bigotry abounds

[Thats my opinion]

The United Methodist church in our city produces a large Christmas display each year. Last year it was a modern homeless family in the manger. This year it depicted three life-sized couples each holding hands--before a representation of the manger. Two women, two men and a heterosexual couples. Christmas night vandals destroyed the images of the two gay couples. Outrage in the community and in support of the church is rampant. We will gather to witness the rebuilding of the display. The bigots are not yet unidentified. Most of the churches in our area are welcoming to GLBTQ people. They are about the only places in town that are open and affirming.

[Starboard Tack]

1. Wow! Sorry to hear that. Keep up the good fight.

[MarkCharles]

2. Churches are never immune

"Michael F. Jacques Jr. was sentenced Dec. 22 to nearly 14 years in federal prison for his role in the arson destruction of the Macedonia Church of God in Christ, a local black church, just hours after the nation elected President Barack Obama.

Co-defendants, Benjamin F. Haskell, 25, and Thomas A. Gleason, 24, previously pleaded guilty in connection with the massive blaze on Nov. 5, 2008. They both admitted creeping through the woods that separated their homes from church on Tinkham Road, dousing the partially constructed church with gas and setting it on fire to denounce the election of the nation’s first black president. The pair said Jacques accompanied them.

The case attracted international attention.

Thousands of volunteers came from all over the country to help Bishop Bryant Robinson Jr. and his congregation rebuild the church. "

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/top_10_stories_of_2011_michael.html

[dmallind]

3. The ONLY places?

Your town has no gay bars, no choirs or theater groups or other traditionally gay-friendly environments at all?

[Thats my opinion]

5. There may be a gay bar.

For the other venues, you need to go to Los Angeles. I should have added, "that I know about--or my Gay friends talk about."

[Goblinmonger]

4. "The bigots are not yet unidentified."

I don't think that's what you meant to say.

And I find it hard to believe that you live in a place that is not "open and affirming" to GLBTQ and yet "most of the churches" are. Seems to me if most of the churches are, then most of the people in that area should be, too, unless the go out of town for their churching.

[Thats my opinion]

7. Obvious mistake.

The bigots have not yet been identified. My guess is that most of the folks here are open and affirming. In the Prop 8 vote, this community voted overwhelming against the prohibition on Gay marriage. A number of us staffed telephone venues---all of which were in churches.

The question is clubs, communities, associations, friendship groups in the community that are open , other than the established churches. I'm sure there are Gay groups on the campuses of our five colleges. But in the non-academic neighborhood, I' don't know of any.

[Goblinmonger]

9. As to the mistake, I was just trying to point out the error. Nothing more.

Fair enough on the organizations.

[skepticscott]

10. Well, we do know that

almost all of the theological seminaries in the world are open and affirming towards gays, so I'm sure it's filtering down to everyone else.

[MarkCharles]

11. almost almost almost all!

For sure, we can name on the fingers of one hand those that don't, right?

[Thats my opinion]

12. Not everyone. Maybe not even most.

But the action is in the right direction. Filters are often very slow---too slow.

How long did it take even in the scientific community to get on to what Copernicus had to say?

[skepticscott]

13. Did you or did you not post these exact words?

"All over the world almost every seminary and hundreds of congregations welcome GLBT people, and have taken clear open and affirming stands."

According to you, the religious community had already "got on" to affirming and welcoming gays. Except now you post a direct contradiction of that. Care to explain?

[MarkCharles]

15. Contradictions are hard to explain! Especially among

those who rely upon the Bible, where contradictions seem to be all over the place.

[Thats my opinion]

30. You don't really care if things in the religious world are opening up to GLBT people.

All you want to do if find something to snipe about Do you have any reaction to the thrust of the post? I guess not. I put up with your total abuse in rt and I am through with it here. Bye.

[cleanhippie]

34. IOW, "pay no attention to my contradictions, and just do your best to infer my meaning."

You have stated yourself that you have spent your life as a communicator, yet you seem to disregard the most basic concepts of communication.

[skepticscott]

35. No, what we care about is whether

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:54 AM - Edit history (1)

you post blatant falsehoods about the extent to which it has happened ("All over the world almost every seminary and hundreds of congregations welcome GLBT people, and have taken clear open and affirming stands."}to serve your personal agenda.

[Thats my opinion]

49. Take a look

www.gaychurch.org/
www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/find_a_church.htm
www.gaylife.about.com/od/religion/a/gaychurch.htm
www.ucccoalition.org
www.glaad.org/faith

and that just scratches the surface







.

[skepticscott]

62. And your point is what?

A list of churches that welcome gays does not address my question.

Why don't you try addressing the direct contradiction between your claim in #12 and the claim of yours that I quoted in #13?

[skepticscott]

108. Apparently you can't

What a shock.

[Irishonly]

6. Do you live in the Inland Empire? n/t

[Thats my opinion]

8. Irish,

I'm not only your neighbor, I'll be in your class multi-generation class. Tell me about other Inland Valley groups. I'll list them.

[Thats my opinion]

33. Looks as if I probably have identified someone else. Sorry. rt

[Irishonly]

38. Haven't been on computer

I didn't understand your first reply though. I thought I knew where the church was.

[Iggo]

55. Ex 909er here.

Made the mistake of Putting my email address on the form when I registered to vote there back in '99.

I'm still getting email from racist PACs. Seems the only people they really hate are Kagan, Obama, and of course The United Nations. Oh Lordy, do they hate the UN.

[Irishonly]

59. Yep

My favorite story is when the FBI raids the Upland City Hall and makes arrests all while they are claiming to be a conservative city. I am a bad person. People I know are still getting teased about their conservative values city council and mayor. Because CA goes blue people don't understand there is an ugly segment of the population here.

[Iggo]

70. Oh yeah. IE is redredred. (nt)

[cbayer]

14. Tragic and I hope they find those that did it. OTOH, this thread is enlightening.

When I first read this, I asked myself what might be in here that could be attacked.

