not Jewish to adjust their eating habits to conform to said Jewish peoples' idea of what is correct, in accordance "with G-d's wishes", etc., they'll get no argument from me.

"Have you met any atheistic or agnostics kooks or just Christians? I seldom see it mentioned but I have indeed met atheistic nutballs." (poetry_writer)

---------------------------------------------------

Of course.....alas, "nutballs" come in every religious persuasion, including no religion at all, or doubters. They come in all sizes, races, religions, sexes and every other way you can slice and dice the human race into groups.

At the moment, in issues regarding gays and lesbians in this country, the very fundamentalist Christian "nutballs" are in the public eye. But that doesn't mean that "nutballs" don't exist in other religions and in people with no religion at all, and everywhere. Not to worry. And even large number of Christians do not believe what the Christian "nutballs" as you call them, believe.

I don't think ANYONE, really, is a "nutball". I think sometimes people have very rigid thinking, lots of fears and anxieties, and act out those fears by trying to control the world around them, including others in that world. It isn't enough for them to hold a view that something is wrong, and therefore endeavor themselves not to do or be what they think is awful, but feel the need to reach out and make sure that others aren't able to do or be, as well.

Large, large numbers of Christian people, Christian pastors and other leaders, theological thinkers, etc., do not agree with the fundamentalist Christian outlook on gay people as portrayed by organizations like The American Family Association. Many Christians are working hard for equality for gays and lesbians, and some denominations are supportive of gay marriage, etc.

Don't try to see "Christians" as monolithic, because they are not. Mainstream Christians are probably larger in numbers, but not as vocal as the ones spreading misinformation and bigotry regarding gays. Sometimes the loudest voices are who are heard, not the ones from the deepest thinkers or the ones who have really taken the teachings of Christ to heart. JMHO

Loosechickens said: "They don't boycott the Red Lobster because people are in there eating shellfish, or think that people should be put to death for not honoring the sabbath, or disrespecting their parents. They don't believe it is o.k. to sell their daughters into slavery, etc. All things that are in that same Old Testament, but are things they no longer believe. But the things that are in the Old Testament that agree with their own feelings are somehow sacrosanct. It doesn't make sense. "

THANK YOU Loosechickens; that is a thought I have been trying to put into words and couldn't.

From a blog here in Austin - I think expresses the real issue with the Prayer service to be held in Houston by Rick Perry.

********

I didn't buy it when Rick Perry pretended to shoot a coyote during the last gubernatorial campaign and I'm having a hard time believing that Rick Perry pretending to care about the nation's problems by hosting a national day of prayer is actually going to convince any of the 4.3 million Texans who live in poverty that he does. As for fasting, Rick Perry starving himself for a day isn't going to trick those in this state who go hungry for weeks on end into thinking they are full.

Wrapping up both of these ideas into a fancy website littered with platitudes isn't going to fool God, either.

We're all friends here so I'm going to let you in on a little secret: Praying is easy. A person can feign concern, close their eyes and raise their hands upward toward the heavens all without having to fix their hair.

In other words, praying is perfect for Perry.

What's not easy, and what requires a little more hair gel than quoting passages from Joel, is actual work.

Work is being homeless.

Work is walking to a bus stop every day in the 100-degree heat.

Work is teaching yourself what public schools failed to teach you.

Work is losing a job.

Work is looking for a job.

Work is waiting for food stamps.

Work is having pain but not having the resources to make it go away.

Rick Perry's right on one thing: Texas can do better. But to be better, we're going to have to work at it. Work is not closing your eyes and praying for those you don't want to see.

It is opening your eyes and helping those you can.

Peace

... to be better, we're going to have to work at it. Work is not closing your eyes and praying for those you don't want to see. It is opening your eyes and helping those you can.

What a marvelous quote. Thank you, Zigzagman and Blogger!

Quote:

---

Work is teaching yourself what public schools failed to teach you.

