Confronting Familial Bigotry

Over at Daily Kos, author Clarknt67 has posted a diary titled "Homophobia Is Wrecking My Holidays".  He describes the issue he faces every time his partner, Paul, goes to his parents' house for a special occasion.  Clark notes that while Paul is out at work and socially at his medical school,

... when it comes to his family, there is no such pass.

Paul's parents have never accepted his homosexuality with any comfort. They are both Chinese and Catholic, two demographics that individually struggle with the subject. Together I'm sure the shame they feel is formidable.

Paul made real efforts to help them when he came out over a decade ago. He's suggested PFLAG, they won't go. He's introduced them to his friends, they are polite, but suggest he needs to find "better friends." He's tried to involve them with his own GLBT activism, they aren't interested in hearing about it. They continue to suggest he find the right woman, and, after ten years, continue to make attempts to set him up.

Unfortunately, this experience is all too common for LGBT individuals.  Most couples expect to have arguments over "your parents or mine" at holiday time, but straight couples don't have to worry about one partner not being allowed in the house (most of the time.  There are always exceptions to the rule.)  While reading about this situation is upsetting, it is also comforting in a "misery loves company" way because I have been experiencing a similar situation myself. 

When I came out to my evangelical Christian parents (approx 10 years ago--1998-ish),  it was not an easy time.  In addition to them asking me to step down from lay-leadership duties I performed in their church, I also heard remarks like:

• "Robert and Henry don't feel the same way about marriage as your Dad and I do."
• "I have three daughters and one son. I don't need him acting like another girl."
• "If you try flaming around me, I'll "GLAD"ly set you on fire."
• "I believe same-sex desires are natural in some people, just as left-handedness, brown eyes, diabetes, or alcoholism are. What one chooses to do about the situation is just that: a choice. Does one marry a "beard," tie the "wrong" hand behind one's back, wear colored contacts, use insulin, or abstain from alcohol? Think about it: ALL of those choices are painful to one degree orr another, and some are more effective than others."
• various Biblical references that are familiar to most LGBT people with Christian backgrounds, namely Leviticus 18:20 and Leviticus 20:12, among others.   

 As time went on, we kind of settled into a "Don't ask, Don't Tell" situation; we would talk about everything but the 'Pink Elephant'.  Fast Forward ten years.  By this point, I have been living in another state for most, if not all, of that 10 years.  I called them periodically, but we never really talked about my relationships, past or current.  There would be a passing mention of my partner from time to time, but mostly my experience is very similar to Paul's above. 

Due to reactions like those above, I am currently not speaking to anyone in my family except for one of my sisters who is supportive.  The question is, how do we make people see that these aren't "politically incorrect jokes made between people who are comfortable with each other's differences"? 
Share

Accident on Market Street: Did the Prosperity Gospel cause the crash?

In the December 2009 issue of Atlantic magazine, there is an article titled "Did Christianity cause the crash?"  I think it would be more accurate to ask "Did the Prosperity Gospel cause the crash?"  The article's abstract is below:

America’s mainstream religious denominations used to teach the faithful that they would be rewarded in the afterlife. But over the past generation, a different strain of Christian faith has proliferated—one that promises to make believers rich in the here and now. Known as the prosperity gospel, and claiming tens of millions of adherents, it fosters risk-taking and intense material optimism. It pumped air into the housing bubble. And one year into the worst downturn since the Depression, it’s still going strong

What is the prosperity gospel?  According to wikipedia:

Prosperity theology (also known as prosperity doctrine, health and wealth, prosperity gospel) is a religious belief centered on the notion that God provides material prosperity for those he favors.[1] It implies both that people who are favored by God will be materially successful, and also that materially successful people are successful because God favored them. The prosperity gospel is often used by its promoters to elicit donations, on the premise that donations will be materially repaid and rewarded through divine intervention.

However it is termed the concept is an interesting one.  I think the premise is a "chicken or egg" question.  A case could be made for predatory lenders taking advantage of pastors and congregations preaching this concept, but a case could be made that belief in the prosperity gospel led people to take extreme risks because "God will give it to us."

I tend to think that these issues heterodyned, each contributing some to the overall collapse.  While the prosperity believers were taking bigger risks than was perhaps warranted, cynical financial intent on lining their pockets saw a market ripe for the picking, unquestioning lambs for the slaughter.
Share

Sunday Drive: Let's go to David's house

Now that we've seen refutations of the "Clobber Passage" texts, let's look at some affirming passages:

King David and Jonathan


David and Jonathan’s relationship is often described as a deep, platonic friendship. However, I have a different interpretation of this story.

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

The terminology used here—“the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David and Jonathan loved him as his own soul”—and the description of the behavior (stripping down and giving all of his clothing and weapons, and even his belt to David) does not sound like just platonic love in my book. A prince’s clothing and weapons were important symbols of his status. Imagine the passage if David had been a woman:

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of Eve, and Jonathan loved her as his own soul. And Saul took her that day, and would let her go no more home to her father's house. Then Jonathan and Eve made a covenant, because he loved her as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to Eve, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

Had David been female, no one would question that Jonathan loved her, and their story would be celebrated as a great love. Since David was male, cultural censorship kicks in and the relationship is sanitized to ‘deep platonic friendship’.

Later, when he learns Jonathan was killed David says

“I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

Again, that doesn’t sound like they were ‘just friends.’

Share

The Politics of "Charity."