I honestly couldn't think of anything, but I knew I was just missing it somehow.

And I was right!

Dad

[skepticscott]

16. Hypocrisy and dishonesty

poison everything. And credibility is always an issue in discussions. Wouldn't you agree?

[cbayer]

17. I guess if that is what you are looking for, that is what you will see.

[skepticscott]

19. Well, it's hard not to see it

when it's right in front of your nose, time after time after time. Or perhaps you have another explanation for what I posted in #18? Please...enlighten us.

[Thats my opinion]

31. A couple of them are now on ignore. I just won't engage in DU 3 what i did in 2

[EvolveOrConvolve]

63. I know he's your dad, and it's charming that you're defending him

You probably know him in ways that the rest of us don't. But... he posted some things that were pretty inflammatory about nonbelievers without offering up any sort of real apology, and it rubs a lot of us the wrong way. We can only judge him within the context in which we know him, and it's not a positive relationship for many of us.

I know you're going to keep defending him, but while you do, keep in mind that some of the ideas he has are grossly offensive to us. And while we have to put up with it in real life, DU is the last place we expect to get it. If we seem angry about it, it's because we ARE angry.

[cbayer]

88. I understand that and appreciate the way you have responded here.

He made some terrible mis-steps and I was unable to either help or defend him because of my role as a moderator.

I started posting his stuff on DU before he did, always acknowledging that he was my father. When he started posting his own stuff, the trouble started.

There is no doubt that he has offended some here and has not been particularly sensitive at times. However, he is a good man, an honest man and a man who has made a positive difference in this world. This group of relentless bullies who will attack him for syntax or just using the wrong word need to stop. Once they target someone, they are vicious. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.

[cleanhippie]

100. You had me until you started to make things up.

This group of relentless bullies who will attack him for syntax or just using the wrong word need to stop. Once they target someone, they are vicious. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.


Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit.


No one attacked HIM at all, especially not for "syntax or just using the wrong word." You were given a very thorough explanation of the reasons why your fathers POSTS are met with such hostility, and much like him, you refuse to see what the real problem is, even when it is explicitly laid out for you.

Along with that, YOU make blanket personal attacks against all of us that disagree with his posts and ask for explanations by calling us VICIOUS BULLIES.

So much for your neutrality as group host. I believed you when you said you were up to the task when I expressed reservations about it. I think we need to look for a replacement, don't you?

[cbayer]

101. As I have not excercised a single option available to me as a group host,

I don't see any need to replace me. But that would be up to the main host to decide.

I do understand that my father has played a key role in this drama. He even got himself kicked out of one of his own threads yesterday.

There are vicious bullies that participate regularly in this group. Pretty much everyone who has visited the Religion (or previous R/T) forum knows that. And people who have had to moderate it in the past know it particularly well.

I never said I was neutral. I said that I wanted to make this a better place. Part of the way I hope to accomplish that is to openly confront incivility and bullying. And I reserve the right to confront it no matter who is being attacked. That includes attacks on you or my father.

[skepticscott]

106. So who are these

"vicious bullies"? And what are some examples of their "bullying" that are inappropriate to a discussion board intended to get at the truth of things? Be specific, please.

[cleanhippie]

139. She will not say, I'm sure. To do so would only confirm what "we" already know.

It's easy to make blanket, ambiguous accusations. No responsibility, easy to deny that anyone was talking about anyone specifically.

It was just this kind of shit that had me concerned we she asked to be a host, and she talked me out of my reservations about it.

Lesson learned on my part, I guess. Respectability lost on hers, IMO.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

105. I think a real apology would have gone a long way to soothing some hurt feelings

I understand that he's a passionate person when it comes to his belief, but he has to be a little more introspective and self-aware. The old "walk a mile in my shoes" comes to mind. Until he really understands why some of the things he says are offensive, apologies for those things, and shows by his actions that he understands and has atoned, I fear that any discussion started by him is going to devolve into flames. It won't take one thread or one post to earn back the respect of many of us.

I think it's admirable that you're sticking up for your dad. You obviously have a deep amount of respect for him, and that sort of respect isn't the result of him being a bad person. But like I mentioned in my previous post, we can only judge him within the context we know him, and that's here at DU in the Religion group.

[cbayer]

115. This is one of the most thoughtful and insightful posts I have read concerning

this situation, and I hope my father reads it.

[skepticscott]

118. The habit of bestowing blessings

on posts as being sufficiently "thoughtful" or "intelligent" is both condescending and annoying. This has been pointed out to your father any number of times, and he (finally) agreed not to do it any more. Apparently it's another bad habit that runs in the family, though.

[cbayer]

119. It never occured to me that giving someone kudos on a post

was either condescending or annoying, but I see your point.

I hope that you won't see this response to you as bestowing a blessing. I honestly don't know how else to tell someone that they have made an excellent point and I agree with him.

[skepticscott]

121. Uh, you tell them

"that's a very good point, and I agree with you". Saying that a post is "thoughtful", in the context that your father, and now you, use it, is saying that the poster has been appropriately respectful and deferential towards you, and that you approve of their attitude. It's rather like telling your six year old that they've been a good boy.

Your father finally understood this. I suggest you ask him about it.

[cbayer]

122. Again, I see your point.

I did not mean it as you describe. It was more my goal to encourage civil debate in this rancorous group, but I can see how it might be construed otherwise.

I will try to be more thoughtful when I post, lol.

[cbayer]

123. Just another point, as I dwell on this.

There are some members who make statement that I read as really insulting. They tend to go something like: "you do understand (blah, blah, blah), right??". To me that sounds like, "You are obviously too stupid to get it, so I will bring it down to your level".

I may be misinterpreting their intent, but it's another example of how a statement might be received as insulting, whether that was the intent or not.

