Yesterday, a US District Court judge ruled that an evangelist could hand out bibles at a gay pride festival to be held in Minneapolis' Loring Park (from the StarTribune):
"U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim ruled that the First Amendment gives Brian Johnson the right to evangelize there as long as he's not disruptive."
When I was a young man, including when I was a boy, my parents told me of their opinion of homosexuality, which was always focused on the conduct of men, never women. Their opinion of homosexuality ranged from considering it mental deviance to perversion. The US society around them reflected these opinions. When I joined the US Army, the attitude at the time was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. For a time (iirc), the medical community even agreed, though this position changed in the early 70's, yet the Army's position persisted for years afterward.
When I was a younger man, I was contemptuous toward gays (privately). It is not something which I am glad I did. It was wrong, and I am sorry.
So, last night I sat down to have a "Juicy Lucy" for the first time in my life at the place voted to have the best such hamburger in Minneapolis, Matt's Bar. While sitting there, a group of three African-Americans sat down at the table next to me and began discussing the above story. The comments of the three are paraphrased below:
"I want to go down there and tell them that scripture doesn't allow for their conduct, that they are sinners."
"Yeah, it seems as if you are principled, you won't accept this behavior."
"We discussed homosexuality in a class I had, and only I and one other person objected to it, and as could be expected, only that other old, black lady and I were the ones who went to church."
"It's hard to be a principled person in today's world, 'tolerance' means accepting sin. They say we should accept (in an effeminate voice) 'Itths's not a choithe."
"I remember when they used to beat gays, that kept them in the background, perhaps some of the old attitudes were best."
I was tempted to turn around and say, "I remember when they used to lynch blacks AND whites who supported their rights, too." I didn't, it would have been wrong.
Yet, I don't want to be quite so dismissive of their attitudes, clearly these folks feel strongly about both 'scripture' and their revulsion/disgust about homosexuality. So instead, I ask them (and readers) to consider a few things.
My brother has a master's degree in genetics, Genetic Counseling if I recall, and he tells me there are genetic markers which can be pointed to as high indicators for homosexuality. There are, for example, physical pointers, like the length of the third finger.
A movie I watched, "For the Bible Tells Me So." went further, discussing the far higher tendency in males who are the third and fourth (and later) male child of a mother to be homosexual - a fact they theorize relates to the rejection by the mother's body of a male dominant gene in her blood-stream, compensated for by higher presences of estrogen.
The video also presented stories from dozens of lesbians and gays about their lives growing up. One of the most poignant was the story of a woman who professed to her mother she was lesbian while in college, and her mother, like most mothers of my mothers generation, was initially aghast, hurt, and rejected her daughter. They spent a couple of years apart, never speaking. Finally, her mother sent a letter to her daughter seeking forgiveness and accepting her daughter for who she was. She never received a reply and six months later, she was called by the police to find out her daughter had hanged herself over her rejection, over her anguish at being shunned and cast aside by a society which could not bring itself to accept her as she was. She caused no one harm, she caused no one to do something which they did not desire to do. She was attracted to women more than men, and she had been cast aside by her family. Her suicide note to her mother was filled with hurt and hate toward her mother's conduct, but mostly it was filled with despair that this world would tell her she had no place in it as the person she needed to be, but was not allowed to be. Her mother, as can be understood, was devastated, and wishes every day that she could go back and undo the harm she did to her little baby girl, who needed so much to be loved by her mother when the world around her turned against her.
The film included Gene Robinson, the first gay Bishop ordained by the Episcopal Church, and Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter who happens to be lesbian. Both talked about supportive, church going families. Surprisingly, Dick and Lynne Cheney were probably MORE accepting than Gene Robinson's parents, but both were in-fact quite supportive. Both Robinson parents talked about how Gene was simply 'different' than the rest of their other children and the children around them. Mary Cheney reflected much the same life story, as did EVERY OTHER story in the video, and every other story I know of from gays and lesbian friends. They started showing interests which were quite different from 'the norm' at a young age. Their "choice" had been made, it seems, at conception/in gestation - it wasn't a choice of sexual perversion, it wasn't a reflection of mental defect unless you think such defect manifested itself at the age of 5 and younger. Further, since gays and lesbians are in all other ways entirely normal from a mental health standpoint, what deviant manifestation other than sexual attraction to the same sex, would you point to as reflecting the illness? This is in large part why the mental health community long ago stopped defining homosexuality or lesbianism as a mental disorder.
