Re: pessimist

AntiUtopia@aol.com
Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:21:25 -0500 (EST) 

In a message dated 98-02-07 13:20:48 EST, you write:

<< They're idiots.
 Not you Jim, but I don't think you have your facts clear.
 
 Focus on the Family and other groups generated "Ammendment 2" in
 colorado--this was an attempt to deny homosexual people civil rights.>>

Ok, ok, I gotta respond, but I promise I won't take up a lot of time with this
beyond this post.  It is waaaay off topic, I know.

eh, yes, I was aware of that Amendment and the controversy surrounding it.
Unfortunately, it's been awhile and I don't remember the details.  I do know
that the language used to describe amendments is usually loaded--we can never
know if the amendment is being accurately described, or if we're just getting
the viewpoint of the person giving the description.

So, saying the Amendment was designed to "deny homosexuals civil rights" is a
bit too vague for me to argue.  I think the best way to argue this point--if
we were to continue--would be to post the Amendment as it is worded and allow
the sides fighting for it and against it to describe their perceptions of the
intent of this Amendment.  I don't think Dobson is particularly concerned with
going out and robbing people of their rights.  He is motivated by other
concerns, however, which I'll describe in a second... 

I do know that in the Christian community (and it is a large and diverse
community, let me tell you),  specifically the Christian community represented
by James Dobson,  there's a real problem with the correlation between public
image and real beliefs and actions.  On the one hand, we have actions such as
the sponsoring of Amendment two that does seem to reasonable, intelligent
people to be attempts to deny homosexuals of their civil rights.  It seems,
many times, the evangelical Christians such as James Dobson think
homosexuality is the worst sin imaginable, and that those guilty of it should
be made to suffer.

But in my experience this is far from true.  The real concern is with what
they perceive as a shift in our society away from traditonal sexual mores, and
their efforts are intended to influence society in what they consider to be a
more positive direction.  For example, they're concerned about legalizing gay
marriage--they are concerned that this sends a message saying gay marriage is
as valid as a marriage between two heterosexuals.  You may agree or not, but
Dobson and those like him don't believe this is a healthy direction for
society to take, so they fight this on a legislative battlefied.  Now, if
legislation were to be passed that seemed to indicate adultery was an
acceptable lifestyle, or rape, or whatever...they'd be fighting that just as
hard.  Societal attitudes are presently shifting as far as views of
homosexuality are concerned--and already have in the academia--so that is the
focus of their attention at present.  It is not that homosexuality is the
worst sin, it is just the focal point of a large shift in societal
perceptions.  

I know if you're a homosexual you're probably thinking...oh yeah?   That'd be
hard to prove.  But I think as much as you don't like the way things are even
now, you'd have to admit it's better for you now than 40 years ago.  In the
early 70s the DSM listed homosexuality as a deviance, and it has been out of
list since then.  Attitudes have changed.

A real discrepancy, however, exists when you move away from the legislative
arena to more personal grounds.  There's a lot of Christians out there
ministering to AIDS patients.  There's a lot who would speak up if homosexuals
became regular victims of physical assault (more so than now, I mean--more
visibly).  They don't like the idea of people being denied jobs and housing.
They don't believe the lifestyle is acceptable, but neither do they believe
people should be treated as second class citizens.  A woman I know had a
nephew die of AIDS just last year, and she was there offering love and support
to him and his family through that whole, difficult time.  Human beings are
always deserving of unconditional love regardless of their beliefs and/or
actions, regardless of how we view them.  These are beliefs these "homophobes"
also act on, and act on consistently--unfortunately, you just don't hear about
it in the news.  They're too busy keeping one hand from knowing what the other
is doing to publicly broadcast their works of love.

I doubt that any of this changes your mind, and some of it probably just
reinforces your opinions.  But I do hope you are willing to consider that the
people involved in these issues are a bit more complex than they seem based
upon media and other public images.    
 
 <<Perhaps more central to this list's concern might be attitudes toward
 children.  Do you know that christian groups in woodland park (the town
 next to colorado springs) wanted to ban teaching greek mythology in
 schools because it was contrary to christian beliefs in god(s)?>>

Yes, I believe that, and if I were there I'd call them idiots too.  I'm not
saying idiocy doesn't exist in the Chrisitian community.  I am saying the
entire community is not to be defined by that tag.  That's all.  I think
that's the real crux of our disagreement here...
 
 <<Do you know that James Dobson (since I too am a doctor, I feel confident
 in telling you that the title is not a "badge of intelligence and entirely
 unnecessary) thinks that we should employ physical force to children when
 they misbehave?>>

He, like many other intelligent, thoughtful people, does believe in coporeal
punishment for children **when all other venues have been exhausted.** I am
aware of his statements on the matter because I've heard him speak on the
radio on this topic.  He also includes many guidelines to follow--never use it
when angry, talk to the child about their actions and what they mean, etc,
etc.  I've discussed this issue in more informal settings online (if you can
imagine that), and my experience has been that any parent of more than one
child appreciates the benefits of corporeal punishment whether they use it or
not, while people without kids cringe at the idea. :)

Do you have kids? :)  

To me, using this to prove the point is a bit of begging the question. We have
to argue the issue before we can use this against Dobson.
 
 <<Jim, you are absolutely right to point out that there are always different
 points of view and reasons to have them, but I'm close to the scene here
 and can't deny the facts.  The most unpleasant situations I've encountered
 have been generated from the most "christian" elements of my community.
 You may think Christ was a christian, but I think he was a prophet of god,
 not of religion.  Christ, buddy....will 
  >>

eh, I agree that Christ was a prophet of God, not religion, but His teachings
did create and define a community by intent.  And once we have community,
well....

It was not by accident that all those He called to follow Him forsook Him and
fled--His most vocal adherent eventually denying Him.  That pattern is
followed to this day.  But those same people were performing miracles two
months after Christ's resurrection, according to the Biblical record.  Seems
like Jesus knew not only the type of people He was dealing with, but how much
He could do with them. 

Best to keep that in mind before you go blasting large groups of people
indiscriminately :)

Thanks for the rational discourse :)

Jim