[skepticscott]

137. Yes, that does happen, and such statements are generally made

in response to arrogant declarations of "knowledge" which are made in complete ignorance and in contradiction of very well-established fact and principles. No one is knowledgeable about everything, and everyone is "ignorant" about some things, but when people post as if their declarations are unchallengeable, when they are anything but, they deserve a little smack down (and I don't exclude myself from that, since I'm not innocent of ever having done it). In that case, it's about more than attitude, it's about trying to influence the thinking of other people with things that are manifestly untrue, or at least highly questionable.

It's very seldom, if ever, that people here get those kinds of responses when they are genuinely looking to learn more about things they don't know much about.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

127. Me too!

[tama]

136. In real life

politics - Greek for 'social life' - has relatively little to do with ideology and theory and all to do with emotions - controlling, manipulating and sharing emotions. In that respect IMHO this group is one of the best places on DU to learn to do politics. I'm glad to see that we are learning to relate to feelings of anger and pride with wisdom and patience, even kindness. Learning together, as others and selves...

[skepticscott]

18. So how do you square your statement that

"Outrage in the community and in support of the church is rampant."

With this statement from the wife of the artist (and church member) John Zachary:

Anita Zachary said she was upset by what she perceived as a lack of community outrage.

"I want to believe Claremont is a rather liberal community ... that's what's most upsetting is that people aren't outraged. My opinion is just that the community doesn't seem to put its money where its mouth is." (My emphasis)

http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_19627389

You just never get tired of making things up, do you?

[cbayer]

20. Wow, you really helped me make my point here.

You looked for it and you found it.

[laconicsax]

21. Yes, he looked for the truth, and he found it.

It just happened to be the opposite of what the OP claimed.

[cbayer]

22. Or perhaps it's is just one person's personal perspective and another's personal perspective.

I am not sure that a level of outrage can be proven. It all depends on who you have talked to and what you have seen.

[laconicsax]

23. I think your judgement may be clouded in this case. n/t

[cbayer]

25. I don't know about my judgement, but I do know my father.

He is many things, but he is not a liar.

[cleanhippie]

28. Wow. No one called anyone a liar, but you felt the need to say that.

Why? Your comment serves no purpose other than to shut down conversation, instead diverting attention the the obvious need for your accused to respond to your charges.

[cbayer]

29. "You just never get tired of making things up, do you?"

To call this anything but a liar accusation is just parsing.

I am out now. Have a great night.

[cleanhippie]

32. Like I stated, your comment served no purpose other than to shut down

conversation. Congrats, mission accomplished.

And you managed to make the assertion one last time before declaring victory for yourself.

The funny part in all of this is the fact that it's you, and not your father, who is answering for his apparent contradictions.

[skepticscott]

37. Well, please provide us with your explanation

for the OP's statement in #12, which was in direct contradiction to something he posted just a month ago. One of those two deliberate, well considered statements is false. What would you call that?

Add to that his claim of "rampant" community outrage over this incident, when none has been shown to exist, and when one of the people who are most likely to be aware of it if it existed has stated publicly that they have seen the exact opposite, a distinct lack of outrage.

I could go on, as could anyone familiar with the OPs posting history, but I think the point has been made.

[skepticscott]

109. Apparently you have no explanation

That's the thing about dishonesty and lack of credibility, you know. They touch on everything else that a person says. Once someone has shown a penchant for asserting things that are contradictory or untrue, and that they can't and won't support with evidence, everything else they claim without support becomes questionable.

And your attempts to paint all of this as a trivial quibble over using the wrong word are really nothing but lame hand-waving. Words mean things. And specific words are deliberately chosen to mean specific things and to create specific impressions in the minds of readers and listeners. The difference between things that are true, or at least reasonable, and those that are false, or wildly exaggerated is merely the difference between the specific words used to express them. No trained and experienced writer is unaware of this.

The word "rampant"was specifically and deliberately chosen here, to create a specific (and totally false) impression of the state of things. That's what's being criticized here...not the person and not the incident.

Still waiting too for an explanation of how bigotry can abound at the same time that outrage about bigotry is "rampant". Something a little odd about that picture.

[cbayer]

117. My only explanation is that different people have different perceptions

of identical events (Rashomon). It does not mean that any of them are lying or that any of them hold the real truth.

I also find this whole debate over whether there was a lot or not enough outrage over this incident to be, well, tedious. When a hate crime has been committed and there are people in the community who want to right that wrong, that seems like something we should be supportive of. To focus on something so trivial is a reflection of the dynamics of this group, imo.

[skepticscott]

120. Sheesh, did you even read my question?

It had nothing to do with different people's perception of the same incident (and even in those cases, some perceptions are just simply wrong, btw). It was about directly contradictory statements made by the same person, i.e. your father (who, despite your claim to the contrary, has refused to defend or explain this). This is something that goes directly to a person's credibility here, and how their unsupported declarations are regarded.

[skepticscott]

24. Which doesn't even come close to explaining

how outrage in the community can be "rampant" (as claimed by the OP), without the people most directly affected knowing or hearing anything about it, and in fact perceiving the exact opposite.

[cbayer]

26. Your linked article doesn't say anything about people not hearing

anything about it. It merely says that the she is disappointed in what she perceives as a lack of community outrage. She is disappointed that a community that sees itself as liberal is not more outraged.

And perhaps she said this before the group mentioned in the OP (that will witness and oversee the rebuilding) got going.

I find drawing these kinds of conclusions based on very little evidence, well, ironic.

[laconicsax]

27. Just to say, she's not seeing any outrage.

The quote is that people aren't outraged, not that they aren't very outraged.

Either way, it's night and day compared to the OP's claim that everyone is outraged.

[skepticscott]

36. The article says that the artist's wife

(and presumably the artist) did not see outrage in the community, and she was apparently convinced enough of that to say so publicly. They are the people most directly affected.

And if you had bothered to actually read the article, you would have seen that:

"At 7:30 p.m. Thursday, there will be an interfaith vigil at the church to show support for the lesbian, gay and transgender community, John Zachary [the artist] said."

And in spite of this, there is still no perception by the people who should know of "rampant" community outrage, which is what was claimed in the OP.

