LGBT News The Terms of Our Surrender

Cry more crocodile tears.

 

Kurt Vonnegut, in his book, Cat's Cradle, describes Bokononism (a fictional religion) as one whose sole legitimacy is derived from its persecution:

From the Cat's Cradle entry in Wikipedia:

Maybe what Douthat is saying has some merit...perhaps fundamentalist Christianity should return to its marginalized roots for the purpose of "spreading the religion and making the residents of the island happier."

Although I do believe he is laying it on a bit thick, ok we shouldn't call it persecution, but give me a break: marginalized? Hardly yet...

 

I think it's important in this context to recognize the rhetoric Christian authoritarians themselves have used to frame issues of LGB (see below*) rights in the past. They called it a "culture war." These aren't scare quotes, because it's their words. And I agree. It is a war. And they started it. They started it with teaching their kids to kill us, beat us up, taunt us, ostracize us, fire us, and commit the stream of constant microaggressions that drive us to suicide.

Furthermore, they have committed grave crimes against humanity in this war. We, on the other hand, have regularly fought back without turning to illegal measures. We have used the legal system which is still biased against us. We have appealed to the legislature and to municipal bodies.

I know it's not very good for our "messaging" to acknowledge what we're doing, but on some level, it's patently clear to everyone, and I think we should just admit it. Positive change, on some level, is effected by coercion and punishment. By definition, injustice is the state of affairs in which immoral actions go unpunished.

The more straight, cisgender people come to know that close friends and family members are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, the more compassion requires them to recognize the humanity of those people. That recognition naturally abhors the evil of this injustice and tends towards distaste, pressure, yes, even at times, punishment.

So I am very unsurprised that he feels like he's losing a war, and that he's not even allowed to negotiate terms of surrender, and that we're the "victors" who will punish him and those who think like him.

Because, really, that's kind of what's going to happen, and it's what should happen. There's not going to be justice unless a county clerk who refused to issue a marriage license is out of a job. There's not going to be justice unless businesses serve all customers for fear of provoking a boycott. If we can't visit social sanctions on the people who work evil, evil will of course persist.

I don't get how it could be any simpler.

Notes:

*I have excluded the T here not because I don't care about transgender individuals. On the contrary, I think compassion requires that I make special note of the fact that marriage equality efforts have been a distraction from issues of importance to trans and genderqueer people, like employment non-discrimination and access to health care. Their issues are similar but different to those of sexual minorities, and transgender people have been consistently ignored and marginalized by the national LGB organizations. And I think this is to the detriment of everyone.

 

Douthat is always so pompous and self-serious. 'Terms of our Surrender'...gimmie a break. As a Times reader, at least David Brooks lightens up a bit from time to time as one of the token conservatives; Douthat, not so much.

 

Hmm. I am reminded of something an acquaintance of mine in college used to say:

If you choose to treat someone as an enemy, you really have no right to complain if they decide to treat you the same way back.

####

Although, given some of the things that have been done to gay people in the name of religion, our response has actually been extremely calm and low key.

Todd

 

True. One never hears of anything so extreme as "Gay Supremacy Groups", after all, with rainbow hoods and such, burning phalluses before the houses of the pious. The LGBT community has remained more sensible than that.

But on the very extreme right, we do see violent hate groups.

 

But why do we see people saying that these groups exist? You know, our goal is to make everyone gay. Isn't it?

Isn't it?

THERE'S A GAY AGENDA AND THIS IS WHAT IT IS. PLEASE, SOMEONE PROVE THIS WITH NON-BIBLICAL STUFF........

Seriously, I'm sick of these conservatives saying that this is what we do.

 

And don't forget, we're also out to destroy the family.

Kinda like the Hulk, if he was gay.

Hulk see family!

Hulk SMASH!

