Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: Christians at Work in Oregon
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 7 Sep 1992 23:47:40 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

This posting is in response to several other postings and it became
very complicated to try to get the attributions in in the usual
manner, therefore I have resorted to just attributing quotes to
names and not citing articles.  I don't believe that this has distorted
the meaning of any excepts and if it has this has been entirely
unintentional.

Michael Siemon writes:

>..............................I suggest you think VERY
>long and hard before you try to claim that organized, denominational
>Christian institutions start stumping against each other in the arena
>of politics.  Non-Christians are very quick to condemn politicized
>sects for engaging in politics -- it is a bit hypocritical to then
>start *asking* for the very same thing (as long as its on the "good"
>side.)

My first inclination is to agree wholeheartedly with Michael's sentiments
above.  The idea of a falange of mainsteam Christian churches engaged
in capturing party machinery and seeking to pack a national convention
certainly does not thrill me.  The spectre of sectarian headbutting in
the "arena of politics" is very scary too.

But then after a pause I realize that _I_ am not sure what this "arena
of politics" means to me, nor am _I_ clear on how many Buddhists or
or Baptists can, or should, feel compelled to band together carrying
their label aloft and enter any such arena.  Still where are the
limits of what is termed political is a very difficult question.

>....................I
>will not, either, indulge in bootlicking anti-Christians who demand that
>I follow THEIR agenda and rhetoric or disappear.
>I'm here; I'm Christian; I'm queer; get used to it.

I do not need my boots licked by Michael, nor by Steve Adams who
was outraged at what I wrote, nor by Lawence Foard who may upon first
examination appear to be someone whose views I might eargerly embrace.
I use shoe polish and I do the job myself.

If I have given the impression that bootlicking is desired, much less
required, I hope this posting will go a long way to dispel it.  To
the extent that explanations and/or apologies may be owed to Michael
on that score, hopefully I will see where they are necessary.

On the other hand, if I have objections to Christianity as I see it as
a tradition, or to Michael's personal expositions of his faith, or
to what his queerness may involve or his being a queer Christian I
will probably say so -- ditto for Messrs Adams and Foard in the same or
similar areas.

This does not mean that I will then seek to exterminate them or that I
am working almost fulltime on an agenda which will coerce them
into walking in lockstep with me either.  The worst that is going to
happen is that we shall work for different goals, shall find ourselves
in some state of opposition and probably rather chary of each other.

>Again, I do NOT think that Jack is comparable
>-- in hatred, bigotry or ignorance, nor in potential national disasater
>and disgrace should his agenda become fashionable -- but I suggest he
>should stop using "Christian" in a way that
>attempts to make us all clones
>of the hate-filled fundamentalists unless we do his bidding in his way.

My "agenda" looks to be clearer to Michael than to me -- which is
possible.  I am assuming that he is referring to my remark to Steve
Adams in which he was angry and felt that all Christians were tarred
by what I had written and that indeed they are all not like the OCA
folks and the rest of Christian Right.

My response was to the effect that when I heard mainstream Christians
speaking up on the same issues and in large numbers expressing
contrasting views then I would be more inclined to agree with him.
I also remarked that I thought mainstream Christians were essentially
silent on this topic -- implying a passive complicity.

If "speak up" is what is perceived as my "agenda", then I it should
be modified to "suggested agenda for a group of people of which I
am not a part."  This is a pretty weak command for marching in lockstep.
This I would accept as the extent of having to do my "bidding."

Michael's reference to me making him (and other Christians) "clones"
is _his_ adventure into hyperbole, but it does bring up the
the problem of labels.  What's a queer,
what's a Christian?  To what extent is a homosexual pederast the
same as Jack Carroll the queer?  Ask. I'll respond to the question.
How many times to how many people is something else again.  It also
depends upon who asks the question.  And so on.

We can (and probably should) spend a great deal of time examining
labels and concepts.  Sometimes labels or even examining them can be
a "game": baiting, and attempt to confuse rather than clarify.
It can also be the opposite of these things.

