guthmund

If I can go back to the tolerance rhetoric for a second...

In the grand scheme of things, aren't there some ideologies that are just too ridiculous or worse, too dangerous to allow in civilized society? Doesn't blindly accepting every ideology as they come along devalue the truly great ideas and grant an unwarranted legitimacy to the idiotic? I just don't understand why 'intolerant' is such a bad word sometimes...

As for the law...

Don't we try teenagers for crimes as adults? Some states recognize their right to consensual sex and all states grant 16 year-olds the privilege of driving around without an adult chaperone. Teenagers work (with some restriction depending on state) and taxes are taken out of their paychecks just like every other adult. So, where is the disconnect? Moral arguments aside, isn't there a legal argument to be made here?

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Cynthetiq

No you did not, but the community you say you are a part of claims that "it's my right to do so because it's how I express that I am gay." That's the explicit answer I have gotten from people that I have directly asked within the gay community.


Demographics tend to say otherwise. Homosexuals are directly marketed to in media, the launch of LOGO is a huge step forward in providing intelligent programming directed at the gay and lesbian market.

I also have not once stated nor implied that sexual orientation is a choice. To do so would be disrespectful to my boss and good friends who are prominent members within the gay and lesbian communities.

Just because someone else co-opted words to make false representations of those definitions still does not change the definition. It may color your definition, but the definition is still it's original intent. My wife and I debate on this very subject all the time when she uses sentences like,"The cat lost it's purchase from the sofa." (she's a keen study in linguistics.)

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

martinguerre

i say this then. You're quite mistaken. The queer community i'm a part of does not engage in public nudity, or purposefully confrontational sexual practices. Here in Minneapolis, the 3rd largets Pride gathering in the nation, i didn't see anything that i wouldn't see at a public beach. Do some queer communities do those things? Yes. But that's a total non-sequiter to this discussion. Your random interjection of these complaints you have with certain queer communties simply do not follow the course of this discussion. So i'm asking. Is there a reason that these feelings of animosity or distaste are surfacing now? What about this discussion keys that response?

Your response on the word lifestyle doesn't leave anything more for discussion. If you're not willing to consider the implications of using terminology that has widely come to imply a set of homophobic arguments, then we've nothing left to say in the matter.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Cynthetiq

No, it's quite pertinent, since you say that ALL christian communities should abide by X rules and interpretations. As you are saying to me that it is quite wrong of me to say that ALL homosexuals engage in this public display of nudity (which I am not saying ALL are doing, just SOME) then you have to also accept that SOME fundamentalist Christian ministries feel that this type of camp is fair game for them to place their children. If one side its true, the the converse of it must also be true for other people.

It's your lack of trying to be understanding and accepting that some other faiths feel that this is part and parcel of their belief system.

You keep trying to filter my words through a "homosexual hatred" filter when there is no such malice on my part. All that I'm saying is what I've always been saying, if you want someone to accept you as you are, then you are required to accept someone as they are. That is not conditional, it's not "on the condition that they don't do X." If you make it conditional, which is what I keep hearing from your words, you are in my book no different than those people who are being intolerant towards your sexual orientation.


Language is a living and breathing entity no different than others. I do not hear anyone in my company of homosexual friends tell me that "lifestyle" is a bad word. It maybe in your community but it is not in mine. Maybe it's because at one point in time it was a "bad word" here, but again, words can easily be diffused and changed as they always have.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

martinguerre

Logically, that claim doesn't follow. I made a universal moral claim: i do in fact believe that faith in Christ calls people to be open and affirming of others, regardless of sexual orientation.

I make a totally unrelated descriptive claim. Not all queer communities engage in such practices.

Why does one have anything to do with the other? For the record, i think that responsible and respectful sexual practice is a universal "price" so to speak for the gifts and joys of sexuality. Again...my response is that your arguments are not tracking logically. Your claim here is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. My response is that yes, that's true. I beleive in universal moral imperatives. In both sexual ethics, and in being affirming of sexual orientation. Any descriptive claims about what queer communities do is unrelated. I was not saying that some communities should be confrontationally sexual and some not. I simply stated the fact of what was. Logically, that argument does not track.