---

Basically something ALL of us who went to the public schools have to do, do, and continue to do every day. Because the whole view of the world we grew up with has nothing to do with current reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

But to be better, we're going to have to work at it. Work is not closing your eyes and praying for those you don't want to see.

It is opening your eyes and helping those you can.

Peace

---

Also my favorite line from your quote Zig, thanks. Pretty salty advice for those of us from outside the Lone Star State as well.

Beautiful Zig. Just, beautiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

"Well, even if my viewpoint is becoming obsolete...there are still a few Jews who keep kosher...I'm good with being a minority") (catwoman)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's fine. And, so long as those Jews don't try to paint others, who are not even Jewish as "sinful", "unnatural", or dangerous if they don't keep kosher, too, and so long as they don't try to influence the passage of legislation that would force people who are not Jewish to adjust their eating habits to conform to said Jewish peoples' idea of what is correct, in accordance "with G-d's wishes", etc., they'll get no argument from me.

---

But arent you doing what you accuse of others of doing when you demand that any group believe a certain way? You say Jews cant paint anyone as sinful or unatural. You demand Christians phrase things so as not to offend anyone. For example, if I said I believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God. You'd come after me (verbally speaking). So you are demanding that others "dont" do a certain thing. Yet you say they cant do certain thing or have certain beliefs.

Au contraire, poetry_writer. If you said "I believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God", I would both respect your view and defend your right to believe it. I don't happen to believe that myself, but I feel you have every right to believe it and govern your own life in accordance with that belief.

However, you can't say, as FACT, "The only way to God is through Jesus Christ", both because it is a BELIEF and not a FACT, and because you have no real right to force your view on others.

It's a subtle difference, but very real. It's what makes it just fine to say on these boards, "I believe such and such", but not o.k. to say, "My way is the only truth, and anyone who doesn't believe as I believe is following a false religion", and in fact, is outside the guidelines of the forum.

Those Jews (of the above illustration by catwoman, not to be confused with actual Jews) can BELIEVE that anyone who doesn't keep kosher is sinful or unnatural. They are free to BELIEVE whatever they like. What they CANNOT do in a pluralistic, secular society, is to force others to adjust their behavior, eating habits, etc., to conform to the Jews' belief that the peoples' actions are sinful, etc. Or to try to get legislation passed that would allow only kosher food served in restaurants open to the public, say.

So the members of the American Family Association can believe that homosexuality is wrong, sinful and unnatural, and so long as they use that belief to govern their OWN behavior in those matters, and not attempt to get laws passed to make other people conform to their beliefs, it's fine. We may see them as prejudiced, and that is OUR right to believe them to be prejudiced, but it wouldn't be all right, say, for us to say, "Well, they are prejudiced and believe something that I don't believe, and therefore, we should make laws discriminating against them, and preventing them from exercising free belief in whatever they want to believe, IN THEIR OWN LIVES. And, in fact, since we think that they are not only prejudiced, but wrong, they shouldn't be allowed to hold their views." That would be completely wrong, and discriminatory.

Remember, that the whole focus of this thread was whether it was appropriate for an elected Governor of a state, in his official capacity of Governor of ALL Texans, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc., gay, straight, etc., to sponsor a prayer extravaganza directed to one specific religion, and on top of that have a cosponsor that has a strong anti gay and lesbian public presence, when said gays and lesbians are Texas citizens, and some significant number of Texans are not even Christian.

Which has little or nothing to do with whether Christians or anyone else is free to believe what they like. We have separation of church and state in this country, whether those of the dominant religion want to face that or not.

Does that make sense to you? There is a very clear distinction, but often difficult to see, particular if someone is seeing BELIEF as FACT, when they are, in fact, two completely different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

Au contraire, poetry_writer. If you said "I believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God", I would both respect your view and defend your right to believe it. I don't happen to believe that myself, but I feel you have every right to believe it and govern your own life in accordance with that belief.