 

I'm all for religious exemptions. For ordained clergy and actual houses of worship, because the idea of a minister being forced to speak words of blessing against their convictions scares me. I could maybe see this extended to certain privately funded (ie, not in receipt of government funding in ANY form) religious institutions... for example faith-specific schools that don't accept vouchers/etc, but certainly NOT hospitals, soup kitchens/homeless shelters, etc, as these are services that should be available to anyone in need.

But just regular businesses, using the owner's/manager's/employee's religion as your excuse? No, sorry, not the way it works. You put yourself out there offering goods or services to the public at large, you DO NOT get to then say "open to all... except (insert minority here)." Can you target a particular demographic? Sure, it's called marketing. Can you place reasonable restrictions on the behavior you permit customers to engage in while on your property? Of course. No shoes/shirt/service? No problem. No smoking? By all means, ban the cancer sticks. "We'll toss you out if you're creating a public disturbance?" Again, no issue.

But "Sorry, we don't serve your kind here" is simply no longer acceptable.

 

Very well said! Supposed religious groups have targeted us with propaganda campaigns for decades. They hide behind false names like focus on the family, concerned women for america and family research council. It's clear they are false Christians because their mission is to bear false witness against GLBT people. The lies they told about us kept us beat down for a long time, but it's not working anymore. They relied on people believing their lies for their funding and for votes against us. I'm disgusted to see they're using their deceit in other countries. Seems like they know they've lost in the US so they're moving to other countries to continue taking in as much money as they can. :tantrum:

 

They're all like 6 year olds. It's really FUN to see them cry. (!)

 

I find it hard to rejoice over the the defeat of those who have been misled. Perhaps I'm too new the gay community, but as one who society, family, and church has kept locked in my panic room you would refer to as my closet, I believe I have some authority to address this issue.

There was a time when I looked to a more conservative churchTo help rid me of the "temptations" I faced. As well meaning as their intentions were it clearly didn't take. How could it when I was hard-wired by God to be the way I am? Despite a deep and abiding faith, most of these people are not the most sophisticated. This speaks to their lack of education, but serves as a reminder of where these people are deficient. Most of their pastors are not seminary trained, and rely on being led by the Holy Spirit.
This is not to disparage the third person of the Trinity, but to question the discernment of those who are their leaders.

There are those more fundamentalist faiths such as the Southern Baptist that have seminaries and a power structure that are more worrisome. As a body of believers, they have the most members in the US. This is not a loosely affiliated group of individual nondenominational churches. This church has the ear of the president on down. Their leadership has the most to loose, but are are their faithful any less deceived than those whose leaders pop up from nowhere. What of those who listen to the Fawell's and Robertson's of this world?

It is the leaders who are the wolves in sheep's clothing. These are the one's who in the face of biblical scholarship, research, and criticism still cannot find room in their hearts to accept those of us who are LGBT. Did we persecute all the Germans after WW II for the sins of their leaders. No. So should we be as intolerent of those people who by virtue of having been mistakenly taught to shun and distain us? Where is the virtue in that. It makes us the same, if not worse, since our motivation is revenge. It is never a good thing to humiliate one's enemy after the war's been won. We've only to look back to WW I to see that the debasement of Germany gave rise to the Nazis and WW II.

What is justice? Is it getting back some of our own, or is it teaching others to be merciful as Jesus was merciful. Are we entitled to rightgeous indignation, absolutely. However, we are not justfied in paying back an eye for an eye, for indulging our own fears and prejudices, because that is what bigorty is - ignorance in the light of knowledge. Love your enemies; pray for your enemies, because like it or not these are our families and our friends.

I very recently came out to one of my oldest friends. I knew that by doing so the news would not be received well at all. Her beliefs would cause me to be rejected. I know she prays for my soul and I pray that her eyes will be opened. I bear her no animosity. I feel sorry for her ignorance. Was I hurt? Mightily, even though I knew that when I wrote to her. Is she a horrible person? Some might say so. Her only offence in my eyes is having been misled to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Yet she doesn't keep Kosher nor does she have a problem with wearing red.