You of course have actual evidence of this "rampant" community outrage, right? Or are you going to repeat a pattern and avoid providing it?

[Irishonly]

45. The OP lives in the community

Our communities have the same local paper and it is awful. It has pulled the story about it being a hate crime probably because of comments. It has been a few days since the destruction took place and maybe the article was written before a lot of the community was aware. People I have told are outraged and although I can't say my community is completely outraged, my community is.

The display was on Foothill BLVD. I drove by it a few times before I realized that it was couples depicted. Since I was the driver I didn't get a lot of time to look. Even liberal areas have their share of haters.

The Op has stated he has received emails and has given more information. The heterosexual couple was not harmed, only the gay-lesiban couples were destroyed.

It is best not to take anything the Bulletin says as absolute fact. We don't know how soon the artist's wife was asked. I didn't know about it until I read it here which was why I asked if it was in Claremont.

[skepticscott]

47. Do you have evidence that

the quote from her was falsified in any way? Or are you just grasping at anything?

[Irishonly]

52. Looking for alternative

The article was written on the 27th. OP posted the event two days later and I know how bad that paper is. Maybe the outrage came after the article was written. I don't understand why people are assuming the OP is lying. I know the article about this being investigated was pulled or at least it wouldn't come up when I tried to get it on the site.

[skepticscott]

64. Do you have any EVIDENCE

that the quote was falsified? Does the newspaper has a proven history of making quotes up out of thin air and attributing them to people who never said anything remotely like them? Because the OP does have a history of making claims with, shall we say, questionable support in fact (the one I quoted in #13 above being only one example). And the amusing habit of thinking that it doesn't matter and that no one here notices or remembers.

As far as the timing, the event occurred between 11 AM on Saturday the 24th and 9 AM on Sunday the 25th. The article was posted at 4:07 PM on Tuesday the 27th, between 55 and 77 hours later. The OP was posted at 2:19 PM on the 28th, only 22 hours later (NOT two days, as you falsely claim). So unless all that rampant outrage was generated while people were sleeping, and then transmitted to the OP personally in a flood on Wednesday morning, your theory falls flat.

[Irishonly]

66. Why don't you tell me when the wife was asked?

What EVIDENCE do you require? I talked about the OP's community. The paper sucks and if you think it is a great newspaper, it is no skin off of my hide. It is a shame that haters can destroy. You can believe what you want. I think it is criminal that a nativity was destroyed. I was struck by they hate shown to the op and the event in general. Are you happy it was destroyed?

[skepticscott]

107. Gee, how about evidence from the person quoted

saying "I read the paper, and that quote was not like anything I ever said"? Sheesh, is the concept of evidence to back up your claims that foreign to you?

Saying that "The paper sucks" is not evidence of anything, even if it's more than just your opinion. Was the whole story of the vandalism a lie? Or just the part that you want to be a lie?

[Irishonly]

110. My opinion because I am not going to post link after link that wouldn't be believed anyway

The original poster said he saw support. I read his posts and I have no reason to doubt him. You went running to a local paper and got stuck on what the artist's wife said. Whatever floats your boat. I tend to try to see the good in people and I am in the wrong place.

[Irishonly]

111. I saw this on latest threads. I try to avoid this group

I saw this on latest threads honestly didn't read which group it was posted in. I saw it as a hate crime on LGBT first, the artist and then the church.

[cbayer]

116. Would you be comfortable saying why you avoid this group?

[Irishonly]

124. I am not comfortable with the snarking that goes on in here

It was one of the first groups I checked out when I joined. It has never bothered me what someone's religious views are or if someone is agnostic or atheist. My friends are in all religious groups, agnostics and atheists. I am getting old enough that I am just tired of snarking at people and figure there is enough to be worried about in this world without getting obsessed with an fairly innocent statement.

I also avoid the Obama wars. It is my little obsession and I am not going to do anything about it. I strive for peace in my life and don't enjoy silly conflicts. This isn't a slam on the group and had I realized where the original post was, I would not have commented. I was just so upset that a hate crime was committed and as I said the church was not in my first thought when I read it. Had all of the nativity been destroyed my view may have been different but that is a different discussion.

[cbayer]

125. Thanks for that. I hope you will reconsider and

spend some time here when you see something that interests you.

There is no doubt that it is a contentious group, but I think members in general are working towards upgrading the tone of the debate. I think the old adage that money, politics and religion are topics to be avoided if one wishes to steer clear of rancor is true.

[Iggo]

56. He found it because it was there.

[Irishonly]

39. I know where the church is. n/t

I never edit except for spelling and here comes edit #2 on content. I live close to Claremont and IMHO, it is not as liberal as it was 30+ years ago. I remember when a friend of mine went to the school of theology when protesting the Iraq invasion just stated happening and students were too "busy" to go. Retired church people from Pilgrim Pines showed up every Friday as did boomers from different churches. The young people not so much.

I imagine there was outrage as well as apathy. Not all communities around here are liberal havens. One actually prides itself in being a conservative community and go forty miles east and it gets very red. The daily paper would not win any journalistic awards. A friend of my husband is convinced a Bush owns the paper but he is also is a truther and I haven't been interested enough to investigate.

The Nativity scene was beautiful. I didn't know it had been destroyed until I read it here. I don't get out that often but I am horrified that someone would destroy it and that not all people are outraged. I am glad there will be a vigil. I won't be able to attend as I don't go out at night because of my disabilities. I also hope the paper covers the vigil.

[Thats my opinion]

40. Irish, good to know you are in the community.

The Friday vigil, that has gone on regularly for 9 years, is partly people from Pilgrim PLACE, and partly students and others from the community, including a number of veterans.

There is outrage all around the community. I have already had 40 e-mails about it.--of course, not by everybody.

Part of the outrage comes from the City government. The police department has classified this as a "hate crime", which means a criminal investigation. I am a member of an official City body called, "The Human Rights Committee" We are planning a community-wide forum on the issue.

