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

[Mike Lehman]

Phil,
No one has spoken with me directly. The concerns I am aware of come from 
three directions: other comments posted to that thread; some comments 
I've heard over the radio; and my general knowledge of how most people 
at the IMC feel about your line of argument.

Whether or not _you_ would argue that Biblical morality should be 
enshrined in law, the fact is that religious arguments have 
histrionically been the justification and motivation cited when such 
laws were enacted and are repeatedly cited in defense of retaining these 
same cultural-legal expressions of anti-homosexual, etc social norms.

Most people supporting legal revisions to put all sexual activity 
between consenting adults on a level playing field and to ensure equal 
treatment in all socially recognized legal relationships, such as 
marriage, whether or not the person is personally religious, find 
arguments based on religion to maintain what is typically the current 
legal status to be tantamount to simply revisiting the arguments they 
have already found to be discredited, pointless, and painfully 
disrespectful to their position on the part of those who raise them.

Anyone arguing for this level legal playing field on sexual conduct is 
also, by implication, a believer in a bright line between church and 
state to separate religious beliefs out from other justifications for 
law. Thus, for them the only religious factor is usually that religion 
should NOT present an obstacle to legal remedies for discrimination 
based on sexual preference.

You obviously differ. I suppose it is possible to make an argument that 
you don't support legal recognition of such religious beliefs (I think I 
recall you taking that position at some point) -- and that would be a 
fine argument if the question was whether some sexual expression should 
NOW _be_ banned. But the historical fact is that the argument is in the 
opposite direction and that religious justifications pandered to by 
politicians remain the primary reason why such discriminatory law 
remains in effect. Thus religious defenses such as you articulated for a 
biblical interpretation is seen as inherently linked to support for such 
discriminatory law, even if you choose to personally distance yourself 
from legal factors. It is seen as obfuscation of the real issue -- that 
such talk of morality belongs in church and not in the legislature or in 
the prosecutor's office when it comes to such conduct.

The impression I got is that your starting off with the Bible quote 
damaged your credibility in making other points in your argument. But 
quite frankly, this is yet another place where it isn't so much you, but 
those who people associate you with -- rightly or wrongly -- because of 
your choice of discourse that is the problem. Sure, you're not Fred 
Phelps, or Jerry Falwell, or anyone of a number of other Christians that 
most people would reasonably conclude both hate homosexuals and want to 
punish them legally for being who they are. Quite frankly, it is the 
same position that George Bush has put all other Christians in by his 
public embrace of divine authority to pursue aggressive war of choice in 
Iraq. If you wanted to effectively talk with a Muslim about 
Christianity, the first thing you would NOT do is quote Bush on it, 
because his are words with a distinct and highly negative character.

You would most likely take pains to distance yourself from any 
implication that you're a Christian like George Bush -- and you would 
still likely face some sincere doubts about that, based on the highly 
ugly picture Bush has painted of all Americans with his policies. I 
don't mean to argue that Bush's words are the equivalent of the word of 
God, but that when words become associated with certain positions, then 
it puts a tremendous burden of proof on anyone else that uses the same 
to distinguish clearly how their position differs from those you would 
prefer you weren't associated with.

But I don't have the time to advise you more on how you need to 
repackage your message. I can't really say that I have much enthusiasm 
for such a project, as I think that the argument over equal marriage is 
not and should not be a religious discussion, except among believers who 
are concerned about their own practices -- and not those of others.

If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't have one. Religious 
discussion is over, IMHO, as far as the law goes. And it is abundantly 
obvious that there are a variety of religious beliefs on this issue, so 
that it really is not possible to further define this religiously, 
because there is no theological agreement on this subject despite the 
extreme discomfort this fact may cause to many. That may in fact been 
what motivated you. People who want to discuss equal marriage have 
already moved on from such concerns -- and are among the most unlikely 
to be persuaded by arguments such as yours.

As for other people, I'm sure that most people are very much aware where 
fundamentalists stand on such things. They read the News-Gazette, watch 
TV news, etc. George Bush ran two campaigns largely depending on such 
discourse to claim that he's defending "family values". Sure, maybe Bush 
doesn't get a fair shake on that from our readers -- but that's the way 
the world works -- so do you really expect them to have a more positive 
reaction if you bring it up?
Mike Lehman

Phil Stinard wrote:
> One more thing, Mike.  Could you please make it absolutely crystal 
> clear for me whether it is the content or the style of my comments on 
> homosexuality that some people find offensive?
>
> --Phil
>
>> 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:
>
>
>