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

[Mike Lehman]

Phil,
I think one of the problems of modernity is that morality is entangled 
with the law in ways that are inimical to both religion and to freedom.

You wrote:
> 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. 
If you're talking about determining what the law might be, then yes, I 
see a problem. Because what you see as a sin is very different from what 
I or many other people see as a sin. And argument that you think such 
laws are invalid doesn't help much if you're basically willing to lay 
down in front of the bus carrying those supporting their repeal. It 
doesn't seem to help much when you want to frame a religious argument as 
taking precedence over a legal one.

I didn't attend the event, but I doubt that the minister who you were 
arguing against made the argument that the Bible was arguing in favor of 
equal marriage. I think her theology is based on some different concepts 
than yours, so that kind of turnabout-is-fair-play would probably not 
even occur to her, but I'm not a theologian, so I should probably just 
move on.

As far as my opinion goes, the less religion, per se, and the more 
morality -- of the Golden Rule and definitely not of the prescriptive, 
and divisive, biblical kind -- in government, the better. It would be 
the end to capitalism as we know it, the end of US  imperialism, and 
probably a better work all around.

As for my evaluation of the discomfort raised in the Indymedia community 
by your discourse, I stand by it. People are very tolerant here, but I 
think they are also extremely uncomfortable with being told that the 
views of the majority of us who are inclined to give aid and comfort to 
what you consider sinful will eventually put many of us in the position 
of feeling a need to publicly take sides in this -- and it will most 
likely be to denounce and repudiate views that transgress the rather 
universal norm in Indymedia that "ye shall not judge, least ye too shall 
be judged" when  it comes to such topics.

Which is where I think this really is getting rather off-topic for this 
list. Anything you are willing to put a name to is something we don't 
deal with here. We deal with anonymous trolling and things that Steering 
has tasked us with following through on. What you want to write as a UC 
IMC member is your business. I only raised these cautions because you 
seemed interested in how people were reacting. You're welcome to dismiss 
my advice, as that is all it is.
Mike Lehman

Phil Stinard wrote:
>> 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
>
>
>