Skip to main content

View Diary: Christian War On TX Gays Sustains Collateral Damage: Cops, Fireman (304 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Um.... Brown didn't write your diary title. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I appreciate that you can't know the degree to which I have fought for LGBT civil rights over the past several decades.

    I also appreciate your skill with the English language. You could have qualified the word "Christian" with "Right", as you did in your 1st sentence, and avoided the splashy, broad-brush title, but you chose not to.

    As someone familiar with your writing, and someone who has stood up for LGBT rights even in the face of taunts and threats of violence, I was stung by your choice, and I continue to ask what positive effect you hope to have here -- not in Texas -- by employing it. That's all.

    •  Well, to be honest (13+ / 0-)

      I wrote the headline several times, and settled on the one that fit the column space in the "Recent Diaries" column and didn't abbreviated out (...) important info.

      I think I made my point clear, and other people caught my nuance just fine and ran with it.

      I am sorry my diary is too nuanced for you and you didn't have the opportunity to write a headline that met with your approval.

      "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives."--Senator Kenneth Wherry, 1950.

      by Scott Wooledge on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 09:25:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I appreciate your being an ally of LGBT people .. (16+ / 0-)

      but .. maybe the sting is good to feel?

      Christian religion is involved so often in attacks on gay human rights in this country that jpmassar is right.  

      Why must we, the people who are actually subject to the discrimination, continue to walk on eggshells, in order to cater to some people's sense of propriety and contrived offense about their religion?

      Though I am sure many will.  Is it your job to get offended on behalf of a criticism of religion -- is that part of the discipline of being a Christian -- or is it to overturn the moneychanger's tables and to love the people your religion oppresses?  Is this turning the other cheek?  That's what I respect about your beliefs -- not this, what you're doing, right now.

      I have no animosity to Christians "just 'cause" but the continual ritual of taking of offense on behalf of the entire religion gets old.  Particularly when a particular criticism is for the most part accurate.

      I'm just saying -- as an atheist, Christians get respect from me when they act like Jesus commanded.

      •  See Indiemcemopants recent diary on this (13+ / 0-)

        He wrote a nice piece on the perception problem of LGBT's by many Christians because of the long, relentless war many "Christians" have waged on LGBT's. Such people are more Pauline than Christian and are diametrically opposed to Christ's message of love and tolerance.

        "So it was OK to waterboard a guy over 80 times but God forbid the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend."--Jon Stewart

        by craigkg on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 09:37:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ding ding ding!!! we have a winner: (0+ / 0-)

          Such people are more Pauline than Christian and are diametrically opposed to Christ's message of love and tolerance.

          surely, this christian that's also gay isn't one of those "paulines"...that's why i either like to see the air quote around the word "christian" or a modifier like "fundamentalist".

          otherwise? yeah. it pretty much IS ME being talked about...along with a whole bunch of people that actually deserve the castigation.

          "we don't get ourselves dry cleaned." ~ barney frank, in response to the twit asking him about teh ebil gay military showers

          by liberaldemdave on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 04:15:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I was just chatting with a friend (7+ / 0-)

        maybe the sting is good to feel?

        We were discussing the controversy about the NYC Health Dept's new HIV campaign. I admitted, they stung when I first saw them, and yes, I see critic's point they are a little stigmatizing. But HIV has lost it's stigma. The sting may be exactly what's needed.

        That Larry Kramer, who successfully led us out of the last AIDS crisis likes them is another recommend in my mind.

        "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives."--Senator Kenneth Wherry, 1950.

        by Scott Wooledge on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 09:42:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OOOPS (12+ / 0-)

          But HIV has lost it's stigma.

          Big oops, didn't mean to imply there should be a STIGMA associated with HIV.

          But the opposite has sort of taken place. Many young gay people see HIV infection as not a big deal at all, unfortunately. As someone who lived through the first horror, I can't believe they are so complacent.

          "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives."--Senator Kenneth Wherry, 1950.

          by Scott Wooledge on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 09:46:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not to worry, Clark (11+ / 0-)

            As you know, I'm poz, and I didn't take what you said the wrong way.  The NYC Health Department's campaign is right on the money, in fact.  I'm one of those lucky enough to have good insurance and good medical care, and I'm "doing well" in managing my HIV.  But HIV has brought with it a bunch of other health problems that most people don't even think about.

            HIV certainly hasn't lost its stigma, because what I call AIDS-phobia is still very much alive.  But what has been lost is the sense of alarm that caused gay men to change their behavior back in the 80s and early 90s.  I don't know whether that level of panic can be maintained indefinitely, and I question its value as the foundation of a public health strategy.  Nevertheless, people need to be made fully aware of ALL the risks they are taking by leaving themselves vulnerable to HIV infection.  Trust me, even with good treatment, this disease is a fucking bitch.  

            Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

            by FogCityJohn on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 11:05:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Bigotry is bigotry. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I guess I fail to see the benefit of feeling the sting of bigotry and hypocrisy.

        •  I'm the bigot now? I'm the hypocrite? (15+ / 0-)

          JP made an excellent observation, is it fair to call Iraq an "American" war when the vast majority of Americans did not participate in it?

          You didn't respond.

          "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives."--Senator Kenneth Wherry, 1950.

          by Scott Wooledge on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 10:22:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This entire discussion (at least with you) is (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor, kimoconnor, bythesea, Clarknt67

          about Christianity.

          Does not your religion teach "turn the other cheek"?

          Is it your job, or the job of other Christians on Daily Kos, I ask again, as a Christian, to mount an apologia on behalf of Christianity or "some Christians" in every instance when some people who describe themselves as Christians do bad things and people accurately point that out?