I'm not making any such accusation. Your remarks have surprised me, and dissapointed me. But i have not, and do not now accuse you of malice or hatred. Straight priviledge does not exclusively rely on such overt things as that. For the most part, it is simply inertia. Things being the way they have always been, etc...

What i'm concerned about here is that this discussion has had a very random track from my perspective. Some queers displaying poor sexual ethics really has nothing to do with a conversation about if reparative therapy is a valid option for a parent.

Say a parent was forcing "therapy" on a straight idenitifed child to be gay. If we were discussing this, and i blurted out that i hated the fact that there are a bunch of straight people who are overtly sexual, or that there are straight sex criminals...would you feel this would be a relevant addition to the conversation, or a distraction from the issue?

Reserving judgement, i've been asking you why you think this is relevant. I'm quite prepared for any range of answers. I'm still wondering. I've told you...I have no interest in making public promescuity acceptable. I believe in responsible and respectful sexual ethics. So telling me that as a queer person i have to be respectful of people who hate me so that the rest of society will respect slutty queers? I couldn't care less. Do i have to respect confrontational mardi gras revellers, or the people invovled in the "wilding" incidents of NYC a few years back (if we wanted an example of a straight parade gone horribly wrong)? Is that part and parcel of being respectful to straight society? No. Of course not. Why do you expect a logical connection between respect for queers in general has anything to do with respect for behavior of a subset of queers who display excessive behavior?

As i've said earlier, i think that you are free to make the comparison between myself and the advocates of reparative therapy. But you're ignoring the question of means, and also suspending judgement on what you think is right. We make acceptance of others conditional on all sorts of things. Some are valid criteria for defining what is a civilized person, and some are not. Race, orientation, etc...I feel are invalid reasons for making such a determination. I do think adherance to ideals of freedom of speech, commitment to civil resolution of problems instead of violence, etc...are valid ones. I'm sure you make categorizations of these criteria as well. Obliterating that process in your argument natrualizes your assumptions, which again....i can't grant you. Both myself, and these advocates of homophobia, believe in universal moral imperatives. But that's where the similarities end. Very few people are willing to abandon universal moral imperatives, and i suspect you have a few of your own. Murder is often the one final idea that people simply cannot accept the idea of tolerating opposing viewpoints on. They cannot co-exist with people who believe in random killing as a normal part of life. So yes...there is a comparision. But it's intensly non-descriptive. 99% of humanity (made up figure for sake of argument) beleives in universal moral imperatives. So saying that A and B are alike for that reason isn't incorrect. It is vague and non-descriptive, and largely with out meaning.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Cynthetiq

You are getting too hung up on the words and the semantics of the actions. It's not the actions themselves its what they represent and how different sides of the spectrum they are. You find it to be distracting because I'm looking at it from a very high level of concept and you are looking at the definitions of words and meanings of the sentences.

As a well educated catholic man that no longers practices this faith, the bible states, "Do not judge, lest you be judged." As I have stated it's not for me to judge. I am not judging them at all.

I am looking at them as an example of how to live life, which is what I do when looking at all peoples of the world. I wish not to live my life like them. That's the only judgement that I'm making.

You are making conditions for acceptance. I am not.

Say a parent is forcing a "bad" child to a "tough love" camp, I don't agree with that either. But again, it's not my place to say they are not able to do so. It's not my place to judge their decision. It is my place to decide for myself how I want to live my life and my family.

In seeing their examples, I accept them as they are with the flaws they have and while I do not understand them, it is not for me to understand. It is for me to just accept them and love them as they are. This goes for the evangelicals, fundamentals, muslims, hindus, et. al. It's not my place to tell them they are doing wrong to make them change their ways. It's for me to live a live of goodness and tolerance and hope that my example is a good example of a good human being, which is what I found during my comparative studies of Western Religions and Eastern philosophies.

That does not mean I don't have my own flaws as I do, a human being has many flaws.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Cynthetiq

my apologies for using "homosexual hatred" that was too strong of a choice and did not accurately reflect what I was trying to convey.