However, you can't say, as FACT, "The only way to God is through Jesus Christ", both because it is a BELIEF and not a FACT, and because you have no real right to force your view on others.

It's a subtle difference, but very real. It's what makes it just fine to say on these boards, "I believe such and such", but not o.k. to say, "My way is the only truth, and anyone who doesn't believe as I believe is following a false religion", and in fact, is outside the guidelines of the forum.

Those Jews (of the above illustration by catwoman, not to be confused with actual Jews) can BELIEVE that anyone who doesn't keep kosher is sinful or unnatural. They are free to BELIEVE whatever they like. What they CANNOT do in a pluralistic, secular society, is to force others to adjust their behavior, eating habits, etc., to conform to the Jews' belief that the peoples' actions are sinful, etc. Or to try to get legislation passed that would allow only kosher food served in restaurants open to the public, say.

So the members of the American Family Association can believe that homosexuality is wrong, sinful and unnatural, and so long as they use that belief to govern their OWN behavior in those matters, and not attempt to get laws passed to make other people conform to their beliefs, it's fine. We may see them as prejudiced, and that is OUR right to believe them to be prejudiced, but it wouldn't be all right, say, for us to say, "Well, they are prejudiced and believe something that I don't believe, and therefore, we should make laws discriminating against them, and preventing them from exercising free belief in whatever they want to believe, IN THEIR OWN LIVES. And, in fact, since we think that they are not only prejudiced, but wrong, they shouldn't be allowed to hold their views." That would be completely wrong, and discriminatory.

Remember, that the whole focus of this thread was whether it was appropriate for an elected Governor of a state, in his official capacity of Governor of ALL Texans, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc., gay, straight, etc., to sponsor a prayer extravaganza directed to one specific religion, and on top of that have a cosponsor that has a strong anti gay and lesbian public presence, when said gays and lesbians are Texas citizens, and some significant number of Texans are not even Christian.

Which has little or nothing to do with whether Christians or anyone else is free to believe what they like. We have separation of church and state in this country, whether those of the dominant religion want to face that or not.

Does that make sense to you? There is a very clear distinction, but often difficult to see, particular if someone is seeing BELIEF as FACT, when they are, in fact, two completely different things.

---

If I didnt believe it to be fact, I would not be basing my life and death on it. You cannot limit me to saying "I believe it to be fact" , forcing or demanding I phrase it according to you, unless you yourself want to be guilty of what you are accusing others. As far as forcing anyone, I cant force anyone to believe anything. Nor would I try. I dont know who the American Family assn is, never heard of them, so cant comment on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

However, you can't say, as FACT, "The only way to God is through Jesus Christ", both because it is a BELIEF and not a FACT, and because you have no real right to force your view on others.

---

I think the real question is, can a person express his belief that it is a fact that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, without having someone else feel that it is an imposition on their own beliefs. You wouldn't consider it proselytizing and a violation of forum guidelines to have someone proclaim that there is no god and no path to heaven would you? They're both just individual beliefs.

As inconvenient as it might be for those too insecure in their own beliefs as to feel threatened by others, there is still freedom of speech in this country. Isn't there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

If I didnt believe it to be fact, I would not be basing my life and death on it. You cannot limit me to saying "I believe it to be fact" , forcing or demanding I phrase it according to you, unless you yourself want to be guilty of what you are accusing others. As far as forcing anyone, I cant force anyone to believe anything. Nor would I try. I dont know who the American Family assn is, never heard of them, so cant comment on that.

---

Personally I don't care if you call it a fact or not. Believe what you (general you) want to govern your own life. Where we (as a country) need to draw the line is allowing people to vote/enact laws that take away rights from people based on their beliefs/personal facts.

There's a giant difference between someone who says they think gay people (or anyone different from them) are sinners (absolutely nothing legally wrong with thinking this) and people who vote to take away civil rights of minorities (I will speak out and vote against this till the end).

