|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 9:20:40 GMT -5
nikita: But I am acquainted with Rushdoony's teachings already, and I know that he advocated state executions in his writing. I'm not really in a place where I can explain the significance of the Q. Anyone else, feel free to take it on. If not, will do from home. Okay, I understand then. It wasn't information that was apparent from what CAH wrote so your statement made no sense to me in context. If he said it elsewhere then that is a different matter. I think someone else (whose name escapes me right now, and I'd look for her name in the intro section if I had time today, but don't right now) has written here about how she and her family took these teachings seriously for all those years--and believed they should work toward state-sanctioned stonings of homosexuals, etc. But I've also read the quotes directly in the primary documents, as well as in journalistic discussions of the most severe teachings of Christian Reconstructionism.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 13, 2010 9:41:39 GMT -5
Okay, I understand then. It wasn't information that was apparent from what CAH wrote so your statement made no sense to me in context. If he said it elsewhere then that is a different matter. I think someone else (whose name escapes me right now, and I'd look for her name in the intro section if I had time today, but don't right now) has written here about how she and her family took these teachings seriously for all those years--and believed they should work toward state-sanctioned stonings of homosexuals, etc. But I've also read the quotes directly in the primary documents, as well as in journalistic discussions of the most severe teachings of Christian Reconstructionism. Well, once someone introduces the idea of 'stonings' into a discussion of appropriate responses to wrongdoing, you pretty much know that the gay community is going to wind up on the wrong side of the equation there. I wish people would get their heads out of the Old Testament. The New Testament has enough to keep us busy for eternity without combing through Leviticus and Deuteronomy for legalistic codes of conduct.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 9:43:04 GMT -5
I think someone else (whose name escapes me right now, and I'd look for her name in the intro section if I had time today, but don't right now) has written here about how she and her family took these teachings seriously for all those years--and believed they should work toward state-sanctioned stonings of homosexuals, etc. But I've also read the quotes directly in the primary documents, as well as in journalistic discussions of the most severe teachings of Christian Reconstructionism. I completely agree. This was what drew me to the Mennonites (not old order or conservative) for a while. They call themselves a New Testament/Sermon on the Mount church. Well, once someone introduces the idea of 'stonings' into a discussion of appropriate responses to wrongdoing, you pretty much know that the gay community is going to wind up on the wrong side of the equation there. I wish people would get their heads out of the Old Testament. The New Testament has enough to keep us busy for eternity without combing through Leviticus and Deuteronomy for legalistic codes of conduct.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Aug 13, 2010 10:23:09 GMT -5
I've also heard people saying the Q is for "questioning" rather than queer.
I like that idea better, actually, because there are a lot of people I know who are nowhere near being brave enough to identify as any of the other designations, despite having feelings in those directions. The Q lets people work their way into the sense of community, and into a place where they can question and learn from people and figure themselves out - without having to 'choose' what they are from the beginning.
It's a label that isn't, in a way.
It's really quite sad to me how exeptionally and unvariably evil all of the Dominionist and Pentacostal environments are to LGBTQ people. It's like their legalism specifically rests in jamming people into specific boxes - you're a man, you're a woman, you're a child, you're a Priest, you're a Prophet... when they hit someone who doesn't automatically and very obviously "fit" in their damnably narrow 'Godly' spaces, then they freak out.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 13, 2010 10:39:20 GMT -5
I completely agree. This was what drew me to the Mennonites (not old order or conservative) for a while. They call themselves a New Testament/Sermon on the Mount church. Well, once someone introduces the idea of 'stonings' into a discussion of appropriate responses to wrongdoing, you pretty much know that the gay community is going to wind up on the wrong side of the equation there. I wish people would get their heads out of the Old Testament. The New Testament has enough to keep us busy for eternity without combing through Leviticus and Deuteronomy for legalistic codes of conduct. I only wrote this part: I don't know who wrote the Mennonite paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 10:48:15 GMT -5
nikita: sorry, it was me who wrote that. I made some kind of mistake with the formatting.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Aug 13, 2010 11:00:43 GMT -5
I have seen people write something like "LGBTIQQ" as well.