          Look man I get that you're hurt about this.  I don't know you so I don't know if this is just some way of acting hurt or if you genuinely feel that way.

          But if people say they are Christians, I sort of expect them to act like what I was taught when people tried to turn me into a Christian as a young lad, what I was taught Christians are supposed to BE.

          And being hurt because someone says something accurate with no intent to tar a whole group of people isn't in it.  All people are imperfect -- but this objection you mount, I point out, is in no way part of Christian discipline as I understand it.

          Moreover, even without respect to Christianity per se, do you NOT see the value in feeling the sting of the oppressed?  How can you not?  How can you feel what we feel without walking a mile in our shoes?

          •  The thing is, Andy, "turn the other cheek" (4+ / 0-)

            doesn't mean what you (and most people) think it means. As Jesus used the phrase (demonstrated by all of the other examples he used in that famous section of Matthew's Gospel), he didn't mean it in the sense of "Meekly accept even physical abuse when it is offered." Rather, he meant it in the sense of "Refuse to return evil for evil and do not allow yourself to be dismissed as insignificant."

            I can explain in more detail, but gotta run take an important meeting.

            •  Yeah, I've heard that. Good point. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, Bionic, Predictor

              But who is the one doing the evil here?

              Here's one point if I may be allowed to expand further.

              We are not the oppressors here.  And for some of us, it's been a life long journey to NOT generalize and hate all Christians.  Because it is true that many LGBT people are persecuted on the grounds of Christianity and this is neither an isolated event nor immune to the usual proscriptions against wild generalization.

              It's not a wild generalization in other words to say that "Christians" have spent much time demonizing and attacking gays.

              And even if it was a wild generalization, it's not a wild generalization without cause.  Day after day, month after month, year after year, we hear tales of people attacking, killing, demanding to be killed, hating, beating, denying jobs and destroying gay people and the rationalization is Christianity in general.

              And those people want FAIRNESS?!  How dare they?  They surrender the right to fairness by what their brethren DO.

              THERE IS NO FAIRNESS.  NOT FOR US.  We are destroyed -- our lives, our careers, sometimes our very corporeal beings -- are destroyed without cause by people who claim to be Christian.  This is not an era in which anyone who claims to be a Christian is thrown to the lions.

              And these people are mewling about a DIARY TITLE?

              Come on.  I never said Christians should be abused.  Physically or otherwise.  And whether or not the phrase "turn the other cheek" had anything to do with meekness or physical abuse, there are other statements in the christian pantheon that do lead to exactly that conclusion -- such as the meek inheriting the earth.

              So those Christians who do this -- not you -- need to jump off that cross, because it's not just someone else who needs the wood -- WE NEED THE WOOD.

              Our being hunted, killed and demonized by Christians in other words stacks up a little more than a diary title and a few people who fairly have bad feelings about a group of people because of nasty and persistent actions on their part.

              I have spent a lifelong journey learning not to resent Christians for what is actually a totally fair generalization.  It's why I have Christian friends and I would not abandon that journey for anything.

              But I am not bound by those rules.  If one chooses to be a Christian, one takes on certain obligations -- and taking gratuitous, self-aggrandizing umbrage on behalf of an idea which cannot be "hurt" (because it is not a corporeal being) is not one of them as I understand it.

              •  The ones doing the evil (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AndyS In Colorado, Predictor

                Are the ones twisting the Word of God into something it is not, and worshiping a hate-filled idol of their own construction--while trying to pass it off as authentic Christianity.

                The thing is, it's important to maintain the distinction between the Christianists (like the pastor in this diary) and the actual Christians. I know you and Clark understand that distinction, but there are plenty who don't.

                I don't have a problem with Clark's title as it now stands--because I know him and I know how he meant it. I can also understand raincrow's objections to it. The casual reader of this article doesn't have access to the backstory that you and I do, and in a hundred years from now when we're all gathering dust or going back to it, all that will remain will be the words.

                That said, raincrow should have made his objection politely and then left it at that. He went way overboard, and that's sad.

                •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85, AndyS In Colorado

                  The casual reader of this article doesn't have access to the backstory that you and I do, and in a hundred years from now when we're all gathering dust or going back to it, all that will remain will be the words.

                  I mostly write with a presumption that my readership if they are not familiar with me, are at least on the same page.

                  One person upthread said, "But if you only read the headline..."

                  An objection I could not possibly care less about.

                  If I can take the time to craft 1,000 words as carefully as I do, I certainly think it's reasonable to ask people to read the whole piece before they get out the pitchforks and knives.

                  "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives."--Senator Kenneth Wherry, 1950.

                  by Scott Wooledge on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 05:31:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Anybody who just looks at the headline (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AndyS In Colorado, Clarknt67

                    will miss the point. It's clear from the rest of the diary that you're painting with a brush of the appropriate size. That's what's important.

                    I can understand why raincrow would have concerns about the title, but I also think those concerns are misplaced. Your prose is only susceptible to misconstruction if someone reads all and only the headline--and if they do that, then any criticisms they might level wouldn't be worth the electrons they recycle to produce or disseminate them. I s'pose it might in theory turn off a few people such that they wouldn't click through--but if that's the case, chances are probably pretty good that you wouldn't have been able to reach them even with the other thousand words.

                    No pitchforks or knives from me!

      •  why should christian supporters of equality (0+ / 0-)

        be made to feel a sting? i really don't get it. it seems like a kind of immature use of a scapegoat since a truly sting-worthy christian is not at hand.

        but i've said enough by now. i rec the diary and should stay focused on the story.

        "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky." -Abraham Lincoln

        by jethropalerobber on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 01:49:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site