But, one thing I will call a disorder, is manifest hatred for that which is different simply because it is not understood. The fact someone is gay or lesbian has lead to massive, painful and abiding persecution and discrimination. As someone in the video said, "If you think this is a choice, you are suggesting we have made a choice to be hurt, lonely, and shunned." If that is a choice, it's the most bleak, most tortuous choice anyone can make. It would be among the most stupid choices one could make, considering the risk of alienation from everyone you love.
And speaking of love, I was raised in the Catholic Church, where the word of Priests was not questioned, where their conduct wasn't either, and that helped lead to some pretty terrible truths coming out far too late to help the children harmed by Priestly misconduct. I suggest that in my faith, the Christian faith, any call to 'beat' gays back into the closet, or to try to convince them of the error of their sins, should be met with a reminder that Christ is, first and foremost, the embodiment of LOVE. Is it love to drive people into silent misery? Would Christ have been right to shun the Samaritan? Our Bible DOES in fact say that homosexuality is a sin, but it also says wearing clothing of two fabrics is a sin, it says sewing a field with two crops is a sin. The laws against homosexuality in Leviticus have more to do with how you present yourself in the direct presence of God in temple Jerusalem as a clean person than it has to do with an abiding condemnation. Further, Christ satisfied the first covenant, his book is the New Covenant, in which there is ONE passage about homosexuality, a passing rebuke, without the harshness of Leviticus. By contrast there are hundreds of passages condemning greed, condemning wealth and excesses of power, both of the Church, and of men with wealth wielding that power. When someone wants to hand out a Bible, I want to turn the page for them to the lesson of the Samaritan, the lesson that says "love thy neighbor as thyself", and foremost to ask them, "Where is your condemnation of usury, when have you gone to Wall Street and handed out Bibles?" I'd love to see a video asking Mary Cheney about how she copes with her father being a corporate shark, seeking profits before compassion :)?
I agree with the Court that this man has the Constitutional right to speak at a public facility. I will be glad to see that same right enforced when Sarah Palin speaks at a public university. I am glad he is being assured of his rights. I can even agree the Bible (New Testament) says homosexuality is a sin, but I wonder how committed anyone is to love who preaches intolerance based on one passage, yet appears to have little regard for the consequences of unbridled greed.
I wonder if this man's desire is to save or whether it is to silence. I am certain, however, that he is proud enough of his own piety that he feels confident beating his chest and proclaiming his righteousness. (With thanks to my friend ToE) The parade of pride, it seems to me, has started with the throwing of a stone.
"U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim ruled that the First Amendment gives Brian Johnson the right to evangelize there as long as he's not disruptive."
When I was a young man, including when I was a boy, my parents told me of their opinion of homosexuality, which was always focused on the conduct of men, never women. Their opinion of homosexuality ranged from considering it mental deviance to perversion. The US society around them reflected these opinions. When I joined the US Army, the attitude at the time was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. For a time (iirc), the medical community even agreed, though this position changed in the early 70's, yet the Army's position persisted for years afterward.
When I was a younger man, I was contemptuous toward gays (privately). It is not something which I am glad I did. It was wrong, and I am sorry.
So, last night I sat down to have a "Juicy Lucy" for the first time in my life at the place voted to have the best such hamburger in Minneapolis, Matt's Bar. While sitting there, a group of three African-Americans sat down at the table next to me and began discussing the above story. The comments of the three are paraphrased below:
"I want to go down there and tell them that scripture doesn't allow for their conduct, that they are sinners."
"Yeah, it seems as if you are principled, you won't accept this behavior."
"We discussed homosexuality in a class I had, and only I and one other person objected to it, and as could be expected, only that other old, black lady and I were the ones who went to church."
"It's hard to be a principled person in today's world, 'tolerance' means accepting sin. They say we should accept (in an effeminate voice) 'Itths's not a choithe."
"I remember when they used to beat gays, that kept them in the background, perhaps some of the old attitudes were best."