That said, I've also heard said that the "LGBT" community doesn't exist because the Ls and Gs hate the Bs, and all three of 'em hate the Ts. I've certainly gotten my share of hatred for being T.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 11:10:42 GMT -5
I have seen people write something like "LGBTIQQ" as well. That said, I've also heard said that the "LGBT" community doesn't exist because the Ls and Gs hate the Bs, and all three of 'em hate the Ts. I've certainly gotten my share of hatred for being T. Yep, you're definitely right that there is no inclusive community. That said, I guess we'll all be executed in Rushdoony's utopia, eh? I group them together for this kind of discription, since Rushdoony wouldn't have known (or cared) about nuances like this.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 13, 2010 11:11:44 GMT -5
I have seen people write something like "LGBTIQQ" as well. That said, I've also heard said that the "LGBT" community doesn't exist because the Ls and Gs hate the Bs, and all three of 'em hate the Ts. I've certainly gotten my share of hatred for being T. Labels. I long for the day when the labels just disappear and people are just whoever the hell they are and don't 'identify' as anything at all. People were talking about 'the Christian directory' where you can find anything you want and be sure it's a Christian business. Well, there's a gay one too. Again with the labels... I hate that whole us/them separation.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 11:16:37 GMT -5
I have seen people write something like "LGBTIQQ" as well. That said, I've also heard said that the "LGBT" community doesn't exist because the Ls and Gs hate the Bs, and all three of 'em hate the Ts. I've certainly gotten my share of hatred for being T. Labels. I long for the day when the labels just disappear and people are just whoever the hell they are and don't 'identify' as anything at all. People were talking about 'the Christian directory' where you can find anything you want and be sure it's a Christian business. Well, there's a gay one too. Again with the labels... I hate that whole us/them separation. Correction: There's a gay one in California. I have never seen such a thing. Anyway, really? We're all going to dispense with our labels when we become more evolved as humans? So, you're not particularly attached to your identity as a woman, then?
|
|
|
Post by sigaliris on Aug 13, 2010 11:37:26 GMT -5
I did some reading in Christian Reconstructionism awhile back. KR is right. If there's doubt in anyone's mind that this movement is harmful and violent in its intentions, a good place to start might be with this guest blog by Frank Schaeffer: www.bradblog.com/?p=7556Among other things, Schaeffer quotes directly from R.J. Rushdoony's The Institutes of Biblical Law: “The Bible is without reservation in its condemnation of homosexuality . . . If a man also lie with mankind . . . they shall be put to death. (Lev. 20:13) . . . This is certainly clear enough and there is not a single text in all of the New Testament to indicate that this penalty has been altered or removed. . . (pp 422-25). . . We find that St. Paul far from setting aside the law and its penalties appeals to the death penalty against homosexuals as an established and continuing fact.” (Rom 1:32) (p735) [R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law] I'm tempted to quote the whole column, but I'll leave it to the rest of you to see for yourselves. However, I think this one additional quote makes it pretty clear that Rushdoony isn't just making suggestions. He wants his concept of biblical law to rule the U.S., indeed, the whole world. “One faith, one law and one standard of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state . . . Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies.” (p 100) [R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law]
Rushdoony, father of Christian Reconstructionism, clearly expresses contempt for democracy and hatred for diversity. If he and his followers had their way, most of us here would be dead. (And in hell.)
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 13, 2010 11:45:08 GMT -5
Labels. I long for the day when the labels just disappear and people are just whoever the hell they are and don't 'identify' as anything at all. People were talking about 'the Christian directory' where you can find anything you want and be sure it's a Christian business. Well, there's a gay one too. Again with the labels... I hate that whole us/them separation. Correction: There's a gay one in California. I have never seen such a thing. Anyway, really? We're all going to dispense with our labels when we become more evolved as humans? So, you're not particularly attached to your identity as a woman, then? Nope. I defy classification. I am a woman in gender. I do not act from an identity of 'womanness'. I act from an identity of 'personhood'. I always have. It's just innate to my consciousness and has been since childhood. And interestingly I have found that although men don't seem to have a problem with it, women hate that about me. Like I'm not sufficiently one of them or not taking up my proper place in the sexual warfare or something. But I don't really care.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Aug 13, 2010 12:12:41 GMT -5
I need a non-religious version of Amen!
Part of what I like about online communications is that you are esentially lines of type. If your avatar name and/or picture are obtuse enough, people will make their own decisions about your gender, especially if it doesn't come up in the discussions you engage in.
I really truly wish there were some way to emulate that in every day life. Like I could put on a mask or a holograph and be gender-neutral, just me. People would be so confused at first, but I think it would catch on.