As a faithful Anglican and a person familiar with biblical criticism, I have no problem problem with my perception of God. The only problem I have is not having come to the realization that all these years I'd been led to believe take somehow I was what God desired in a believer, when in reality I was made in His image and that He made me gay. Who am I to judge God's creation? So you see, I too have allowed myself to be deceived, to be filled with self-hatred for what I mistakenly saw as my sinfulness.

I ask that you lead by example...a little more patience, a little more kindness. If we truly are all brothers and sisters, forgive those that have persecuted us, even if they don't deserve it. That is one of Christ's greatest commandments.

For those of you who do not, and there are lots of you here that do not, share my faith, please do not take offense when none was intended.

 

Tim, that has to be one of the most beautifully written and heart-felt messages I've seen in a very long time. I completely agree with everything you said and applaud the courage and strength of faith you bring to the discussion. We're both in a tough spot right now, but we are going to be fine.

 

They finally look at the past. Sort of sad though. All that time being blind or ignorant, and then just giving up, upon one realization.

 

Your view is very important, and there are many parts of it that reasonate with truth.

But here's my worry. I'm not actually talking about revenge here. I'm talking about basic facts about how social change takes place. It has many components, and it needs to be viewed in its complete picture, not just the overall feeling of the composition. People look back on the Civil Rights Movement and think that what won the day was peaceful protest and civil disobedience. While Rosa Parks and Dr. King were very important political figures, and the unsung heroes of that movement did a lot to advance American race relations, it should not be forgotten that they were radical. It also should not be forgotten that we had a major war going on at the same time as the civil rights movement which was destabilizing the country. Moreover, part of what made Dr. King's strategy so popular was that it was an alternative to that firebrand, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcom X).

There was a lot of forgviness and loving kindness preached, but there were some more violently suggestive elements to the overall Civil Rights Movement as well.

I do not mention this history in order to advocate for violence or political repression of homophobic people. I am simply pointing out that coercion, whether we like to admit it or not, is at least one of the components behind all movements for social change. And that coercion doesn't always have to be law or vigilante threats of violence. Sometimes, it looks like just making fun of or just laughing at people who are evil. While racism has by no means been conquered in the US, there are certain things you just can't say anymore and be respected by anyone. Certain utterances just invite ostracism. If you want to figure out the best ways to have no friends, say rape is no big deal, or say something anti-Semitic.

This reality about social change puts us in a very difficult position, because I think a lot of us have, frankly, a very simplistic view of the world where "time + love = everything gets better." And that's not really it. It's an important part, yes, because ultimately, love is what sustains the change. But, think about it, a mother bear loves her cubs, and that's exactly what makes her scary. It's also what makes a hiker who surprises her quite possibly dead or seriously mauled. Love doesn't always manifest itself with warm fuzzies. Sometimes, it manifests as a serious exertion of force against an enemy, real or perceived.

Now, I end my argument by analogy. I actually don't think we should get heavy handed and run over the faithful. However, I just want to point out that we shouldn't put the breaks on things that are relevant as a matter of basic justice for fear that the enemy will think we've gone too far as the victors.

When we're dealing with people who think our being able to get married hurts people, there is nothing we can do to achieve justice which doesn't make them feel hurt themselves. These are people so opposed in their conscience that they can't see reason.

They are mistaken in their moral judgment, but I don't think it's appropriate for us to wring our hands about their reasons for being so wrong. A person who was misled is still profoundly morally weak. Here, I think it's inappropriate for us to look at people who got brainwashed as having "made a mistake." If you didn't question your faith, or you didn't question your morals, that's on you. That's a matter of laziness. That's a failure of due diligence. It is of course worse to be deliberately and consciously evil, but negligence should not be mistaken for innocence.

Some people of faith has caused us way to much death and misery for it to simply be ignored in this way.

Really redressing these wrongs will require not only restorative justice but a fundamental recognition that the people on the other side of this thing were in the wrong, and they were vicious while they were being in the wrong.