What I sense from you that my own intentions are suspect, and that you are scrutinizing my words to the point where you cannot see the forest for the trees.

I stated my beliefs in the post above and that's where I stand.

You seem to want to try to paint me into a corner and make a judgement on something that I feel I have no right to judge. What I can do is offer that it does not work for me and my lifestyle that is the ONLY judgement I am allowed to make.

I do not consider myself a religious man. I just try to live a righteous life. What *I* define as righteous, and try to be a good example for everyone else to look up to and emulate. I leave you with the one song from the folk masses that I used to love listening to because it represented how I feel I should be living my life:

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

martinguerre

i greatly appriciate the clarification post. and let me again assure you, i don't think you're one of the haters. I've met plenty of them in my life. I'm trying to get ordained as a Baptist minister. Believe me when i say, i've met the real bigots and haters. I'm making issue about some of the rhetoric not becuase it's the worst in the world, but because it has room for improvement.

and i understand your approach...but this is why i don't share it. the issue with living a life of example is that it may not be, at times, enough.

if i "tolerate" homophobes, will i be tolerated? Keeping in mind that until a few years ago adult, consensual homosexual sex was illegal in most parts of the nation. keeping in mind that anti-queer violence was widley practiced by the police as well as citizens in most parts of the country....

toleration without some baseline of moral imperatives is not a workable solution.

now. as long as people don't try to lock me up for being me, or worse, kill me...i'm fine being in a civilization with them. i can go to school with them, argue when it suits me, and retreat to safe space and friendly community when i desire.

i accord them the same rights and responsbilities. but nowhere in the civil compact do i find an imperative that toleration means a lack of comment or opposition. You quote from the Gospel, but i believe you make an important ommission. The texts are filled with confrontations. jesus, the desciples, mary, paul, and the church mothers and fathers all are recorded as confronting those they disagree with.

what they did not do is tell anyone that they were outside of God's grace and love. the message?

Repent. Turn from the ways that have brought you and your neighbors in to strife and separation. Turn again to God's way...and the forgiveness that is waiting for you.

I don't think the Gospel says keep your head down at all. What i beleive it calls me to is principled advocacy, remembering always the humanity and dignity of the people whom i am in opposition with on an issue. For instance I don't beleive that violence or overly coecive legal measures (those that go beyond requiring equal treatment and become punative towards practicioners of homophobia) are a good way of interrupting and confronting homophobia. To that extent, i tolerate them. But silence will not protect me.

If i am to become a full citizen with legal standing before the law, to be free from the danger of homophobic violence, to be able to marry whom i wish, and to live and participate in the communities which i desire to live in...

If i am to have any of those things, i will need more than silence. This nation knew a long period of silence. Queers in this nation were closeted, shamed, persecuted and reviled. I make no apology for opposing the desire for silence from a heteronormative society. that's my why.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Cynthetiq

If it was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me. Jesus lived his life with tolerance and acceptance. You claim your faith is based on his teachings, well that's the foundation.

This is why I equate you to the same track but on the opposite end as those fundamentalists that you deplore. You aren't living by the example that Christ says. You are willing to cast stones when you yourself are equally guilty of the same intolerance you expect from them.

You have two forces that are both using the bible to support their beliefs. You say confront and repent. What do you think the homophobes are doing? The believe the same thing so they are confronting and repenting as well.

In my opinion this is equal to force meeting force, and from my interpretations of the teachings of Christ, it then means to turn the other cheek and live by example.

If I recall correctly Jesus did not confront many people. He confronted the pharisees, he confronted the merchants at the temple, and he confronted his disciples.

I understand where you are coming from, being an asian minority in the 70s was not really all that easy. But let me ask you to stop, read what I just wrote especially the bold part and reflect on it. Because that is the crux of what you and I are talking about.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

martinguerre

Unconditional love is not the same as tolerance, either way around. And i think this is the cause of some of our conceptual confusion. The path i beleive Jesus advocates is to love the enemy while confronting them.