Via Father Geoff Farrow:

The Politics of "Charity.":

"Non-profit charitable organizations are granted tax-exempt status by the people
of America through our elected government. The reason for granting charitable
organizations tax-exempt status is so that they can use those funds to provide
charitable services. To feed the hungry, cloth the naked, house the poor, heal
the sick and provide for education.

When charitable institutions
willfully abandon charitable activities, our government should reexamine their
tax-exempt status. Taxes should be imposed on those institutions and the funds
collected should, then be used to help the needy. This may be done through
governmental social service agencies, or other legitimate non-profit charitable
organizations. In this way, the poor, homeless, sick and needy will not be left
without help. Those who are in greatest need, who have nowhere else to turn,
should not be used as bargaining chips by non profit organizations. Non profit
organizations which are financially subsidized (through tax-exempt status) by
the people of this nation. It is an immoral offense against the needy to hold
them as hostages. It constitutes a violation of the public’s trust and a sin
against the God who these institutions claim to serve. Incredibly, this is what
is happening in Michigan
and in Washington,
DC.

No religious group is required to grant religious marriage to
anyone. The Catholic Church does not grant religious marriage to people who are
divorced and wish to remarry (unless they are granted an annulment by the
Church). Society; however, does grant anyone who has divorced the right to a new
civil marriage. Likewise, no religious group will be required to grant a same
sex couple a religious marriage; however, civil marriage is now granted to same
sex couples by various nations and some U.S. states. It is no more the business
of a religion to dictate to government what may constitute a civil marriage,
than it is for a government to dictate to a religion what may constitute a
religious marriage.

The late Ayatollah Khomeini called America “The
Great Satan.” He accused us of this because we are the first government on earth
NOT to have an established religion. The founding fathers learned, from the One
Hundred Years War in Europe and the religious persecutions both on the European
continent and in England, the stupidity of trying to impose a religion on a
nation. Sadly, religious fanatics will always attempt to do what God does not
do, they attempt to force others to accept their beliefs.

This has been
most recently illustrated in the immoral example of the Archdiocese of
Washington, DC. Archbishop Wuerl has issued a de facto ultimatum to the
government. He threatens a suspension of charitable services to the homeless
unless his demands are met. His demands!? My dear Archbishop, the Papal States
became extinct in 1870. You are living in the United States of America and we
have elections in which the people select who will govern. Neither you,
Archbishop nor your superior were elected to conduct our civil government. "

Share

Lou Engle’s TheCall Going To Uganda in 2010?

Jim over at Box Turtle Bulletin has an article about Lou Engle's proposed trip to Uganda.

Uganda has been debating a law to criminalize homosexuality, and persecute GLBT individuals and their families, pastors, doctors etc. Reports have been surfacing that Uganda's president is NOT going to sign the bill into law, but it is still distressing to realize just how close it came. This law started partially due to the influence of various fundamentalist anti-gay American pastors, often from evangelical denominations. They convinced lawmakers over there that gay people were a threat to their families and children--resulting in the proposed law. While this law probably won't be passed, Lou Engle is one of the most virulently anti-whatever (not just gay issues, but womens issues, abortion, etc.) I have ever encountered. My partner Philip said that when he saw a video clip of Mr. Engle, it reminded him of the film clips of Adolf Hitler speaking.

Now Mr. Engle is making plans to have a rally in Uganda. Whether the specific policies he advocates for are Anti-gay or not, he does advocate for theocratic takeover of governments. It's disturbing enough in a country like America with its "Teabagger" movement, but when we start exporting this hatred and venom to other countries...we've got a major problem.

Share

Via CrooksAndLiars:


Share

How Barack Obama undermined the Obama presidency

Via Americablog:

How Barack Obama undermined the Obama presidency:

"NOTE FROM JOHN: Read this essay that Joe links to. I've not ready anything
so spot on about the President, and what makes him tick.

A post at Huffington
Post by Drew Westen, the political psychologist/neuroscientist, is sure to
cause a stir today. Westen has gained a reputation as one of those scholars as
an expert on political communication. His work in 2008 is often compared to what
George Lakoff did in 2004.

Today, Westen provides a brutal, but
accurate, assessment of the Obama presidency. It's worth a read. But have some
coffee first, but you'll see things you've thought yourself over the past few
months -- and you're going to be annoyed:

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and
progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the
likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people
to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners seem to
be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma,
the insurance industry). In fact, the president's leadership style, combined
with the Democratic Congress's penchant for making its sausage in public and
producing new and usually more tasteless recipes every day, has had a very high
toll far from the left: smack in the center of the political
spectrum.

What's costing the president and courting danger for Democrats
in 2010 isn't a question of left or right, because the president has
accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely
turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would
not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing
both.

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire
style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a
failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually
anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests
like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies
than he does about the people they are shafting.

The problem is not that
his record is being distorted. It's that all three have more than a grain of
truth. And I say this not as one of those pesky 'leftists.' I say this as
someone who has spent much of the last three years studying what moves voters in
the middle, the Undecideds who will hear whichever side speaks to them with
moral clarity.

I agree, as one of those pesky leftists.

How the Obama brain trust
(who are the smartest people in the world in case you didn't know) destroyed the
Obama brand of Hope and Change is going to be studied for years to come.
Ultimately, the fault lies with Obama, but he got a lot of help from Rahm
Emanuel and Jim Messina along the way.

Westen's analysis is painfully on
point.

I second John's recommendation that you read the entire article. Now, if we could just get Mr. Obama and his team to hear what they're saying, and take action.
Share