[Imc-web] Re: Hiding comments, etc.

[Phil Stinard]

Hi Mike,

I think we have fundamentally different ideas on what it means to provide an 
area for free speech and exchange of ideas.  You tend to want to protect 
people from particular ideas.  I don't have any particular problems with 
that, but you really need to be more honest and up front about the policies. 
  I'm not referring to Jack Ryan so much right now as your comments on 
homosexuality, so I'll limit my reply to those:


>From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
>To: Phil Stinard <pstinard at hotmail.com>
>CC: imc-web at lists.ucimc.org
>Subject: Re: [Imc-web] RE: IMC-Web Digest, Vol 33, Issue 13
>Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:49:38 -0500

[Jack Ryan related stuff deleted]

>I don't want to make this too personal, but I think you may now be able to 
>see just how uncomfortable and disconcerting your quoting the Bible on 
>homosexuality is to this community. While it may be true that your views 
>make you marginalized within the IMC community, it is hardly the case that 
>there aren't already plenty of outlets for such points of view within the 
>dominant media. You may say it's all about love, but for the vast majority 
>of IMC members, you're just quoting the same thing Rev. Phelps is -- and 
>you've done very little to distinguish just how your views may differ from 
>his.

You're kidding, right?  (1) First, hardly anybody ever critically examines 
what the Bible states on homosexuality, especially in the "main stream 
media."  In particular, I was challenging the UCC's position, which was 
never clearly stated in the parent article, nor was it ever defended in the 
feeding frenzy that was nothing but personal attacks on me and my church.  
There are a lot of issues that can be respectfully debated--do they feel 
that the Bible (at least some of it) is the word of God?  Is Jesus divine, 
or just a good teacher?  Should Biblical codes be written into law, or 
should they be written on our hearts?  (I take the latter view, but no one 
gave me a chance to explain.)  What does it mean to be a Christian? (2) 
Second, if you or any other IMC can't tell the difference between me and 
Fred Phelps, you have serious psychological problems, and I can't help you 
with that.

>At just about any other IMC, you simply taking such a position would likely 
>result in an immediate proposal to expunge you from the organization. There 
>is still that possibility here at UC IMC, but in general we are a far more 
>tolerant bunch than that. Are you or your minister spreading hate? That is 
>a matter of opinion, but I can tell you that there are many, if not most 
>IMC members who would likely agree that quoting the same thing as Rev. 
>Phelps is too uncomfortably close to hate for their tastes.

With regard to expunging me from the organization, that shouldn't be 
necessary, because I haven't paid this year's dues and so I'm techinically 
not a member.  I still have a No. 4 key that I use only in conjunction with 
Books to Prisoners (I was substitute jail librarian last Friday), but if you 
want it back, I'll turn it in for the $20 deposit.  If I were still a 
member, I'd invite you to "expunge" me for my religious beliefs.  It would 
be an honor.

Am I or is my minister spreading hate?  Actually, neither.  You're begging 
the question--neither of us hate homosexuals.  Many, if not most, of my 
close friends are gay, and they don't have the same misconceptions that you 
have.  If you're wondering whether my Pastor ever preached a sermon saying 
that homosexual behavior is a sin, as a matter of fact, he did last Sunday.  
But, that's not hate.

>Would your church tolerate some clown who stumbled drunkenly through the 
>door every Sunday, interrupting the sermon, and soiling the carpet in the 
>midst of his foolish behavior? Oh, maybe for a week or two, you'd be trying 
>to get him to Prairie Center or whatever. But if he kept coming back, doing 
>it again and again, I'm sure there would be a point when you figured the 
>Lord wasn't going to help right here, right now, and you'd be dialing 911 
>to lock him up, issue a no trespass notice, and obtain an order of 
>protection for the minister and his family.

And... you think I'm doing that (being physically disruptive and 
threatening)?  I challenge to to name one instance.  You can't.

>If you want to come to the IMC to witness or preach, then you should be 
>explicit about it. You'll have to take the slings and arrows. But at least 
>we'd know it was one of us, in a way, because otherwise such material 
>posted here repeatedly and anonymously is going to fall under the rubric of 
>what we consider to be abusive posting practices. We have very good reasons 
>why we don't tolerate this material and it reaches far beyond the Jack 
>thing. We're here to serve under-served communities and we can't do that 
>when we have a persistent pattern of comments on the topic of "Why 
>organize? You're just wasting your time. You shouldn't raise hell. You 
>should repent."

You're not clear in the above paragraph whether you consider my posts 
abusive, or whether you consider Jack Ryan's posts abusive.  I wasn't 
anonymous, by the way.  And, whose material don't you tolerate?  Mine, or 
Jack's?  Or both?  Are you intolerant of my religious beliefs?  Try to be 
more clear.  The end of your paragraph is clearly a reference to Jack, 
because I haven't said anything remotely similar.

>I don't mean to hurt you or to attack your views. In fact, that is why I 
>offered several times to speak with you and explain further when you raised 
>concerns previously, but you never followed up.

I'm not hurt, by the way, just annoyed and disappointed.  At least when I 
complained about specific comments being hidden, they always reappeared, so 
I give you credit for that.

>I've done my best to summarize here the main issues that I would have 
>discussed with you, but there is plenty m,ore that could be said, except I 
>have other obligations I must tend to. I can respect you no matter who you 
>are amid the fact that we probably see the world in fundamentally different 
>ways. I can only hope that you return the favor. I won't expect you to 
>accept what I find disconcerting about religion and you shouldn't try to 
>convince me that Indymedia is somehow wrong to have these policies, based 
>on our principles, history and objectives.

It's not really independent media, then, but I understand where you're 
coming from.

--Phil

>Mike Lehman