And if someone keeps telling other people to be tolerant and not to rock the boat? Aren't they confronting those others, and asking them to turn away from their current behavior? We're all trying to convince each other. I make no apology for this. If i do so with hatred in my heart, and not love of the other, then that's when there is a problem. and that's one of the challenges in this fight. there are some people who simply think that queers are wrong, but genuinely do not bear hate. but a lot of people out there are very hate filled by this issue, and will do whatever they need to do to remain in a position or priviledge and power. it is the challenge for those of us who undertake anti-discrimination work to not let that hatred infect us as well.

Turn the other cheek is a cultural reference that has long since been changed. The people he was talking to were the poor and the servants. If you backhand someone (as masters do) and they turn their head, you have two choices. You can use the unclean left hand to backhand them again, or you can punch them and acknowledge them as equals. Both are the equivalent of pouring gas on a fire, and even the most hardened master would think twice about doing either. It is a statement to one who holds power over you: I am still human, and i am not going to be bullied or cowed in to thinking otherwise. It has nothing to do with passivism...

In this dramatic form, Jesus recoccomends a third way. he doesn't say punch back, to use power as they do. and he doesn't say to lay down and take it. he says to recognize the humanity within the one who oppresses you, and to dramatically demand that they recognize your humanity. These are the confrontations he has with Pharisees, the Saducees, Roman officials, Herod, Pilate, the temple elites, the crowds at Gerasa, his own disciples, the assembly at Nazareth, the list goes on and on. Confrontation is part and parcel of the revelation of Jesus. How this confrontation takes place is why it is Good News, and not a gun to the head.

i eschew the use of power as these people have. as i noted earlier, i am not seeking legal means, or to coerce them. I strictly disavow agressive violence against those who oppose me (something that they do not). i am using the public air, and nothing else. In all my work...in the American Baptist churches, in school, in community...i use nothing other than my voice and my presense. one of my all time favorite protests occured at a church meeting. Hidden in the crowd of assumbled delegates were a dozen queers and allies. Every so often, two by two, they would get up and begin loudly proclaiming that they and the ones they loved were not sick, or demonic. They were beloved children of God...sinners saved by grace.

And two by two, they were dragged out of the room by security. They made no resistance to that force, and did not fight to stay. but they did not simply accept that their church was telling them that they were forbidden. they dramatically, and with profound hope for those opposed to them, demonstrated their humanity.

i believe such a thing is Jesus' way.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Cynthetiq

but your voice is decrying in the EXACT same manner the homophobes are. You are preaching tolerance vis a vie intolerance. A direct conflict.

I have said all that I can on this subject.

While I hear and understand where you are coming from as I have many activist friends in the gay and lesbian community here in NYC, you aren't understanding where I'm coming from in the slightest, because you would see the direct conflict that I have distilled down into three sentences, and are not addressing the crux of the issue. I have passed this discussion to my friends and they also can see the fallacy of your arguments and can see the harm that it will inflict.

In diplomacy if no one leaves any room for the other to have an out, war will surely ensue. You're creating a situation of an immovable force meeting an irresistable force. From what I can see from your view that you have expressed, you are on the path of eventually having to take up arms and preparing to wage war.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Menoman

I have to stay out of this thread or I'll go on a crazy rant about how ignorant and facist it is to send a boy to a camp which is made to change/repress the sexuality of him.

__________________

roachboy

i have been watching this debate with some interest as it has unfolded and chose to stay out of it...but i am increasingly perplexed by your position, cyn.

1. in an earlier post you talked about the importance of having lived in singapore in shaping your perception of how different groups might or might not interact and your relation to groups you understand as being outside your own...i am not sure i follow...i have lived in france for a few years off and on, and i found that after a certain period of learning the space a bit, i was perfectly able to pass judgements on particular political moves--racism directed against north africans in particular, muslims in general--the politics of the front national, which is to a significant extent about affirming and normalizing that racism. the front national foregrounds the claim that its reaction to islam in general is routed through a defense of a "pure"--that is catholic--france.
now because i lived in france for 5 years or so, i cannot pretend that i know the place. but i do not see how anyone can or should require perfect knowledge of a situation before passing judgement on it. it seems an unreasonable position to me.
i see no problem at all with coming to understand particular political lines and opposing them. not having complete knowledge is a given--you never have complete knowledge. you make arguments. those arguments are more or less compelling. if you waited around for perfect knowledge, neither you nor anyone else would ever be able to say anything about phenomena that are not immediate.