Were my remarks at all intended to be baiting:  Yes.  I can offer an
apology for that - to Michael Siemon, Steve Adams and whomever else
was offended.  I can apologize for that _intention_, and mean it.

But the "insinuation" of the statement remains. Perhaps why will
become clearer later.  But, yes, I _do_ wonder how alike you Christians
are.  More precisely, I wonder if there is a limit to how dissimilar
you can be.  Do generic Christians _owe_ me an explanation or
defense?  Certainly not a pay-on-demand type, no.

I was born in this country, which is one heavily influenced and formed
by the Christian religious tradition(s).  I was raised a Christian.
My paternal and maternal families practiced two entirely different
denominational versions of Christianity.  I received a fairly extensive
education (though many years ago) in my own denominational outlook and
history, and to a lesser degree in that of other denominations.  I
have believed and practiced as a Christian, with other Christians.
I read some Christian publications (both ultra and liberal) and I
watch specifically religious broadcasts - both fundamentalist/born
again and mainline Christian.  But most of all I live and work with
people who label themselves Christians.

And where has this history taken me:

I am no longer a Christian.  I have very serious doubts about
the wholesomeness of large parts of the Christian scriptural heritage.
It is not difficult for me to see how they could be used to support
extreme Right Wing political agenda, in fact it is very difficult for me to
see how they could not lead to totalitarianism.  I think they are
a constant temptation to this drift.

As a gay man I have in the past year and a half come  to feel not
just uneasy about anyone wearing a Christian label, but
to feel very distrustful of them and not only in regard to the gay
"issue."

But what is more disturbing to me is that I realize that I have come
to be very - yes, VERY - unsure as to whether or not Christianity may
not be basically hostile to diversity and to an open, representative
democractic type of society without repudiating a great deal of
its scriptural inheritance as any sort expression of divine mandate.
I am not at all comfortable with a religion that sees tribal and
dynastic history and legend written many centuries B.C. as anything
other than that.  I can identify with the sitting and weeping by
the waters of Babylon, but I recoil at being happy over smashing
your suckling babies a few short verses later.  If any branch
of Christianty is truly pushing this as sort of muck as reflecting
divine guidance rather than being a record of a great deal of human
greed and nastiness, please keep them very, very far from me, thank
you.

A queer Christian?  I have recently come to wonder if, in metaphorical
terms, this might not mean "sleeping with the enemy," albeit perhaps
unwittingly.  Just what can the Biblical heritage, beyond that of
the gospels, mean about a queer's view of himself and the world.

Charles Hedrick writes:

>....................  You can criticize the liberal
>churches for many things, but it's hard to see criticizing them for
>not making clear their opposition to racism, homophobia, etc.  If
>anything, our leadership and that of other churches in the same
>position have made statements with such regularity that it's unclear
>how much attention is paid to them.

I have read such statements and have no reason to doubt what Mr.
Hedrick says.  What puzzles me is _why_ is so little attention paid
to these statements (as it seems to me the case.) And are the members
of these churches commited to these positions as the extreme
conservative Christians are committed to the opposite.  In two
recent threads in soc.religion.christian - one on "Christian Politics"
and the other focusing on poverty in the United States and who
is a worthy recipient of charity and the meaning of giving - there
were (to me) extraordinarily radically conservative views presented.
There was hardly more than a few murmurs regarding these statements.
Very few people seemed to think that these positions were worth
questioning as "Christian".  Granted SRC is not the world, but I
found the lack of reactions typical.  And it is this sort of thing
lack of interest that I am referring to in the context of the "gay
issue."

Michael Siemon writes:

>The structure of the rhetorical appeal being used
>is an attempt at "moral"
>blackmail to foster political ends.  Some putatively nasty group is
>named, a much larger group -- with little or no relationship or complex
>and largely hostile relationshsips, it hardly matters to the blackmailer
>-- is painted as guilty by association UNLESS the target of the blackma il
>acts (with unspecified limits, always to be pushed as far as possible)
>as the blackmailer desires.