You might understand why I no longer have the patience or the interest to deal with the abusive junk that gets aired in this forum. There is too much else to be about.

I know John, the scene's creator. He is a very mild man who also builds sets for Hollywood. Instead of making a fuss, he will just rebuild it. A beautiful person! i also know John's wife. She made that statement before most of us even knew about the incident.

It is so sad, and typical of many who posted here, that an article about a hate crime against GLBT people was massively attacked on the thin basis that I said, "Outrage is rampant." No sympathy for the Gays who ere the butt of the action. No concern about their rights Only sniping at the word "rampant." What a sad bunch!.

I'll be at the vigil tonight, while they snipe away.

On Tuesday a carload of us will be marching in the Occupy edition of the Rose Parade.

Even if you are disabled, your posts make a positive difference--so keep it up.

[laconicsax]

41. If there's so much outrage, why hasn't the Ms. Zachary noticed it?

She's on the record saying that there's no outrage.

[cleanhippie]

42. Bye. n/t

Seems to be his response to this question.

[Thats my opinion]

50. She will be at the community-wide rally tonight nt

[laconicsax]

57. That's nice, now can you answer my question?

[Irishonly]

43. I love Pilgrim Place

Several members of the church where I attend live there. When they talk about Civil Rights. rights for Native Americans and even Gandi the only time I open my mouth is to ask a question. The wisdom, justice and love they represent gives me the chills. It is an honor to know them. Many of them worked hard for civil rights, women's right and the right to choose. They are still working hard even though they are retired. I have been with them and saw how hurt they were that the "young people" didn't have time. As a side note, I love their Pilgrim Festival too. I never miss it.

I thought the Nativity was beautiful. As I said some times I don't get out much and I didn't know until I read your post it had been destroyed. I am glad it is being treated as a hate crime because that is what it is. I am so sorry John's work was destroyed. I never have understood the hate.

I will be there in spirit and I hope you know there is a lot of support.

[Thats my opinion]

51. Next year at the festival stop by the arts booth and see some of my paintings and cards. nt

[Irishonly]

53. We have seen each other

Do you live there? Do you know Lois and Rhoades?

[Thats my opinion]

60. They are my neighbors and old friends.

[Irishonly]

61. Two of the most wonderful people put on the face of the earth.

I have been very ill this fall and haven't been to church but we go to the same church. Lois taught be all about the wall in Palenstine. I took my daughter and her friend to see a film there. I love Rhoades dearly even though he doesn't remember me all of the time now. He is a gem.

[skepticscott]

46. Face it, you made things up

just to make the story fit your agenda better, and now you're annoyed because you were caught at it. The incident and the article were NOT attacked here, nor were GLBT people, and you know that perfectly well. It was YOUR dishonest rendering of the incident, solely. But now you just can't help making yet another dishonest characterization of the response, can you?

And why would the artist's wife publicly decry the lack of outrage in the community before anyone was even aware that this incident happened? Does she disrespect her community that much to say something that wasn't true or wasn't warranted? Is she that kind of person?

[cbayer]

48. I guess I just don't get your agenda here.

He posted a story about a hate crime in his community and how the community was responding to it.

He was attacked first for saying that the churches were places where GLBT people were welcomed and affirmed, then because of a grammatical error, then because he reported a different response from the community than another person did.

All of those things seem unbelievably trivial in light of the crime that was committed here.

And then another member who is also in the community reports his experience of this event. Is he also a liar?

I just don't get what it is you hope to gain by personally attacking the OP over minor details in an otherwise important story.

[cleanhippie]

54. I guess I just don't get why you are answering for your father and not seeing the problem here.

They are not "minor details", they are the last in a long line of dishonest postings and refusals to accept responsibility for it.


And why are YOU defending his posts? Why is HE not defending his posts himself? Why does he run away from the questions that that NEED to be answered before anything else he posts can be taken seriously?


You know, unless TMO decides to answer for himself, I don't want to hear any more excuses for him. It is tainting your apparent neutrality in this forum.

[Heddi]

58. +1

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

75. +1

Excellent points.

[Heddi]

77. +1

[cbayer]

82. I have every right to defend anyone I want, and I particularly have the right to

defend my father.

He has been targeted by you and a few others because you are threatened by him. He is not who you portray him to be, but he certainly is able to bring out the worst in you.

He does defend his own posts, but the pile-on's by "your team" are relentless and nasty.

I don't give a shit what you do or do not want to hear. I will continue to defend him. I never said I was neutral. Are you?

[skepticscott]

112. Oh please...threatened??

Posts that he makes that contain inaccuracies, falsehoods, contradictions and unsupported assertions of fact are targeted because that's what happens on a discussion board. If there is any inaccurate portrayal here, it is yours.

And no, he doesn't defend his posts. He has dodged and avoided answering simple and direct questions more times than I can count, using the (apparently familial) tactic of calling every such thing a "personal attack".

[skepticscott]

65. So when falsehoods, inaccuracies and contradictions

in a post are pointed out, and when explanations and evidence are demanded, you characterize that as a personal attack? Gee...wonder where you picked up that trick?

As far as the rest, cleanhippie said it as well as it could be said.

[Goblinmonger]

71. Please. I never "attacked" him for a grammatical error.

I pointed out an obvious problem. If you and he take that as an "attack" then I really don't know that I can say anything to either of you. Your dad claims to write to tens of thousands of people. He should welcome the free editing from someone trained in the discipline.

[cbayer]

83. You backed off and even apologized, and my respsect for your increased exponentially

at that point. I was only pointing out what had happened in the thread and did not mean to single you out.

[Critters2]

69. The gays who were the butt of the action can't be married in the UMC church where the nativity was,

nor by the clergy who serve there. That seems outrageous to me.

[Irishonly]

44. Place not Pines

Pilgrim Pines is close to Mentone

[rug]

67. This story has reached China.

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1800932

[Critters2]

68. The United Methodist Church is not welcoming of lgbt people. Its policies are the same as those of

the Southern Baptist Convention. "Homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian faith" is its official statement.