in my day gig as historian i long ago learned that perfect knowledge is an illusion--you wont get it, you cant get it, it doesnt exist. it seems to me that your position would make writing history impossible.

beyond that, there is a disconnect between my experience and yours--am curious about why you understand your singapore stay as paradigmatic in that is appears to shape your relation to many phenomena that are not in singapore.

2. i also wonder about the claim that you relayed this argument to friends who happen to be gay--did you understand this as consulting native informants? do you therefore understand "gay culture" (a strange term) as totally seperate from yourself? are you in a kind of anthropologist relation to your friends, then?


this is important because it seems that your view of tolerance is predicated on the assumption that groups formed around identity signifiers are wholly seperate one from the other, and that you, because you identify on different grounds, are in turn wholly seperate from them. i find this strange but wonder if it is an accurate representation of your views.

aside: i took from your post the implication that your friends, who you do not name and who are not speaking for themselves, are somehow or another "more gay" than martin guerre--you generate this impression because you seem to use your friends and your consultation with them as a kind of trump card here. did you mean that?

i guess these are more questions than anything else, so will stop with this for now.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

martinguerre

cyn...i don't know why you insist i have no understanding of your argument. I get it. You think tolerance works, that the quiet example will win in the end.

I don't fail to comprehend what that will mean. I just disagree that it is efficacious. Suspending moral judgement of what is in our midst is to accept responsibility for affirming it. Silence is assent. And i do not assent to a culture that wants to treat some people as second class citizens.

And i'm not particularly bothered that a few of your friends disagree with my position as relayed to them by you. You choose to focus on certain elements of what i'm saying and have disregarded others. You have yet to tell me in what way you think that my disagreement with these people is coercive. In what way am i using power (what power do i have in the first place) to make them do what i want?

Do you not beleive in free speech? Should i be keeping my opinion to myself entirely? Do you really think that silence on queer issues will even keep queers safe? You keep dodging this. Will silence keep me safe? Can you really claim this, given the history of queer politics in this country? Yes or no. Will silence keep queers safe?

Your friends...do they not make public statements about why they think that homophobia is wrong? Is that not "intolerant" in the increasingly broad way that you have outlined? How is your intolerance for intolerance not intolerance itself?

Roachboy...excellent points. We are never given complete or objective information. Decision making is always on the basis of too little and often too late. But that does not excuse us from being moral agents, responsible for the decisions we do choose to make. These limitations should make us humble and cautious, but not paralytic.

and roach, while i do appriciate your question to Cyn about the way he represents his friends, i don't feel he was trying to out-gay me. he's right about one thing. the queer communities are not in static agreement. but he's wrong to imply that i'm isolated. along the comparative spectrum, i'm not terribly militant, but i'm not a doormat either. the difference is that i'm contesting for the idenity of religious groups as well as secular ones. it seems to make a pretty strong difference in how i get perceived. i carry a pretty traditional religious language, one that i think makes much more sense for those who are familiar with conservative protestant groups. i try to translate a bit when i know i'm talking to a broader audience, but there are a few quirks that i think end up being stumbling blocks in the process.

The allusion to racism is a strong one on this issue. Cyn, do you support the actions of the civil rights movement of the US? Was King too confrontational? Does putting racism in the language of sin create intolerance? or is Carver more to your taste?

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Cynthetiq

roachboy,

first as a trump card no... as an "Am I off base in my thinking and can you provide some insight to help me understand better how this other person may or may not be thinking"

My example of Singapore reflects how I watched 3 dominant cultures work together as best as they can, Chinese, Hindu, and Malay cultures, along with Indonesians, Filipinos, and Expatriates of Europe and America. Chinese have very strong beliefs of not intermarrying as do Hindus, and older generations also are sepratist in nature mingling with only their culture. I do not profess any more than my experience of observation, not as an anthropologist but as a human being.