If you would like to know what I mean by this, I welcome a dialogue on it possibly over our walls. I do not discount the importance of forgiveness, but I have yet to read any apology given by people of faith that was actually unconditional, sufficiently appraised of the full suffering they caused, or not in some way self-validating or self-aggrandizing.

 

As far as the article goes, this is a step in the right direction. He acknowledged that "persecution" of his view is justified. Maybe, after a while, he'd figure that it's not only justified, it's not persecution for the same reason pacifism isn't just a different kind of warmongering. You may believe that war is sometimes necessary (or even a glorious good thing) all you want, you may even be right, but it won't make negotiating an arms-control treaty into warmongering by different means.

The spiritual arms-control treaties of civil rights legislation may be a wrong way to go about things, but they're just that: attempts to stop or at least blunt persecution by limiting access to its tools. Nothing more, nothing less and nothing else.

Or, of course, we all can go on with the culture war, and escalate it to something really ugly... Something right-wing culture warriors were very willing to do when it seemed they were winning.

 

I commend you both, Pret Allez and TScott for your excellent, well thought-out and constructive analyses.

Ultimately, I think it is right to be wary of "the misled flock" idea, I think of those soldiers who did unspeakable things under the guise of following orders... All leaders are leaders by virtue of having followers, these followers must bear some responsibility for the power they have conferred on him or her.

Yes, everyone has a responsibility for looking under the hood of established belief systems, questioning is essential, and ironically, this makes the faith stronger.

But when this questioning isn't there, usually due to an educational system that doesn't tolerate questioning the way things are done; critical thinking is a rather underdeveloped muscle; but this is no surprise, schools are not there to learn something, they are instruments of social control (based on the militaristic Prussian model of "schooling" in the 19th century and dragged across the Atlantic because it suited the industrialists' purpose of having semi-literate and obedient employees).

I saw a documentary a while ago which shadowed one of these fundamentalist followers...I felt sorry for her, until the moment she opined on one of those radio call-in shows that (paraphrasing) I think democracy isn't really necessary...or something to that effect...

 

GW -

I'm shocked about the "democracy" statement. It goes beyond the pale. Theocracies are never a good idea. They smack of Jim Jones and grape Kool-aid regardless of the religion, because no one watches the watch dog.

My sympathies were more with individuals like my friend, rather than thinking of them as a whole, as soldiers in a "Christian" army. People are responsible for a logic and consistancy in their beliefs. They are still my brothers and my sisters, however, and there's the rub. I do feel sorry for those who are willfully ignorant. What is it they lack? This woman is not stupid. She was top of her class at school and in college. I didn't end the friendship, she did. It hurt to see the response she wrote back. I won't lie, but it was what I expected.

I'm not as familiar with the issues facing the gay community. In the suburbs as a middle-aged consevative upper-middle class male, we don't get the gay newspaper at the local StarBucks. I'll admit having just come out and having to rethink so many things that I'm a bit behind the curve.

A good ambassador for my faith is what I had hoped to achieve. So few people here seem to have had positive experieces with any religion. It is my hope that they see that there are their own kind that may feel a bit marginalized. The faith I know is not one of bigotry. As such I see the need to show both sides the love professed by my faith.

 

I also embraced my religion, for many years. I also felt a certain pride in being able to master the rituals and learn the ideas that form the foundations of my faith.

I also felt solidarity with my co-religionists...still do, there is a lot of good to come out of religion, if it is honestly, lovingly and thoughtfully pursued. No religion should be practiced without being questioned, without being challenged. It's demands demand a profound commitment, and the principal commitment should be to reason, in harmony with faith, these are not incompatible, they are complementary.

We live in a time of bad religion and bad philosophy. Where thinking long-term and thinking critically are passé. No wonder we come across "true believers": the fanatics who, if truth be told, are those with the most profound doubts. Their fanatical behaviour is a front, a show, designed to remove doubt in others...It's all too easy for these people to chew away at our most cherished values, like democracy, or reason, or civility...take your pick, nothing is safe from these people.