Imagine going to an interview and the hirer not knowing if you were male or female! Or PTA meetings - which one is the mother? Who knows! Such a liberating idea to me.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 13:17:46 GMT -5
Correction: There's a gay one in California. I have never seen such a thing. Anyway, really? We're all going to dispense with our labels when we become more evolved as humans? So, you're not particularly attached to your identity as a woman, then? Nope. I defy classification. I am a woman in gender. I do not act from an identity of 'womanness'. I act from an identity of 'personhood'. I always have. It's just innate to my consciousness and has been since childhood. And interestingly I have found that although men don't seem to have a problem with it, women hate that about me. Like I'm not sufficiently one of them or not taking up my proper place in the sexual warfare or something. But I don't really care. This is fair enough. I don't have a problem with it, though I often hear what I think you're describing classified as genderqueer. Anyway... I don't particularly care how individuals identify, but I think it's problematic to expect others to dispense with identities they have come to through social oppression. Fine for individuals, certainly... But I probably don't need to go into the ways in which ideals about a "color blind" America are ahistorical and offensive? We can never transcend our historical circumstances in my opinion, and identities are all a part of these for us all. ETA: I might also add... "Homosexual" is not exactly a label that people took up in order to define themselves. It was a term denoting mental illness and social inaptitude. That it got taken up as an identity at all has to do with social oppression, and the need that people have for community with those who have shared experiences. Every identity has a history, is all I'm saying. I'm kind of a poststructuralist about many things and, as such, don't believe in a great many universal truths... But I can still identify as bi/queer without needing to be convinced that I was born that way or that it's my innate essence. And without seeing any need to transcend it.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 13:21:44 GMT -5
sigalaris: Thanks very much for providing the quotes. I don't have them handy, but it's important to me that people see the words for themselves.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Aug 13, 2010 13:49:44 GMT -5
I have seen people write something like "LGBTIQQ" as well. That said, I've also heard said that the "LGBT" community doesn't exist because the Ls and Gs hate the Bs, and all three of 'em hate the Ts. I've certainly gotten my share of hatred for being T. In my experience, it depends on who you're talking to. Older LGBTQ people tend to fall into this, however, most of the younger people (at least the ones I know) seemed to have left those old divisions behind. Most gays and lesbians I know are friendly with each other. Bisexuals and transpeople aren’t quite fully integrated but I think it’s just general lack of understanding about bisexuality and transgenderedness. Though she’s straight, my aunt once asked me, about my bisexuality- “So, do you just wake up and decide ‘today I’m going to like girls’ and then next day say ‘today I’m going to like guys?’” and I’ve seen similar confusion from gay people and lesbians. Likewise, though I’m not trans, I’ve seen some pretty stupid things said/asked by gays and lesbians due to sheer ignorance about what transgenderism is and what transpeople have to deal with. However, even if they don’t understand it, most L&G people I know do support trans rights. Of course, I do hang with a pretty open crowd.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 14:00:16 GMT -5
Of course, I do hang with a pretty open crowd. Yeah, I was about to say... It probably depends on where you are geographically located as well. Here in the South, I don't find gays and lesbians to be quite as open or understanding.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 13, 2010 14:01:35 GMT -5
Nope. I defy classification. I am a woman in gender. I do not act from an identity of 'womanness'. I act from an identity of 'personhood'. I always have. It's just innate to my consciousness and has been since childhood. And interestingly I have found that although men don't seem to have a problem with it, women hate that about me. Like I'm not sufficiently one of them or not taking up my proper place in the sexual warfare or something. But I don't really care. This is fair enough. I don't have a problem with it, though I often hear what I think you're describing classified as genderqueer. Anyway... I don't particularly care how individuals identify, but I think it's problematic to expect others to dispense with identities they have come to through social oppression. Fine for individuals, certainly... But I probably don't need to go into the ways in which ideals about a "color blind" America are ahistorical and offensive? We can never transcend our historical circumstances in my opinion, and identities are all a part of these for us all. ETA: I might also add... "Homosexual" is not exactly a label that people took up in order to define themselves. It was a term denoting mental illness and social inaptitude. That it got taken up as an identity at all has to do with social oppression, and the need that people have for community with those who have shared experiences. Every identity has a history, is all I'm saying. I'm kind of a poststructuralist about many things and, as such, don't believe in a great many