I think questions be they about NAMBLA/queers or Christian fascists/
Christianity are difficult questions.

You see these questions as "'moral'" blackmail to foster political
ends."  I don't accept that either _question_ is.  It _may_ be
that what follows a response is.  I think that Michael is probably
quite right in identifying what my remark as "blackmail."

I have spent quite a few hours thinking about these articles and
the questions they raise.  I think this has brought the issues into
somewhat clearer focus for me.

What I hear (at least in part) from Michael Siemon, Steve Adams,
Chuck Hedrick is something like: We are not the people you fear,
here are some facts and assertions to support that - Trust me.

I guess the "moral blackmail" comes in because I do not feel
sufficiently secure with the evidence I see to make that final move
at this point in time.  I did not disengage myself from Christianity
with a feeling of distrust, rather because of disbelief.  The distrust
has come over the course of close to a decade.

>And I repeat: I *do* think better of Jack Carroll than this, which is
>why it distresses me to see such a thing from him.  It particularly
>surprises me that a Buddhist could be so caught up in the futile cycles
>of politics -- however painful and disagreeable the situation -- that
>he suggests by his rhetoric the necessity of political or parapolitical
>action addressed at the highly visible symptoms by, in effect, indulging
>in name-calling.

It probably distresses me as much as it does Michael Siemon.  But I have
come to the point where I question whether if I follow the usual
Buddhist recommendations in regard to politics I shall not find
myself and many of my countrymen (not all of them queers by any means)
in serious difficulties, which uncharteristically Buddhist activity
(in the arena of politics) might help to prevent. (Clearly this
brings the depth of my religious commitment into question. Not at all
a pleasant experience.)

>(Though addressed to Lawrence Foard this certainly applies to me.) What
>you "perceive" is YOUR problem, though I may suffer for it along with a
>lot of other Christians.  (Again, this is NOT saying that my "suffering"
>on this is equivalent to the devastations
>visited on gay men and lesbians
>bashed by rightwing goons, or tossed out of jobs or homes or hospitals
>by the sanctimonious dictator-wannabes of the "religious" right -- but
>the fact that the blackmail is rather petty does
>make it any more pretty.)

To which I would say, Yes, it is my problem.  But I weigh this against
the problems I believe that I and others will have by depending upon
the goodwill (and more importantly good actions) of that great
body of non-Right Wing Christians and I become considerably less
concerned about the shame I experience as an exposed "blackmailer."

I have no insightful comments to make on the rest of Michael's
article.  I can only say that the references he makes to historical
incidents and his estimation of the difficulties of religion in
politics are nothing I would disagree with.  I sense the problems
in a similar, if not the same, way.  The uneasiness - if not acute
discomfort - in Buddhist circles over what the role of "Engaged
Buddhism" should be is a mirror of this.

I am quite grateful actually that Michael has phrased his differences
with me in terms of "blackmail" and "name-calling".  (I am not being
sarcastic when I say that.)  And others have certainly written along
a similar vein.

I do not lay claims to having exceptional gifts of clearsighted
observation about the society in which I live, but neither do I
I walk through life with my eyes open and my mind shut.  I do seek
to keep informed about those groups and ideas which impact my life --
and a good part of that is an attempt to listen to what other people
say - especially in relation to what they do.

I would like to feel different than I do about this topic.  However,
what has become very clear to me is that I do _not_ see what
someone such as Michael sees.  What I see tells me that what makes
me "me" (and this goes beyond matters of sexual orientation) are
qualities which set me very much apart (apart - not above) many
of the rest of the people of this country.

To the extent that these differences might put my liberties, personal
comfort or safety in danger I feel no assurance that this is or
would be a matter of active concern to the mass of self-identified
Christians among whom I live.

Jack Carroll
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc