"You can have religious freedom and ethics-based legislation at the same time, but you cannot base those ethics on religion."
Sensitive and well-reasoned. To pivot (and perhaps a topic for a later post?): While I'm usually more interested in the intersection of queer theory and Christian theology (a whole different kettle of fish than whether or not "the gays" should be welcome at church), I often wonder if how the dialogue between churches and gay or queer Christians can be shored up - on both sides. Yeah, "pink" Christians need a little less conversation and a little more action from all Christian denominations when it comes to truly welcoming everyone in the fold, but mainstream Christians (some of whom are gay) should be able to expect a similar open-mindedness from the gay community. Instead of a "I'm gonna fuck you over since you fucked me first", queers also may need to embrace a little tit-for-tat game theory and make sure our minds are open when Christians are ready for a chat? Of course, this is a pivot off the original point and may only be useful for any queer actually interested in Christianity as a personal faith. Thoughts?
And also, when are you running for office? And where can I sign up to volunteer for the campaign?
offmycake, I think you're missing something. It is not the job of the LGBT community to open their hearts to Christians. The purpose of the LGBT community is to support its members. Unfortunately, sometimes being a bit aggresive is part of that.
Christianity, when it evangelises to Queer humanity, is often a harmful force. Your argument seeks (it seems to me) to give some measure of blame to the queers. I think this is a mistake.
Christians, as ambassadors of Christ and servants of God, have a responisbilty to the LGBT folks.
LGBT folk have absolutely *no* responsibility to the Christian folks. I mean, it's nice if people are nice. But the two groups are not really comparable when it comes to responsibility.
Obviously, it's a bit more complex if you are a queer Christian. But I don't think anyone talking for the dominant (and often toxic) discourse of Christianity really shouldn't blame the victims of that discourse if they act aggresivelly.
I agree that the purpose of the LGBT community is to support its members, and frankly it doesn't seem to be doing a good job supporting LGBT or queer Christians. And some of us are trying to act both agressively and compassionately at the same time (Soulforce, what!).
I'd like to think that as groups opposed to each other on so many issues, we do have a responsibility to each other if we're both committed to peace and social justice. Continuing to be open to dialogue is a strong act, especially when combined with other dramatic acts of theatrical, legal, and creative nonviolence.
You have no idea how opposed I am to evangelism for any Christian denomination, if not for the hegemonic crap then for the imperialistic overtones.
I would argue that arch-conservative/conservative evangelism harms queer Christians even more than non-Christian queers, simply because besides the political ramifications that outlawed wrote about, we actually want to be in a Christian space. (I acknowledge the troublesome vibe of comparative victimhood inherent in this line of reasoning.) Conservative Christian values are not only fucking up my political rights and the political rights of my local and LGBT community, they're also messing with my spiritual journey.
offmycake, I agree with you entirely. It's a really, really, really good thing when we can remain open to dialogue. But, sadly, it isn't safe for some members of our community to be open in that way.
It is really annoying, as a queer Christian/Religion geek, to find my peers sometimes don't want to talk about something so central to my life. But I have to realise that, for some of them, being exposed to that dialogue is far too risky a process.
Obviously, if people are being shitty because of your spirituality then that is a whole other kettle of fish. There's no excuse for rudeness.
If you don't mind me asking, what support do you feel the LGBT community isn't giving us? Beyond an, understandable, squemishness around the topic of religion, I don't think I am being let down by my community.
Theres every chance I just haven't noticed though. 
I take a somewhat different position here (sorry if this pushes us way off topic). Although there certainly is discomfort between queer and Christian communities, I actually think that the mainstream GLBT movement has tried too hard to appeal to conservatively-oriented Christians, with its emphasis on a sanitized image (minus fetishes, bdsm, extreme gender non-compliance etc..), fetishizing of monogamous relationships, marriage etc... without actually questioning the ethics of such sexual choices (check my website for more on this).
I am by no means a Bible or Christianity expert, but from the religion classes that I've taken and from the people I've talked to about this issue, it seems to me that it isnt actually religion that is influencing the government nowadays. Its people using religion to justify their pre-existing prejudices. Thus, the multifaceted and contradictory religious texts are used in order to legitimate conservative views on gender and a host of other issues - people see in those texts what they want to see, basically.
If evangelicals really take their religion seriously, then why are they emphasizing passages about sodomy and gender, and "forgetting" about non-violence? Why is nobody (as far as I know) encouraging the U.S. government to "turn the other cheek" when it comes to terrorism and the like?
This is why engagement with evangelical or conservative Christians is hard for me to take seriously - the conservative, oppressive views on gender/sexuality have a source much deeper than Christianity and I just can't stand it when they refuse to accept any other line of reasoning other than that derived from scripture and insist that the origin of their views is based solely on "The Bible." The issue for me isn't the Bible, but the social context around it which pushes people to read it in a certain way.
Thus, with regards to people who simply refuse to acknowledge this (who see the bible as totally decontextualized), I would actually recommend no engagement. Then again - perhaps I'm letting my anger get to me and not seeing the fact that (as far as I know) it is possible to engage with evangelicals on their own terrain (through scriptural arguments etc..)... Thoughts?
As one who was brought up in the Disciples of Christ faith AND have also been supportive of queer and gender-questioning issues, I think the problem is that the "two groups" are actually many. "The Christians" aren't one homogenous group any more than "the queers" are. There are too many factions within each group to try to get any unified response out of either of them. "The Christians" contain the idiots who picket funerals with "GOD HATES FAGS" emblazoned on their signs and their bodies, but this large group also contains the Disciples denomination who are openly welcoming to gays and to ordaining women, etc. "The Queers" contain militant gender-roles questioners who purposely offend and get into the faces of conservative folks, as it also contains people who are just starting to reach for that closet door but are still trying to hide behind the illusion of "normal."
As long as we forget that each group is made up of smaller groups which are made up of individuals, we will never get a useful discourse going.
Momina makes a good point. Thanks for the reminder.
aqueertheory, I'm a complete religion buff, and you are right. The Bible's view of sex is complex and open to interpretation. Anyone who claims scriptural support for their prejudice has missed the point.
queertheory, I'm not sure if I would say that the sanitisation was for Religion. I think it was in relation to a range of things. Many of which do feed into/play off religious themes, but I think it is overly simple to say Religion was the cause.
I agree with both of you. Religion definitely wasn't the main cause.. there was playing off of some religious themes in the GLBT sanitation process (e.g. - Bawer and Sullivan's books make references to Christianity from time to time...).
Neither "the Christians" nor "the Queers" are a homogenous group, that's for sure - however, I think it is important to identify strands within Christian discourse that make it impossible to even get into meaningful discussions about gender/sexuality and the like.. I am not speaking for all Christians - but for the particularly vocal textual-literalist minority that has been able to influence recent elections (if you believe works like Jesus Camp and some political opinion/exit polls).
To that end, what I've seen happen a few times is that people who abide by textual-literalist Christian discourse will engage with GLBT groups, will want to be "friends," but will refuse to talk about gender/sexuality outside of the context of their version of the Bible. I've seen eager GLBT activists, in those situations, take the line of - "oh, okay.. well.. you have your personal opinion, I have mine and then lets just be nice each other." I actually think that this is very counterproductive and that maybe a "you're-wrong-and-I-really-don't respect your position" approach is better and may actually lead to some (probably very tense) discussion rather than a mushy accomodation that establishes basic cordiality but doesn't achieve anything substantive.
By the way, offmycake, I'm interested to know more about the intersections of Christiany and queer theory... can you point me to some resources/articles etc or offer me a brief summary...? Thanks.
Forgive my seeming absence from this conversation so far. I've been reading very excitedly, but have yet to steal enough time to participate.
Even now, I'm just popping in to say two quick things.
1) On Equality Ride, some of my busmates did a presentation on Queer Theology. Haven't time to hook you up properly with good reference materials, aqueertheory, but at a glance, Wikipedia has a page on it that at least talks about there being some relation to liberation theology. That's here.
