Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,
Subject: re: Christians at Work In Oregon
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 13 Sep 1992 15:30:55 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Sep9.043044.18337@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>,
mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:

>Well, the "agenda" may not be yours, but it is unleashed by a subject
>line like: "Christians at work in Oregon."  If that is NOT an attempt
>to tar ALL Christians with the activities of the OCA, and to demand
>a reaction of explicit rejection, what the hell is the point?  I say

The OCA folks shelter under the same umbrella as you.  Its label says
"Christian".  You have indicated that this collective is an often
uneasy grouping with the fundagelical extreme having even hostile
relations with groups more toward the middle -- is it expecting too
much that this middle speak up in defense of the civil rights of
gay people?  As you point out it would not exactly be the renting
of a seamless fabric.

It is my impression from your article that you believe that there has
been enough of what I call speaking out, and further I sense that you
find this a distatseful activity for religious groups.  You seem to
feel this is at fever pitch since you asked what more could be
done, and then suggested sarcastically Hitler Jugend style Sunday
schools and breaking into the offices of religious opponents.  If this
is the only next step you see for middle-of-the road Christians, then
please, take an ice bag from the fridge and have a seat.

That you are chary of "politics" in terms of capturing delegates,
squelching open discussion and prostituting church and scripture
at a national convention on network television is not and was not
a point.

>Do *you* think that Dahmer is any kind of
>indictment of gay sexuality?

Bogosity, Michael.  Dahmer is one man.  He claims to speak for
no group, no collective, has no philosophy, has no program, espouses
no agenda, represents no one, claims to represent no one, seeks no
followers, has no followers, is not a movement, has no traditional
authority or influence, etc.

>But do you SEEK for what the mainstream views are? (I mean, other than
>by posting things under terribly provocative titles) or do you merely
>assume that you would mystically KNOW these, without effort?  If the

Yes, I actively seek as I indicated in a previous article in this
thread.

>Here again, it is hard to know what to do -- if we remain "polite" we
>are likely to be generally ignored; only if we enter the "battle" with
>our own "crusade" are we going to be noticed by the press -- and *I* do
>not want to be part of a religion on crusade.

*I* don't find Jewish organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League
a "crusade".  The Jewish community (communities might be better) seem
to have an ability to speak out, get attention for decency and common
good without going on a crusade.  Perhaps I misunderstand the nature
of "crusade" though.

>...............  Any self-righteous prig in America
>can label himself "Christian."  I am not required to "fight" every such
>identification, or even to worry over much about
>those who know so little about my religion as to grant credence
>to any such turkey....

Neither orthodoxy trials nor membership criteria were being suggested.


>This, however, makes me wonder.   Do you *discount* what I have said
>over many years here and in other forums that we both read?  Does my
>position -- and that of many others, gay and nongay, not *count*?  Is
>your concern the (partly real, partly media-hype) apparent dominance
>of right-wing Christianity during a period of right-wing political
>ascendancy (and if so, can you manage to disengage from the preseqnt
>enough to realize that this is a cyclical phenomenon in America?)

That second sentence is a dainty cop-out.  Yes, let all us homos
take a nap until this nasty cycle is over and it will all be better
tomorrow.  That kind of mindless confidence seems most calculated
to allow someone who finds the entire business distasteful to disengage.

>> the waters of Babylon, but I recoil at being happy over smashing
>> your suckling babies a few short verses later.  If any branch

>Yeah -- but you do NOT recoil, as far as I can recall, from equally
>bitter comments by those of *our* community fucked over by a hostile
>bureaucracy and Reagan/Bush cynicism.

Whoa, chum.  Bitter, yes.  But I have explicitly rejected rejoicing
over the illness of some of the worst foes of gay people.  So you are
quite in error here.  I have not yet reached the point of looking
to retaliation.

>Part of what is going on in
>the Psalms is people taking God seriously, including what they think
>God has promised them.  It is because you do NOT have any serious
>identification with the destruction of Judah that you can make a few
>pious noises about "identifying" with a destroyed community and not
>see their pain.

I assume you do not keep scrapbooks of my postings as I confess I do
not of yours (though I have a quite a few of yours actually.)  You
can take your "not have any serious identification" to heart by way
of your pious butt, Michael.  After the past twelve years I have
considerable identification with "a destroyed community" - though
I find the the word "identification" almost lewdly inadequate.

I suggest before you yelp about the possibility of selective recall
you check your own inventory.  That was probably the stupidest
f*ck*ng remark you could possibly have made.

>Rather, what *I* am saying -- I do not presume to speak for the others
>-- is that I see a gambit "I will consider you as essentially identical
>to an OCA member, unless ... <unspecified>".  That is NOT a position
>any human being should be placed in. If I *were* in the OCA, I presume
>there would be some rationalization for that (though my stomach churns
>at the thought.)  WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING that makes it
>reasonable to *presume* so grotesque a thing without
>a trace of evidence?

I *presume* that those who are not there to preserve or secure my
civil rights do not care that I have them, or are quietly opposed to
my having them. Or simply cannot be "bothered".

The response of mainstream Christians to AIDS, homophobia and gay-
bashing was tardy and in my estimation very tepid.  I do not wish nor
expect to see a Mainstream Center Christian Caucus as the powerbroker
at the next Democratic Convention.  I had expected the kind of reaction
and support which was given by mainstream Christians to the black
civil rights movement.

Clearly Michael and I are separated by a chasm.  This may actually
be his strongest arguing point.  Whereas we each have the same
sexual orientation, I think we barely shelter under the same "queer"
umbrella.  I think I must concede him the "battle" on this point
alone and allow (just a figure of speech) that the decorous Christian
mainstream may take bloc seating on the sidelines, Oxfam videos will be
shown in the rear for those who wish to turn their seats around to avoid
the local playing field.

Jack Carroll