Follow-up to: [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: Follow-up to: [Imc-web] Re: Hiding comments, etc.
>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:38:15 -0500
>
>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.

Hi Mike,

I appreciate your extensive reply to my question.  First, if no one has 
spoken to you directly, then it's a misrepresentation to imply, as you have 
done, that what I posted is of major concern to UCIMC.  It seems (without 
evidence to the contrary) like you may be the only one, and if you've taken 
it upon yourself to represent the views of "how most people at the IMC feel 
about your line of argument," then I feel bad for the inability of UCIMC 
members to think for themselves.  It sounds like you're babysitting and 
gatekeeping.  I prefer to think that people have minds of their own, and if 
they have views one way or another, that they will express them.  For you to 
attempt to cut off debate prematurely is a sign that you might be 
overcontrolling.

>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.

What's interesting is, you don't care what my opinion is or what my 
arguments are, the fact that I think that homosexual behavior is a sin 
automatically disqualifies me from having anything to say on the matter, 
even if I argued that such laws were invalid.

>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.

So you already know what "most people" think on this issue.  I would wager 
that five percent, maybe ten percent at the most, of the people at either 
end of the spectrum on this issue are hateful and intolerant, but that the 
majority would like to hear a broad range of opinion and make up their own 
minds.  In other words, I don't buy your argument.

>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.

The myth of neutrality, another topic worthy of debate.  It doesn't hurt to 
question your assumptions.

>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.

Just because someone has made a purely political acccommodation to a group 
doesn't make that group's ideas invalid.  You see as much pandering on the 
left as on the right.

>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.

Talk of morality only belongs in church?  Morality needs to be discussed 
more openly, not less.  Criminal law is based on moral assumptions.  The 
question is, which and whose assumptions.

>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.

People won't break the stereotypes they entertain unless they are challenged 
with alternatives.  You're telling me that people shut their minds and don't 
listen the moment I say that homosexual behavior is a sin because they 
associate that with Phelps and Falwell.  Unless they are challeneged by 
someone who is not like Phelps and Falwell, they'll keep on thinking that, 
which is convenient for some people's political agendas, but not for getting 
at the truth or breaking stereotypes.

>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.

I don't feel like I have to bend over backward to distance myself from 
Bush's "Christianity"--he's hardly a devout Christian.  However, he HAS 
embarrassed me as an American.  But be that as it may, I'm not going to use 
a "tremendous burden of proof" placed on me to prove I'm not like Bush stop 
me from speaking the truth as I see it.  It's a non-issue with me, as it 
should be with anyone with an ounce of common sense.

>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.

I'm appalled by your disingenuousness.  If equal marriage should not be a 
religious discussion, then WHY did the forum include the religious aspects 
of equal marriage, and why was a minister a panelist?  And, I didn't ask you 
for a makeover.  I was asking why people were offended, and you've told me 
that it's only you, one or two anonymous posters (whose opinions we're told 
to discount) and maybe someone you heard on the radio.  And maybe some 
others at the IMC who think the way you do, but you're not sure, because no 
one said anything to you about it.

>If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't have one. Religious discussion 
>is over, IMHO, as far as the law goes.

Thanks for identifying that as your opinion.  Others beg to differ.  It 
really needs to be discussed--that's the only way to change minds.  If 
religious discussion is over, why have people in so many states passed 
amendments forbidding same-sex marriages?

>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.

"People who want to discuss equal marriage have already moved on from such 
concerns."  Who might all those people be?  I still see a lot of people who 
have religious concerns, including a significant number of gay people.  And, 
nevertheless, you're willing to speak for them all!  Again, you're being a 
little overbearing.

>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".

You're stereotyping, Mike.  You (and "most people") don't want to hear from 
me because my views are identical to... whose?  Phelps and Falwell?  But 
didn't you just get through telling me that I'm not Phelps or Falwell?  
There's as much close-mindedness and intolerance on the left as on the 
right.  And lately, I'm getting it a lot more from the left.

>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?

Who?  You and someone on the radio?

--Phil

>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