universal truths... But I can still identify as bi/queer without needing to be convinced that I was born that way or that it's my innate essence. And without seeing any need to transcend it. See, to me that is the problem. The attempt to study and explain and sift through all these layers and levels and labels and history -- it perpetuates problems rather than helps solve them. Academia loves this kind of thing but it leaves me cold. Let's all categorize and break it all down into manageable parts and make sure everyone is in their proper places and represented properly with their unique voices. Ugh. I am not arguing for the oppressive alternative. But this is equally oppressive to me, just in the opposite way. Yes, I hope we can move beyond this self-consciousness about these sexual identity issues and just be people who do whatever they do and like whomever they like. That would be the direction I would choose to go in. But we'll just have to agree to disagree on it because it's an enormous subject and conversation and I just don't want to do that, especially since I think I have a zero chance of changing your opinion on any of it. I do resent being classified as 'genderqueer' when I am simply expressing an experience and opinion about my view of the world. You know, as though as a fellow person on the planet I cannot have experiences and opinions unless I fit into someone else's carefully constructed box, all tied up with a convenient bow with a handy label about how to relate to me now. I also don't know what the hell it means but it sounds dismissive and rude. I think I know you well enough here to assume that you did not intend it to be so, but it does bother me that some label has now been attached to me based on the fact that I have said I don't feel any innate need to be labeled. Kafka is somewhere laughing at me right now.
|
|
|
Post by amaranth on Aug 13, 2010 14:12:43 GMT -5
I had an interesting thought while reading this thread, particularly the part about various prosperity gospel teachings:
Are there two different Satans at work here?
In one version of the teaching, Satan is more like the character from Job: someone who makes mischief on God's behalf, or maybe a rabid dog that God keeps on a chain until someone really pisses him off. But essentially, this Satan exists to "test" God's people and to punish sinners, and cannot act without God's leave.
On the other hand, Satan is apparently also this being who works directly against God, making trouble for the faithful and leading people astray. This Satan seems to be entirely outside of God's control (or maybe God chooses to let him run amok), and exists solely to thwart God's purposes.
So which is it? Does Satan work for God, or against him? Or is God playing a crazy mind game with Satan as well, making him think he's a free agent when he actually never really left God's employment?
The biggest guff I have against prosperity gospel and spiritual warfare is that I don't like being a pawn in a cosmic battle between good and evil. God blesses me to keep me away from Satan (and maybe because he's a good guy and all). Satan blesses me to entice me away from God. Satan puts obstacles in my path to get back at God. God puts obstacles in my path to make me prove my faithfulness to him, so that he can say to Satan, "See? She didn't turn against me. Ha!"
I feel like saying, "How about you two get a room and settle this, and come talk to me when you're done?" 'Cause I don't like being the prize in this divine contest.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 14:17:54 GMT -5
"I have also known a lot of straight people in my time who didn't understand LGBTQ struggle and who would often say, "I don't really get it... I don't identify all that much with my sexuality or my gender or anything," and I have to tell you... This is a frustrating thing to hear from a person who has not been oppressed on the basis of gender or sexuality."
In all fairness, I should also say, I have been one of these people. Before I came to terms with who I was, I did this a time or two.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 13, 2010 14:44:45 GMT -5
km - I cannot have this conversation with you, I'm sorry. There cannot be a meeting of the minds here and I don't want to argue with you about it. We've both said what we needed to say I think. At least I am done with the disagreement. --- Spiritual warfare is a strange concept when you break it down isn't it? I was always taught that Satan can bother and frighten you but cannot physically touch you. So it isn't Satan causing you actual harm as long as you are relying on God. Those who do not rely upon God are open to harm, but not God's people. That was the simple explanation. That explanation raises so many questions and variations on the theme that I think the entire belief loses credibility the more you examine it. There are just so many hypotheticals that arise from the basic belief. The 'what ifs' really bog the whole idea down. What I think is actually true is that we all have free will and life. Mix well and stuff happens. The spiritual warfare is within our own hearts and minds and not deities and spirits using the external world to fight over our souls like some WWE grudge match. The tales of Satan and God fighting over us like dogs over scraps from a table are simply metaphors for the battle within our hearts and souls that some people need to interpret literally for their own reasons. As I've said before, fundamentalists seem to dismiss actual directives like caring for the poor and sick as not being terribly important or meant literally (after all Jesus said the poor you will always have with you so why bother with them, right?), but give them something that appears to be clearly metaphorical and suddenly it's all literal devils with pitchforks and burning chasms waiting to swallow you up.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 14:54:25 GMT -5