Taking away civil rights should only be done when there is a clear benefit to society as a whole (imprisioning felons, for instance) and has nothing to do with freedom of speech, which is, of course, protected.

Kara

"I think the real question is, can a person express his belief that it is a fact that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, without having someone else feel that it is an imposition on their own beliefs. You wouldn't consider it proselytizing and a violation of forum guidelines to have someone proclaim that there is no god and no path to heaven would you? They're both just individual beliefs.

As inconvenient as it might be for those too insecure in their own beliefs as to feel threatened by others, there is still freedom of speech in this country. Isn't there? " (Alan)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I WOULD consider it a violation of forum guidelines were a person to say "There is no god and no path to heaven", thereby proselytizing atheism. The person would be perfectly free to say "I BELIEVE that there is no god and no path to heaven" and that would be fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

You know that, Alan. We've been over this ground over and over on these forums. Beliefs are fine. Stating one's beliefs are fine. What is not fine is stating those beliefs as fact, and proselytizing that belief as anything other than what it is, a belief.

"If I didnt believe it to be fact, I would not be basing my life and death on it. You cannot limit me to saying "I believe it to be fact" , forcing or demanding I phrase it according to you, unless you yourself want to be guilty of what you are accusing others. As far as forcing anyone, I cant force anyone to believe anything. Nor would I try. I dont know who the American Family assn is, never heard of them, so cant comment on that." (poetry_writer).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure you DO believe that to be fact, and believing that, base your life and death on that belief. There is nothing WRONG with that, poetry_writer. Can you hear what I am saying? We ALL have beliefs, attitudes, ethical standards, etc., that we base our lives on. I have beliefs that I base MY life on, but I wouldn't attempt to say that my beliefs are fact, and therefore others should conform to them. It is sufficient for me to govern my OWN life by those beliefs, and leave others to govern their lives by the ones they hold. I respect and defend your right to not only hold what religious beliefs you hold, but to believe them to be true and to govern your life by them.

You may believe what you like. You may base your life on that belief. And you should. That is not a problem. Where the problem comes is in moving away from the "I believe" into "this is fact" (meaning it is provable, which even theologians understand is why they call it FAITH, as opposed to FACT).

No atheist can come on these forums and say, "There is no god, and the whole thing is hooey". The most they can say is "I believe there is no god, and the whole thing is hooey". It's just how it is. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one can state something as FACT that cannot be shown to BE a fact. And religion (all of them, or the lack of any) is the same, a belief system, not a factual system. Which is why you need faith to be a believer. Because there is no way to prove it. Just as there is no way to prove there IS no god.

AND, I keep trying to bring this back to what was actually under discussion....not peoples' beliefs, but their ability to mix religious beliefs and government action together, which in this country, which has separation of church and state, means that official government actions cannot favor one religion over another, but must govern and guard that their actions do not discriminate against one religion in favor of another, or make laws and push for legislation based on religious grounds of belief.

The Jews, mentioned by Catwoman, could hold whatever beliefs they wanted about keeping kosher, but if they were elected to office, and went about trying to make this country into a "kosher country", passing laws that restaurants, food processors, etc. had to present their product according to kosher law, and that people who were not Jewish had to keep kosher houses, too, that would be a huge violation of the separation of church and state.

It's easier for us to see when the religious beliefs in question are held by a minority religion, like being up in arms about Sharia law, but difficult for many when the beliefs in question are a dominant view, held by a majority of citizens, to see that the attempt to impose religious beliefs and make laws according to them is no different, whether it's Christians doing it, or Muslims, or the aforesaid Jews. Since they are in the majority, many will actually say "this is a Christian nation" which is simply not true. America is a secular, pluralistic nation, with separation of church and state, and comprised of citizens of many different religions including none at all, and each has exactly the same right to their beliefs as any other. And none have a right to impose their own religious beliefs on others. It's how the system works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

I think the real question is, can a person express his belief that it is a fact that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ, without having someone else feel that it is an imposition on their own beliefs. You wouldn't consider it proselytizing and a violation of forum guidelines to have someone proclaim that there is no god and no path to heaven would you? They're both just individual beliefs.