Putting up a nifty nativity scene doesn't undo the damage the UMC's position does to lgbt people.

[Thats my opinion]

72. In response concerning "Bigotry Abounds"

Yesterday I posted a thread describing the desecration of a Christmas display at the local United Methodist Church, a tableau picturing three couples under the Chrismas star—two of them Gay or Lesbian. I said that in response there was outrage in the community and in support of the church. I went on to say that almost every seminary and hundreds of congregations now welcome GLBT people.

Among the responses were those from the regular religion haters calling me a liar, “You posts blatant falsehoods.” “your falsehoods, inaccuracies and contradictions….” “ you make up the story to fit your agenda.” That easily translates “liar.” From these same posters, not a word about the event. No word about the bigots or the bigotry. No word of support for the church, or for the offended Gay and Lesbian people. No effort to get in the struggle for Gay rights. Only condemnation of me for stating there was rampant outrage in the community. They then referred to a newspaper report stating that the wife of the designing artist was upset that the community had not responded. It was said by my attackers that her statement branded me as a liar

The DU jury to whom their posts went declined to say that these posts calling another poster a liar was not in violation of DU rules because the facts were in dispute. Here are the facts.

I talked this evening to John and Anita Zachery, the artist and his wife. Anita said that the call from the reporter came very early in the process even before most in the community had even heard about the desecration, and she was so upset by the incident she said just what was reported. Since then she has said some very different things, and has contacted the reporter about them. She now is aware of the enormous reaction in the community. Perhaps we will see about this as the newspaper continues to cover the story. The press was present this evening at the vigil.

What was the reaction in the community? The police tried to write off the event as a “bias incident.” When that word got out, pressure was put on the City, and the Police were forced to take another look. Under this community pressure they upped their estimate, not just to a “hate incident,” the next step, but a “hate crime.” This means it will be investigated as a criminal activity. That would not have happened without an aroused populous.

I just returned an hour ago from an outdoor candlelight vigil at the site of the display, where people from all over the community gathered with the members of the Methodist church to sing, pray and forgive. Among the speakers was John Zachary and his wife. John thanked the community for its support and for turning out to stand with him and the church. The singing was led by the cantor of the local synagogue.

In the last day I have received about 40 e-mails from the community asking what can now be done. I am a member of the official municipal committee charged with investigating hate crimes and incidents. We are planning a city-wide forum to deal with this event and how we might further respond. Many members of the committee were present at the vigil.

These are the facts of the case. What is the purpose of those calling me a liar? I had the audacity to say that the religious community is increasingly open and affirming in the welcome and support of GLBT people. And they objected to any mention that something decent can come from religion. But the progressive church has been at the heart of the pro Gay agenda—often fighting off the fundamentalist religionists. It was in the same Methodist church where we met night after night making calls against Prop 8, which denied the right to marry to Gay folks. I indicated in this thread that hundred of churches were open and affirming. And they are. I did not lie about that, as I was accused of doing.

Among the many websites I suggested was
www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/find_a_church.ht
which lists hundred of churches in every state and throughout the world.

While there are those of us hard at work confronting bigotry and making a way for our brothers and sisters, we must continually fight the indecent backfire of those who ought to be joining us in the battle instead of sniping. In WWII 20 percent of
American casualties were mistakenly shot by our own troops. We are fighting some pretty tough battles for decency and human rights. To continually be shot at by those with some other agenda and who are using DU as the firing range–those who ought to be our colleagues--accomplishes nothing else but to make the fight more difficult. And when DU doesn’t even consider these attacks as personal, and allows them to continue, the fight is even more difficult.

I will not continue this debate nor deal any more with those attacking what I stand for. I had hoped that there would be a new spirit with DU 3, but so far that has not been the case.

[laconicsax]

73. You know, Charles...

If you had taken the time to participate in this thread you started, you could have put an end to the speculation about whether you were exaggerating or even bearing false witness by simply responding to the charges. To refuse to answer legitimate questions about what you post and then make a blanket proclamation about how you've been wronged comes across as disingenuous and arrogant.

You say that there are hundreds of churches that welcome LGBTQers, but ignore the simple fact that, as noted above, the church where this took place has the same homophobic policies as the Southern Baptist Convention. I have to agree with Critters2: "Putting up a nifty nativity scene doesn't undo the damage the UMC's position does to lgbt people."

I think you would do well to wear a thicker skin and try to not take things so personally.

Have a happy new year!

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

76. +1

[Heddi]

78. +1

[Thats my opinion]

89. The United Methodist Church world wide,

like many other denominations, is slowly moving in the open direction--but it is moving. The decision the rest of us have to make is whether to support the movement to openness or condemn the whole thing. The Methodist problem is that they are tied to African bishops and their churches which are very conservative and drag down the whole progressive agenda. But in the United States the motion is remarkable. This congregation and its ministers, along with hundreds of local Methodist bodies, are clear about their position. They are "welcoming," and they choose to openly violate the denomination's slowly changing stance. Many of us are at work within the ecclesial structures to keep them going toward justice. It was a similar problem in regard to slavery! The issue is not about the denomination, but about what this congregation is doing, despite the reluctance of the world-wide body. Do you support them or don't you? I haven't heard a word from all of you about that. Just criticism. Just tell me about how you are involved in the struggle.

[laconicsax]

92. You want to hear how I'm involved in the struggle to make the UMC less homophobic?

[LiberalAndProud]

103. Please don't blame it entirely on the African bishops.

Just as the pope has concerned himself with preserving the organization at great human cost, the UMC hierarchy here in the US has concerned itself with preserving the church. That is the overriding concern. Moral or spiritual considerations have little to do with their doctrine. It is about preventing a split, not just worldwide but here in the good ol' US of A. I am intimately aware that many good people within the church are working to bring about change and to form welcoming congregations (wasn't that term discouraged in some official capacity in fairly recent times?) Although this is encouraging, it doesn't address the underlying cancer.