km - I cannot have this conversation with you, I'm sorry. There cannot be a meeting of the minds here and I don't want to argue with you about it. We've both said what we needed to say I think. At least I am done with the disagreement. Really? Because, okay, I don't really want to argue about it, but I'm surprised you see it as controversial? If there is a presumption of goodwill here, then what is the problem with simply suggesting: "Your identity is yours. Mine is mine. Identify (or not) however you wish, but don't be dismissive about those of us who are not ready or willing to dispense with our various identities." This is my position in a nutshell. Yes, I got dismissive too. I have a bad habit of responding in kind and/or trying to get "justice" in conversations, and this gets tiresome if you are on the receiving end. I apologize for being dismissive by stamping you with the "genderqueer" label. That part is on me.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 13, 2010 15:15:56 GMT -5
km - I cannot have this conversation with you, I'm sorry. There cannot be a meeting of the minds here and I don't want to argue with you about it. We've both said what we needed to say I think. At least I am done with the disagreement. Really? Because, okay, I don't really want to argue about it, but I'm surprised you see it as controversial? If there is a presumption of goodwill here, then what is the problem with simply suggesting: "Your identity is yours. Mine is mine. Identify (or not) however you wish, but don't be dismissive about those of us who are not ready or willing to dispense with our various identities." This is my position in a nutshell. Yes, I got dismissive too. I have a bad habit of responding in kind and/or trying to get "justice" in conversations, and this gets tiresome if you are on the receiving end. I apologize for being dismissive by stamping you with the "genderqueer" label. That part is on me. Oh, I didn't mean that I object to you taking whatever identity you feel comfortable with and running with it and I'll call you whatever you choose to be called because it matters to you. I just, as a matter of strong personal opinion, don't believe it's helpful in the long run to break us all down into our little boxes and categories in that way (and we could have a thousand hour long discussion about why I think you are wrong about why I believe this and still get nowhere so please let's not). But you disagree on the issue and find the labels and identifiers useful so do what you want. If it helps, the correct sexual identity label to wrap around me is 'heterosexual female'. Please try not to choke me with it.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 13, 2010 15:26:10 GMT -5
Really? Because, okay, I don't really want to argue about it, but I'm surprised you see it as controversial? If there is a presumption of goodwill here, then what is the problem with simply suggesting: "Your identity is yours. Mine is mine. Identify (or not) however you wish, but don't be dismissive about those of us who are not ready or willing to dispense with our various identities." This is my position in a nutshell. Yes, I got dismissive too. I have a bad habit of responding in kind and/or trying to get "justice" in conversations, and this gets tiresome if you are on the receiving end. I apologize for being dismissive by stamping you with the "genderqueer" label. That part is on me. Oh, I didn't mean that I object to you taking whatever identity you feel comfortable with and running with it and I'll call you whatever you choose to be called because it matters to you. I just, as a matter of strong personal opinion, don't believe it's helpful in the long run to break us all down into our little boxes and categories in that way (and we could have a thousand hour long discussion about why I think you are wrong about why I believe this and still get nowhere so please let's not). But you disagree on the issue and find the labels and identifiers useful so do what you want. If it helps, the correct sexual identity label to wrap around me is 'heterosexual female'. Please try not to choke me with it. Okay, then maybe I misunderstood your initial response to this. I did hear it as another dismissive rendition of "can't we all just get along?" P.S. "Genderqueer" is not a sexual identity, but a gender identity. It tends to encompass people who do not identify explicitly or completely with one of the two binary genders. But I am happy to go with "heterosexual female" as I have in interactions with you thus far. In the end, by the way, I'm not sure identities are all that helpful either, eh? I don't think they're any kind of end goal in themselves. I just think they are and will be until people are no longer affected by disparity or oppression in any way. Which is to say: Never.
|
|
|
Post by barbaraw on Aug 13, 2010 16:03:35 GMT -5
Part of what I like about online communications is that you are esentially lines of type. If your avatar name and/or picture are obtuse enough, people will make their own decisions about your gender, especially if it doesn't come up in the discussions you engage in. LiveJournal (which has a predominantly female userbase) has been my "home" online for so long (since February, 2003) that I assume that everyone I meet online is female, until they prove otherwise.
|
|