2) I think people often misread a nonviolent approach as a passive, "let's agree to disagree" one. It's much more about bearing witness, to borrow a very evangelical term, to hurts caused by others--indeed, living through hurts if needed--and calling out the places of disagreement...but in a way that does not attack the person with whom one disagrees. (Slight distinction, but it may be inappropriate even to say one disagrees with a person, rather than with a belief/action/etc.) Again, I direct you to the non-authoritative Wikipedia on satyagraha
For example:
The essence of Satyagraha is that it seeks to eliminate antagonisms without harming the antagonists themselves, as opposed to violent resistance, which is meant to cause harm to the antagonist. A Satyagrahi therefore does not seek to end or destroy the relationship with the antagonist, but instead seeks to transform or “purify” it to a higher level.
As easy as it may be to turn our backs on those with whom "productive" conversation seems impossible, merely to separate our lives as best possible (through government or geography)....there is decidedly an element of universality to this mindset (yes! even a pomo can say so!) and a belief that it is not possible, as a loving being, to thus divorce ourselves from others, no matter the harm others perpetuate. Again, sorry I don't have time to think/respond more carefully here, but I did want to throw the thoughts out there.
Tangentially, I love the sentiment behind namaste but worry about its popular use being a cultural hijacking.
outlawed, like you, I really would like everyone to try their best to be loving people.
But that love has to extend to the individual too. Loving your neighbour as yourself, etc, works both ways.
I love it when I can engage with people about spirituality. But I appreciate that some people just can't deal with the topic sometimes. If someone is damaged by religion (or some of the idiots who proffess one) then I think it is acceptable for them to reject it for as long as they need to heal. It's not about "turning your back", it's about shielding your heart*. Some religious dialogues can hurt people in deep and insidious ways. Even though I'd be describing something very different, I understand some people cannot accept my experiences of religion because of their experiences of religion. Validating the positive things I have felt can feel like validating the negative things they have felt.
That said, I still talk about religion/spirituality/magic anytime I get a chance. And I'll correct any damaging generalisations my friends have about the religious experience.
When someone tells me they don't want to know, it feels like a personal rejection, because these topics are so central to my identity. But I think it's important to remember that people often have good reasons for feeling threatened by the subject.
TBH, the idea of sharing my religious experience with people who weren't interested terrifys me. My spirituality is where I'm naked, being that vulnerable infront of a hostile critic would just be too painful. Input and critique I like, but at that deep level an attack would just be devestating.
*Ugh. apologies for the sacharinne.
Oh, I do like a robust conversation thread. As for resources on the intersections of queer theory and Christian theology, I honestly don't know of many. There are a few universities who have centers for gender/theology (Vanderbilt University being one of them), but I'm not sure how much of that gender theory is centered on queer theory. It's also pretty hard to find through simple searches and friendly librarians, because I'm often pointed to books refuting some of the biblical remonstrations of gays (nice to know, but unhelpful from a standpoint of queer theory). If anybody knows of any articles, etc, I'd love to hear about them. I'll ask around.
As for wanting a frank and open dialogue about queerness, yeah, that includes fucking, genderqueerness, and fetish sex. I think there are non-queers who could benefit from that kind of openness from their Church, too. I know these congregations exist (not that fisting comes up in service anyway, regardless of the congregation's views on it), because I'm part of one. It's a beautiful thing to be able to be an out, queer, pierced, tattooed Christian at a welcoming church. I agree that diluting a queer message (politically, sexually, or gender-ly) is unfair to the purpose of dialogue, but I also believe that the dialogue can be had respectfully on both sides.
Gotta process before I respond to any more.
To queertheory: My boyfriend is very much of the line of thinking that any activists (not nec just GBLT) are often too "oh, okay.. well.. you have your personal opinion, I have mine and then lets just be nice each other." about religion, esp when they are interpreting their Bible to justify discrimination. I'm seriously interested to know how being more "I don't agree and I don't care if I'm nice" is better.
To outlawed: "and calling out the places of disagreement...but in a way that does not attack the person with whom one disagrees" . I have yet to figure out how to do that and I'm not sure this is actually possible--people take things too personally.
To benjamin: "Validating the positive things I have felt can feel like validating the negative things they have felt." Well put. I appreciate a religious person can say a phrase like this. If only more humans would consider this point of view.
Commenting by HaloScan