I was tempted to turn around and say, "I remember when they used to lynch blacks AND whites who supported their rights, too." I didn't, it would have been wrong.
Yet, I don't want to be quite so dismissive of their attitudes, clearly these folks feel strongly about both 'scripture' and their revulsion/disgust about homosexuality. So instead, I ask them (and readers) to consider a few things.
My brother has a master's degree in genetics, Genetic Counseling if I recall, and he tells me there are genetic markers which can be pointed to as high indicators for homosexuality. There are, for example, physical pointers, like the length of the third finger.
A movie I watched, "For the Bible Tells Me So." went further, discussing the far higher tendency in males who are the third and fourth (and later) male child of a mother to be homosexual - a fact they theorize relates to the rejection by the mother's body of a male dominant gene in her blood-stream, compensated for by higher presences of estrogen.
The video also presented stories from dozens of lesbians and gays about their lives growing up. One of the most poignant was the story of a woman who professed to her mother she was lesbian while in college, and her mother, like most mothers of my mothers generation, was initially aghast, hurt, and rejected her daughter. They spent a couple of years apart, never speaking. Finally, her mother sent a letter to her daughter seeking forgiveness and accepting her daughter for who she was. She never received a reply and six months later, she was called by the police to find out her daughter had hanged herself over her rejection, over her anguish at being shunned and cast aside by a society which could not bring itself to accept her as she was. She caused no one harm, she caused no one to do something which they did not desire to do. She was attracted to women more than men, and she had been cast aside by her family. Her suicide note to her mother was filled with hurt and hate toward her mother's conduct, but mostly it was filled with despair that this world would tell her she had no place in it as the person she needed to be, but was not allowed to be. Her mother, as can be understood, was devastated, and wishes every day that she could go back and undo the harm she did to her little baby girl, who needed so much to be loved by her mother when the world around her turned against her.
The film included Gene Robinson, the first gay Bishop ordained by the Episcopal Church, and Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter who happens to be lesbian. Both talked about supportive, church going families. Surprisingly, Dick and Lynne Cheney were probably MORE accepting than Gene Robinson's parents, but both were in-fact quite supportive. Both Robinson parents talked about how Gene was simply 'different' than the rest of their other children and the children around them. Mary Cheney reflected much the same life story, as did EVERY OTHER story in the video, and every other story I know of from gays and lesbian friends. They started showing interests which were quite different from 'the norm' at a young age. Their "choice" had been made, it seems, at conception/in gestation - it wasn't a choice of sexual perversion, it wasn't a reflection of mental defect unless you think such defect manifested itself at the age of 5 and younger. Further, since gays and lesbians are in all other ways entirely normal from a mental health standpoint, what deviant manifestation other than sexual attraction to the same sex, would you point to as reflecting the illness? This is in large part why the mental health community long ago stopped defining homosexuality or lesbianism as a mental disorder.
But, one thing I will call a disorder, is manifest hatred for that which is different simply because it is not understood. The fact someone is gay or lesbian has lead to massive, painful and abiding persecution and discrimination. As someone in the video said, "If you think this is a choice, you are suggesting we have made a choice to be hurt, lonely, and shunned." If that is a choice, it's the most bleak, most tortuous choice anyone can make. It would be among the most stupid choices one could make, considering the risk of alienation from everyone you love.
And speaking of love, I was raised in the Catholic Church, where the word of Priests was not questioned, where their conduct wasn't either, and that helped lead to some pretty terrible truths coming out far too late to help the children harmed by Priestly misconduct. I suggest that in my faith, the Christian faith, any call to 'beat' gays back into the closet, or to try to convince them of the error of their sins, should be met with a reminder that Christ is, first and foremost, the embodiment of LOVE. Is it love to drive people into silent misery? Would Christ have been right to shun the Samaritan? Our Bible DOES in fact say that homosexuality is a sin, but it also says wearing clothing of two fabrics is a sin, it says sewing a field with two crops is a sin. The laws against homosexuality in Leviticus have more to do with how you present yourself in the direct presence of God in temple Jerusalem as a clean person than it has to do with an abiding condemnation. Further, Christ satisfied the first covenant, his book is the New Covenant, in which there is ONE passage about homosexuality, a passing rebuke, without the harshness of Leviticus. By contrast there are hundreds of passages condemning greed, condemning wealth and excesses of power, both of the Church, and of men with wealth wielding that power. When someone wants to hand out a Bible, I want to turn the page for them to the lesson of the Samaritan, the lesson that says "love thy neighbor as thyself", and foremost to ask them, "Where is your condemnation of usury, when have you gone to Wall Street and handed out Bibles?" I'd love to see a video asking Mary Cheney about how she copes with her father being a corporate shark, seeking profits before compassion :)?