Again, you may wish to judge people. I do not. I wish to live my life as I do, looking at others and seeing if their actions match my own and if I should or should not incorporate such activities or beliefs into my own life.

I do not understand how you all cannot see that I WISH NOT TO JUDGE SOMEONE'S ACTIONS. I may not like them I may not subscribe to their ideology but I have to accept that they have the freedom to believe and act accordingly.

martin: No I did not selectively explain it. I printed the thread and handed it to them. When I see another friend of a lesbian activist group, I will hand it to her as well.

Queers should be as safe as anyone else or any other individual. I make no special cases or dispensation for and group or sect than I do anyone else walking freely about the city or countryside. Any physical attack is not acceptable. Whatever the motivation behind it is irrellavent to me, it may be relavent to you and your agenda, but in my case the physical attack is unacceptable on it's face. The motive behind it to me is immaterial.

Will silence keep you safe? I don't know. Will your being "in your face" of someone who is equally vehement on their will and way keep you safe? I don't know that either.

I obviously believe in free speech and free expression. Which is why say that these fundamentalist groups are equally free to do as they please so long as it is withing the guidelines of the US Constitution and the US legal system. Again, you are free to picket, stand on a soapbox and decry their actions. You are free to judge them, I choose to abstain from judging as I don't feel it's my place to judge them. I do not like their actions and I will not emulate or assimilate those actions into my own values, lifestyle, or belief system.

Civil Rights leaders I have not a single issue with them. King led peaceful protests and acknowledged that the oppostion were not going to change their minds.

Religious social leaders that use intimidation tactics like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not accpetable to me. The also preach tolerance via intolerance. Again, I make no judgement on them, but I do not accept their belief as something I need to assimilate into my own.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

thanks for the clarification.
in this case, i take your use of the notion of tolerance to be quite particular to yourself. i disagree with your arguments. but in the end, this is a messageboard and noting the disagreement seems about as far as one can really go. if you were the parent sending your kid to one of these re-education camps, then maybe things would go differently, but you aren't so there we are.

doffing my inordinately large feathered hat, i deliver a sweeping bow and am now out the door.....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

martinguerre

I agree. The problem is that we know the record of silence. It's terrible. As a New Yorker, i'm sure you're familiar with the events of Stonewall. Until that night, police in NYC had every expectation that it was their right and duty to apply violence to queer communities unless (and even if) they paid cops off. You may see my actions as being in people's faces, but there's a reason i'm doing this. it's because i know the terrible price of remaining silent.

I think you misread King greatly. He had every expecation that the opposition would change. Read Letters from the Birmingham Jail, or any of his other works. He studied the ways of Ghandi, who's Soulforce practices were intended to create dramatic disruption of the discourse of oppressive power. It was intended to force the opposition to recognize them as humans, and to change not just policy, but thought as well. Ghandi's famous quote "We want the British to leave India. And we want them to leave as friends" I think says it all. He had to change the entire policy of a imperial power in the middle of WWII and the aftermath, and did so with the goal of building a new relationship of equals. King's protests weren't just about marching until policies changed...they were about creating empathy among apatheic bystanders and even among staunch opponents. That's the same philosophy of non-violent confrontation that i'm trying to work with in my advocacy.

But i'll leave things at that...

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

sashime76

So, what do they do with preachers / nuns that committed molestation? Covering up and paying money??

The.Lunatic

I don't think nuns are much of a problem however priests are. Women aren't notoriously sexual predators.

Who enters a profession knowing full well you won't be able to take a wife...

Its a problem. It has no easy solution. It has roots in theism (ie for many people the church is infallible)

//edit in reply to orginal poster sorry for hi-jack

It's sad that people use the name of god to tell someone how they feel is wrong/immoral/perverted and can't be practiced or your soul is toast. Then again who am i to argue with the bible's claim that it is a sin and maybe just maybe (very unlikley) its true.

__________________
Proud memeber of the Insomniac Club.

JoseFlanders

hmm