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

[Phil Stinard]

>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: Hiding comments, etc.
>Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:51:13 -0500
>
>Phil Stinard wrote:
>>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:
>>
>Phil,
>You should refer to the last paragraph in my original reply, quoted down 
>below. While Indymedia has significant aspects that prioritize free speech, 
>you can go all the way back to the beginning of Indymedia and find that it 
>has never claimed to be solely "an area for free speech and exchange of 
>ideas." It has always indicated that it has a bias like other media always 
>do, just that it was going to be open about it. We don't intend to abandon 
>what sets us apart in hope of pretending to the false "objectivity" that 
>most dominant media projects.

I was under the false impression that UCIMC welcomed all independent locally 
produced media, but you've made it clear that that isn't necessarily the 
case.  More comments on that below.

>>>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.
>>
>No, I'm not kidding. Religious programming of one flavor or another is 
>absolutely dominant among second tier media in the country. For every 
>station that would allow an anarchist time to explain their philosophy, I 
>can show you 100 stations that wouldn't allow an anarchist through the 
>door, but have hours of weekly religious programming, if not 24/7.
>
>As for starting out your discussion of these issues with words that could 
>have come out of Fred Phelps' own mouth -- no matter how much you may want 
>to distance yourself from them in retrospect -- demonstrates at best a 
>colossal insensitivity and ignorance toward the other members of the UC IMC 
>community. You can call it love, but you need to be much better at setting 
>down exactly what you're talking about if you want to tread on this 
>extraordinarily sensitive ground for most of our members, because for the 
>most part they will conclude your motivations are less noble than you 
>claim. Pure and simple -- if you choose what the other party considers to 
>be fighting words, then be prepared to start a fight.

Okay, I admit that I could have used a little more tact and precision in 
starting out my comments.

>I want to note right here that your signed material was never hidden and I 
>didn't receive a note from anyone asking the web editors to do so, but 
>there was plenty of discomfort raised.
>
>As for anyone mistaking you for Rev. Phelps, no one is doing that. I'm just 
>pointing out how your rhetoric on this began as a painful reminder to many 
>of the problematic side of Christianity claiming to be a religion of love.

There is a tremendous need for people in this community to understand what 
Christianity is, and what it isn't.  And there is a need within the 
Christian community to understand the differences between the different 
denominations.  I was trying to get someone within the liberal Christian 
community to defend their views on homosexual behavior and same-sex 
marriage, but no one stepped forward.  Instead I was called a hater and 
shouted down (or at least they tried to shout me down).  By the way, I lived 
as a gay man for 30 years, and I was raised in a liberal congregation, so I 
have unique insight on these issues.  I might be lacking a little in tact, 
but my style is to be direct, and as a gay, liberal church-goer, I was never 
as thin-skinned as some of the people who replied to me appear to be.  I was 
hoping for a more open, honest discussion.

>>>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.
>>
>You need to reread what I wrote previously and what I've just written in 
>reply above. No one has yet called for any action here on this. It would be 
>out of character for us to actually achieve consensus on something like 
>that, IMO, but I can easily see spending a lot of time debating about it.

I agree with you that it would be out of character to achieve something like 
consensus on that.  I was responding to this part:

"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..."

Saying that "there is still that possibility" seemed like a veiled threat to 
me, but if you didn't intend it that way, I accept that.  In retrospect, I 
can see that you're perhaps alluding more to the fact that people at IMC's 
everywhere are thin-skinned on this issue (to the point of intolerance), and 
that UCIMC may be less so.

>Whether you feel your continued membership means anything to you is up to 
>you.

>>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.
>>
>I didn't say that. I said that is the opinion of a significant number of 
>IMC members and that it seems to be a political reality that you've been 
>almost totally insensitive to up to this point.

If people at the IMC have a problem with my sensitivity, don't you think 
it's more appropriate for them to talk to me?  More on that below.

>If you think this is witness and you're called to do it, so be it. I can 
>only suggest that it's a waste of your time and far more likely to stir up 
>more animosity on this subject rather than reduce it, if you continue in 
>this vein. If you want to effectively witness, then you really ought to 
>consider the implications of your discourse for any effectiveness in your 
>witness. Telling people it's because you love them is just not going to cut 
>it as logical validation for what they empirically perceive about the 
>motivations of those that they've encountered using such discourse.

You're reading too much into it if you think I was "witnessing" in an 
evangelical sense.  (That's an interesting and stereotypical assumption on 
your part.)  I was trying to engage the supporters of the forum in a 
conversation and learn the reasons they interpret the Bible the way they do. 
  If I want to witness to someone, I'll do it one on one.  This was supposed 
to be an intellectual conversation--it definitely was NOT witnessing.

>>>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.
>>
>I was not accusing you of being physically threatening. But if you are 
>referring to material you may have posted anonymously and which now is 
>apparently hidden, I've already stated that it falls under our consensus of 
>what constitutes disruptive behavior on the website. That's what we're 
>talking about here.

You've unhidden my stuff, so that's a red herring, Mike.  It sounded like 
you were making a comparison of something that is physically threatening and 
disruptive with what I posted in the thread on the same-sex marrige forum.

>As for material that you've posted under your own name, that is a separate 
>issue from hypotheticals about hidden posts; the jury is still out. Did you 
>anticipate the reaction you quoting that particular part of the Bible would 
>likely bring? I hope not, I hope it was just ignorance of the audience and 
>not intentional trolling.

Quoting the Bible is NEVER hate speech in my book.  What's important is the 
context and why it's done.  I did NOT say that God hates homosexuals.  If I 
had said that, that would merit censure.  I would have thought that people 
living in an university town like Champaign/Urbana would have more 
discernment than that, but I guess I was wrong, so you can chalk it up to 
ignorance of the audience rather than trolling.

>If you kept returning to the same subject in such an insensitive matter, 
>after you've both experienced the reaction of others and our discussions 
>about how counter-productive it is, whatever your real motivations may be, 
>then I will probably join the crowd in considering that it likely is. Then 
>it would be up to someone to make a proposal under our process to address 
>this. As I've already noted, this takes things into an entirely different 
>direction than if you or anyone else posts material that falls into that 
>category anonymously -- and out of the hands of the web editors.

Now that sounds a little more like a veiled threat, and truly, if someone 
has a problem with what I write, they should have decency to defend their 
views in an intelligent and intellectually honest manner (anonymously if 
necessary) rather than talking behind my back.  (It sounds like from what 
you've said to this point that people have spoken to you directly about it, 
unless you're referring to the ANONYMOUS poster(s) who responded to my 
comments on-line.)  If people have a problem with me, tell them to talk to 
me.  Please.

>>>I've done my best to summarize here the main issues that I would have 
>>>discussed with you, but there is plenty more 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.
>
>I guess it's maybe not what your expectations of independent media were, 
>but I've been looking for a opportunity to clarify this to you, as it has 
>been clear to me for some time based on some of your comments on editing 
>that you may have a view of Indymedia that falls outside its historical 
>consensus. You're entitled to your views, but you should be aware of the 
>significant political challenges in changing the established consensus on 
>these issues are only compounded by your stand on issues apart from 
>editorial policy.

I agree that it's not my expectations of what independent media is.  I would 
have expected a little more tolerance of divergent viewpoints, but I do 
understand the situation as it is.

--Phil

>Mike Lehman