I agree with the Court that this man has the Constitutional right to speak at a public facility. I will be glad to see that same right enforced when Sarah Palin speaks at a public university. I am glad he is being assured of his rights. I can even agree the Bible (New Testament) says homosexuality is a sin, but I wonder how committed anyone is to love who preaches intolerance based on one passage, yet appears to have little regard for the consequences of unbridled greed.
I wonder if this man's desire is to save or whether it is to silence. I am certain, however, that he is proud enough of his own piety that he feels confident beating his chest and proclaiming his righteousness. (With thanks to my friend ToE) The parade of pride, it seems to me, has started with the throwing of a stone.
I have a friend who is black who would be outraged if someone used the word nigger in his presence; his wife is jewish, he would hear an anti-semitic expression in his presence.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't see the similarity though when he uses vulgar slang terms like 'poo-packer' about gays, or 'muncher' for lesbians.
Objections to his language are met with protestations that he is not homophobic, that he is just expressing his visceral reaction to the expression of same sex affection and sexuality. It is exactly like the protestations I have heard by those who make disparaging remarks about race or ethnicity ir religion, with or without the vulgarities, that they are not racists, they are not prejudiced.
No one ever seems to acknowledge willingly their own objectionable attitudes.
My friend insists that he is not a bigot, on the basis that he doesn't agree with violence towards gays and lesbians, only mocking them and being repulsed by them. Predictably, like the focus you report, he is far more offended by male same-sex attraction and behavior, while female same-sex relations are sometimes offensive, sometimes a sexual turn on - but still ridiculed.
I am disappointed he doesn't see the similarities in how bias is expressed verbally, or the foundation of those attitudes and language to launch violence.
sorry - a few words were dropped - it should read my friend would be outraged if he heard an anti-semitic phrase.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible deals with homosexuality in several different places. However, before we start deciding that the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, condemns homosexuality, let's actually see what the Bible says about it. In Genesis 19:4-11 we have the story of the Angels of the Lord sent to Lot to determine if there was any hope for Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, in keeping with the traditions of safety and hospitality for his guests, refuses to allow the mob outside to rape the two male angels, instead offering his virgin daughters. An uncomfortable picture? Indeed.
ReplyDeleteLeviticus 18:22 is more specific. It says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestible." While this is pretty clear, its also clear that the same chapter forbids pork and a lot of other things that Christians do not consider sinful in the 21st century. When asking why, most Christians will say that its because Christ established a new covenant, which did away with such restrictions. Yet, do we get to pick and choose? If He truly established a new covenant, and gave us a "pass" on committing some of the Old Testament sins, why some and not the others?
One possible consideration is that the early church had a dilemma. They needed to reach out to the gentiles, as it was the Apostle Paul's belief that Christ's message was intended for all of God's children, Jew and Gentile alike. Others, including Peter, initially believed that to become a Christian, one first had to convert to Judaism... for Gentile men, that involved circumcision, (ouch), and dietary restrictions which were unpopular. There are some who argue, quite convincingly, that decision to do away with some restrictions was mostly a marketing tool.
Romans 1:26-27 seems to condemn homosexuality, but, while stating that there were men lusting after men, and that this was wrong, in Romans 2:1 Paul takes us to task for that, pointing out what we already know from Christ's teaching in John 8:3-9, where Christ's famous words are uttered, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
The point is, those who use a religious point to argue against homosexuality usually are arguing from a hypocritical point of view, as they are often (not always) guilty of several lifestyle sins and choose to ignore that sin.
I am not saying that I approve of the homosexual lifestyle, but I also believe that to condemn a person for it is questionable until one is so pure that the person condemning is without sin. We know that isn't possible, so its best to leave well enough alove.