[Thats my opinion]

91. participate?

of the 87 responses 13 are mine. But I will no longer engage in useless diatribes.

See my response today about the UnitEd Methodist issue. it is an important question.

[laconicsax]

93. And about half of those are you chit-chatting with a neighbor.

So really, out of 87 responses, 7 are of you engaging in discussion.

[Thats my opinion]

95. seven ain't bad.

But can you really blame me for not wanting to throw raw meat at those who will only use it as a weapon? I think DU has a legitimate positive agenda, and what often has gone on here and in DU 2 in no way moves that agenda forward. The question is, how can we be honest about serious give and take where we really hear each other instead of playing "gotcha"? I want to get away from that game, realizing that at times I have fostered it.


Atheists have a legitimate place in this forum, but I have to wonder why with a kind of persistence and absolutism, anyone would want to vigorously be part of a forum whose title and subject is fiercely hated?

i know the crap religion has spread and is still spreading around the world. But can't there be at least a bit of slack given to the positive things it does? Isn't what that one Methodist church has done worth even a begrudging thanks?

[laconicsax]

97. You mean thank them for doing the right thing for a change?

Sure. You can pass my thanks along.

Thanks, Claremont United Methodist Church for doing the right thing for a change. I know that performing a same-sex joining ceremony is out of the question until Prop 8 is repealed, but please let me know when you ordain an openly gay minister or donate to a pro-LGBTQ organization.

Sincerely,
laconicsax

As to your lack of participation in your own thread, you might find a warmer welcome if you stick around and respond to questions and criticism directly. I know I'd respect you more if you did. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox.

[Thats my opinion]

98. That church has a long distinguish record of supporting Gay causes--with persons, money and

public statements. They have Gay persons on the staff. Would happily ordain gay pastors--may already have, and just as soon as we get the law straightened out in California will be in the marriage business. They have already, outside the law.

"doing the right thing for a change.." Come on, you can do better than that.

I'll respond--and do--to serious questions, not attacks on me or on religion at large, which aren't seeking answers, but seeking points on the board.

[laconicsax]

99. "I'll respond--and do--to serious questions..." I look forward to seeing this change. n/t

[Leontius]

102. As do many other Methodist congregations across the country but I guess that counts for nothing here

Change is hard sometimes but change supported only by ridicule and indifference by those who should welcome it, inside of the church or without, is almost impossible.

[LiberalAndProud]

104. "They have already performed gay ceremonies."

Was the pastor defrocked?

[cleanhippie]

141. "But I will no longer engage in useless diatribes. " Does that mean you are done posting?

[kwassa]

113. Your questions were not legitimate, they were nit-picking and your conclusion is wrong.

Putting the United Methodist Church in the same sentence as the Southern Baptist Convention shows how far away from reality you are.

There is great movement underway in many of the mainline denominations to accept same-sex marriages, and to give a place in the clergy and church management for gay church members. In each of the denominations, while this trend is clear, there are also very conservative members and churches opposed to this.

The United Methodist are undergoing this change right now. Here is some information on it.

quote:
"MILWAUKEE (AP) — A growing number of pastors in the United Methodist Church say they’re no longer willing to obey a church rule that prohibits them from officiating at same-sex marriages, despite the potential threat of being disciplined or dismissed from the church.

In some parts of the U.S., Methodist pastors have been marrying same-sex couples or conducting blessing ceremonies for same-sex unions for years with little fanfare and no backlash from the denomination. Calls to overturn the rule have become increasingly vocal in recent weeks, ratcheting up the pressure for the Methodist church to join other mainline Protestant denominations that have become more accepting of openly gay leaders.

..............................

At a conference this month in Minnesota, the Rev. Bruce Robbins of the Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church invited clergy to sign a statement saying they’d be willing to conduct any wedding, not just heterosexual ones. He said more than 70 signed it.

Robbins said he was driven to a sense of urgency because efforts are under way to have Minnesota’s constitution limit civil marriages to heterosexual couples.

“One of the tragedies is, there are so many things we should be attending to: poverty issues, justice issues,” he said. “I wish this didn’t have to be at the center of our efforts today. But it is because of the inequality, the unfairness of the policy.”

Similar efforts in New York this month drew signatures from more than 140 clergy and another 500 signatures of support from lay people, according to an organizer. Another 100 retired clergy did the same in New England, and at least a dozen there have actually conducted same-sex marriages with no complaints."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/methodist-clergy-defying-churchs-gay-marriage-ban-an-uprising-taking-place/

[laconicsax]

114. Interesting...a Christian and an atheist make the same claim and you go after the atheist...

The UMC and SBC have similarly bigoted policies. It's great that Methodist pastors are willing to defy those polices, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the official policy of the UMC to not allow LGBTQ ministers, refuse to perform same-sex marriage services, and to not fund or support any pro-gay organizations.

Read it for yourself:
http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1324

While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.

Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

The General Council on Finance and Administration shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality or violate the expressed commitment of The United Methodist Church "not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends" . The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures. This restriction shall not limit the Church’s ministry in response to the HIV epidemic.

From the "social principles" at the top of that page:

Human sexuality:

The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.

Marriage:

Marriage—We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. We believe that God’s blessing rests upon such marriage, whether or not there are children of the union.

We reject social norms that assume different standards for women than for men in marriage. We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Are you seriously suggesting that these aren't bigoted, homophobic policies? It's that old 'hate the sin, love the sinner' bullshit.

[kwassa]

128. Not that interesting, and you make my point for me.

You're talking about where the church is coming from and I am telling you where it is going.

Christianity and Western society has been opposed to homosexuality for the past 2000 years, with attitudes about it changing only in the last 40 or so. The idea of same-sex marriages is even more recent, and attitudes are slowly shifting nationally to be in favor of it. As you can see, the United Methodist church is changing too, as the news stories I posted reveal. Other mainline churches are going through the same process. The Episcopal church is already there, and the Presbyterians are finally allowing openly gay clergy.