As inconvenient as it might be for those too insecure in their own beliefs as to feel threatened by others, there is still freedom of speech in this country. Isn't there?

---

To mix phrases, I think the right of a person to swing their beliefs stops at the edge of my nose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

To mix phrases, I think the right of a person to swing their beliefs stops at the edge of my nose.

---

But that's not the same thing is it? Someone stating something as a fact doesn't require you to accept it and does not constitute force against you, whereas the censure of a strongly held belief (that something is a fact) does constitute a form of force, or at least control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

But that's not the same thing is it? Someone stating something as a fact doesn't require you to accept it and does not constitute force against you, whereas the censure of a strongly held belief (that something is a fact) does constitute a form of force, or at least control.

---

Actually I agree with the statement you made - people can say whatever they want, I can do the same. Censure does constitute a form of force - but only if there is action taken. Verbal censure is just more thought and words. But when you are at a point where only unaccepted facts and censure are occurring, there is no discussion taking place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

I WOULD consider it a violation of forum guidelines were a person to say "There is no god and no path to heaven", thereby proselytizing atheism. The person would be perfectly free to say "I BELIEVE that there is no god and no path to heaven" and that would be fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

---

Fortunately, you are the moderator for neither this forum nor the spirituality forum, as it is clear you don't know what proselytizing is. I can most certainly say there is a God and the only way to heaven is through Him, or the opposite without prefacing it with "I believe". That is a given. I pretty much see anyone's statement of faith or opinion to be just that, without the need for qualifying statements.

To say otherwise would be to say that you, LC, proselytize constantly, as you very rarely use qualifiers for anything you say. I think most people here, however, are bright enough to know you are just stating your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

But that's not the same thing is it? Someone stating something as a fact doesn't require you to accept it and does not constitute force against you, whereas the censure of a strongly held belief (that something is a fact) does constitute a form of force, or at least control.

---

Actually, this has merit. There is no god and I think religion is hooey, is different than saying there is no god and I think YOU are hooey for believing that. (or stupid, or foolish or whatever) Since perception is reality, this is my reality, just as your belief in god is your reality, and each knows the other is speaking for themselves and their reality. For you and everyone in your world (which includes me and everyone on this board) there is a god. I beg to differ.
Now if I say there is no god and from now on anyone on this forum who says there is will be banned, that is discrimination and censure.

For Perry, in his capacity as political leader, his and the AFA's reality most certainly does not include a good number of Texans or the country at large. And he has given notice, by holding this rally in his capacity as political leader, that he intends to try to form our government to his religious reality. Fair enough. We've been warned. And as a secular pluralistic nation we should shout this guy down without question. The other governors have essentially done that by declining his invitation, although none that i know has the backbone to say why.

whatever our political leaders religious reality is, is their private matter, and of course we expect them to be guided by their own beliefs as to their conduct, honesty, integrity, etc.. But as most religions share their beliefs in that regard, we don't even really need to know which religion they subscribe to. Or no religion since we know morals are not connected to religious belief.

But religion is a tricky thing. It doesn't just demand you be good and kind and moral, which we can all agree on, it also demands women cover their heads, or whole bodies, or everyone eat a certain way, or you wear special underwear, or that gay people are sinful and dirty.
This is why our founding fathers said believe what you want but keep your religion to yourself. Of course that's not a direct quote so don't try to call me on that or derail the thought. ;)
Even the bible instructs you to pray in your room by yourself.

As a kid growing up in a Texas old money environment, I was taught by osmosis that it was impolite to discuss matters of money, religion or politics with anyone outside your family or closest friends. I still believe that especially with religion - to each his own but keep it to yourself.