These churches have both liberal and conservative elements, though as denominations they are moving in a liberal direction, soon to be fully accepting of gays and same-sex marriage.

I don't think we will see any changes in the Southern Baptist churches for a very long time, if ever.

Is the current rule bigoted and homophobic? Not necessarily. The idea of marriage is being expanded, and the traditional concept that has been in place for hundreds of years that marriage is only between a man and a woman is being changed to include partners of the same sex. Change comes at different times in different places.

[laconicsax]

130. Are you serious?

You're saying that those rules, which define homosexuality as a "practice," refuse to fund anything that promotes its acceptance, and forbids celebrating same-sex unions, as "not necessarily" homophobic?

You've got to be fucking kidding me! Is the KKK "not necessarily" racist too?

[kwassa]

131. Yes, I am serious.

Dissemble much?

It is clear the point passed right over your head.

Your utter lack of any historical perspective is unfortunately too common here.

How old are you? You sound like someone very, very young.

[laconicsax]

132. So you don't see calling homosexuality a "practice" as homophobic.

The things seen on a supposedly progressive discussion forum.

[kwassa]

133. Thank you for not answering my question.

which, of course, answered it.

Like everything else I pointed out to you, and that you seem to have completely missed, calling homosexuality a practice is also a throwback to an earlier era.

Go ahead, ignore the progress that has been made, ignore the trend.

I have no doubt that there are homophobes in the United Methodist church. I do doubt that that anything but a minority are currently homophobes.

[laconicsax]

134. Your quasi-appeal to tradition is cute.

I posted the UMC's current policies. You can crow all you want about them being a "throwback," but that doesn't change the simple fact that they're homophobic.

I find your persistent defense of outright bigotry disturbing, offensive, and to be frank, I'm not sure it belongs on a Democratic discussion forum.

(BTW: I still find it interesting that you chose to reply to me rather than Critters2, who made the exact same charge. How do I know it's the same? Because I quoted Critters2's comment as a basis for mine.)

[kwassa]

148. So is your lack of historical knowledge.

I am not defending outright bigotry. You, unfortunately, are making that up.

Willfully ignoring the larger factual context to make an essentially false argument. Your argument, by the way. The world is changing, and you don't know about it.

I am responding to you, rather than Critters2, because of your treatment of the OP writer in this thread, and because of past behavior by you. I disagree with Critters2, who, I believe is a minister, though I don't know which denomination. Quite possibly United Methodist. Nonetheless, I disagree with her, too.

[laconicsax]

149. Rationalize all you want. You are defending homophobia. n/t

[kwassa]

150. Because you say so? Oh, please.

Write again when you have a real argument.

[laconicsax]

151. Please point out where you've condemned homophobia in this thread.

So far, all you've done is make excuses for it and refuse to even acknowledge that it could be homophobic. Making excuses for homophobia is defending it directly and pretending it doesn't exist is defending it indirectly.

[Iggo]

74. But I thought you had them all on ignore.

[cleanhippie]

81. Uhm, Yeah, Charles. Its us, not you.

[deacon_sephiroth]

86. another modest reply

You posted "A Modest Proposal" a few weeks ago...

Asked that we censor ourselvese so you don't have to, thank you for that BTW.

But more importantly you suggested that in DU3 it should be different, that we should engage in discussion without barriers (as long as we stayed within certain boundries that you suggested, but that's OK)

I replied with: "Change starts with you buddy, so I look forward to seeing the new you around here."

Yet here you are, still occupying your high ground and casting monologues into the pit of dregs to be savored as wisdom and not questioned as portraits of a world through rose colored stained glass that they seem to be. You continue to dodge questions and threaten detractors with ignore, while failing to answer reasonable assertions and questions put forward by others.

I personally have, since your post a couple weeks ago, attempted to be more civil in my dealings with you in hopes that you would change to follow suit. This does not seem to be the case, bye.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

79. At the risk of getting this deleted or hidden

or whatever happens in DU3 - a bit confused - I have to say that after reading this thread & your posts, I'm seeing a lot of character traits shared by you & your daughter.

[cleanhippie]

80. Bwahahahahahahaha!

And wakemeupwhenitsover for the WIN!

[deacon_sephiroth]

87. well, if I'm on the jury, you're safe. n/t

+1

[cbayer]

90. Thanks wmuwio!

It's an honor to be associated with someone who has done more to advance the causes of liberty, justice, and Democratic ideals than anyone else I personally know.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

94. +1

You just proved my point. Very good.

Delusion runs in the family.

[cbayer]

96. Aw, c'mon. You can do better than that.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

138. Sure could if Skinner would

lift the mod confidentiality agreement. Until then, what was posted in the mod forum, stays in the mod forum.

[cleanhippie]

142. Oh, SNAP!!!!!

Holy shit (no pun intended), there seems to be more here than meets the eye.

[Heddi]

143. rofl

oh! I have the vapors!! hahaha

[mr blur]

126. So you want the church praised for doing the "right" thing?

The thing that millions of people would do whether they believe in a god or not?

Would this be because the religious would generally be expected to not do it?

You think a church should receive praise for being reasonable and un-bigoted?
Why?
Because you wouldn't expect them to be? I agree with you there.

[kwassa]

129. I think the church should be praised for doing the right thing.

I think individuals should also be praised for doing the right thing, whether or not they believe in God. Positive actions should always be recognized.

Churches do lots of wonderful things, but one would not know it if one only read this forum.

[mr blur]

135. That wasn't the point of the OP

As I 'm sure you' re aware.

[kwassa]

144. no, it is the point of the OP

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[mr blur]

145. You have no idea what I 'm talking about?

Of course you don't. No point in me trying to explain, then. None so blind as those that will not see.

[kwassa]

147. You would do well to try.

Your commentary thus far has nothing to do with the OP.

[cordelia]

146. I don't have any idea either.