I wish we in the LGBT community were better at speaking to Christian conservatives in language that they could relate and connect to. When the “tenants of Christian faith” card is played with regards to the lives of LGBT Americans, we in the community generally don’t respond to these charges in a way that religious right social conservatives understand. We could be better at this, and here’s an example:
The extended Robertson family star in the A&E reality show Duck Dynasty, and Phil Robertson is the 67-year-old patriarch of that family. Robertson’s now infamous comments to GQ magazine, graphically describing what he and many Christian conservatives believe the gay community do in bed, defining it as sin and then comparing it to bestiality, is common in some segments of conservative Christian faith; but its common use makes it no less vile. And vile is how GLAAD described the comments.
“GQ magazine’s profile of Phil Robertson included some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication,” wrote GLAAD spokesperson Ross Murray in a recent GLAAD blog entry.
Calling words, such as those uttered by Phil Robertson, vile isn’t going to change the hearts and minds of conservative Christians.
The story of The Adulterous Woman found in John 8 is something conservative Christians understand. They know the Scripture about a “woman caught in the act of adultery,” and they know that religious leaders who brought the woman to Jesus stated “the Law of Moses commanded us to stone such women.” Jesus didn’t scold and tell her she wasn’t going to inherit the Kingdom of God, he instead is said to have replied to the religious leaders saying, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” The Scripture then stated that the accusers, one by one, all left without casting a single stone at the outcast woman.
Then there is the parable of The Good Samaritan found in Luke 10. When Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbor?” in relationship to the commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself,” he told a parable of a man who was robbed and left beaten by the side of the road. A priest and a Levite, religious leaders of that time, passed by the injured man and did nothing. Then a Samaritan, considered an outcast by many Jews of the era because he practiced a faith that many Jews considered heretical, found the injured man and rendered assistance. In this Scripture Jesus was teaching that being a person of “right” faith wasn’t enough – even religious outcasts are people Jesus saw as living the principles of true faith.
If Jesus were telling that parable in today’s world, I wonder if Jesus wouldn’t perhaps change the characters in the story to a Southern Baptist minister, a staffer at the American Family Association and a transgender Episcopalian.
Phil Robertson condemned those who he sees engaging in sin, but the example of Jesus is one where he criticized those who condemned religious outcasts.
When the audience for our LGBT community messaging include Christians whose hearts and minds we want to change, LGBT community leaders may want to consider weaving thoughts about love and outcasts into our messaging. Approaching enemies with Scripture and love would seem to have more of a chance to be effective than just labeling anti-gay sentiments as vile.
It’s called the First Amendment Stupid.
When you start limiting others speech you leave your self open to be censored.
I don’t understand why you don’t understand that.
Anne
That is a good point, albeit one lost on extremists…
I don’t agree with Phil Robertson, but I find it kind of ironic that his POV is remarkably similar to that of those who condemn him. The only real difference is what they think is “vile.”
And a point lost on many is that in the case of the Woman Taken in Adultery is the fact that Jesus was, in effect, condemning those who accused her for their hypocrisy. He did not let people off the hook like Sandeen implies. The woman was accused, but oddly lacking from the story is the man she was caught with. Some suggest that he was probably part of the mob, perhaps even one of the leaders.
Perhaps Sandeen might well have been taken to task by Jesus for condemning Phil Robertson in much the same way that some believe he condemned them.
Perhaps, instead of calling a Christian, sincerely following his perception of his faith, vile, simply saying “I disagree.” might be better. But, alas, for some, that does return that visceral sense of self-righteousness that they crave.
Anne, I fail to see the need to call someone stupid. If this is an expression of your faith, trust me when I tell you, it doesn’t represent it well. So it makes me wonder why you would be so harsh in stead of engaging in a reasoned, intelligent discussion? Is your purpose to insult or to be part of a discussion? If it is only to insult, what could you possibly hope to accomplish? I am interested in your answer.
Reasoned discussion is rarely, if ever, possible with extremists on either side of an issue.
When a normal person considers the outrageous statements made by such groups as GLADD regarding other’s first amendment rights, Stupid is the first word to come to mind.
Anne
The author makes a good point. I will go on to say no one was helped by the way things happened. Accepting differences in each other and ourselves is a two way street. No one is disposable.
I would say it blew up in people’s faces and they are scrambling to pull out some shred of damage control. What is lost on so many is that the extremes are, well, extremes. It is that which Nixon dubbed “the Silent Majority,” what others call “mainstream America,” or “flyover country” that matters. And in this case, they were not very impressed with what happened.
Actually the evidence points to this being a publicity stunt to boost ratings. It appears that the GLBT community was a useful idiot in this stunt, it is well known how reactionary the GLBT and GLAAD are. What a better “Tool” for gaining a larger sharing of the viewing audience. for the DD Marathon, and guess what it worked.GLAAD and the GLBT are the new “Banned in Boston”.
I guess Autumn is going to have to google that one.
Speaking of Autumn, I think Jesus would take her to task for having a Norse god tattooed on her back.
What was that about false idles??
Anne
That is very possible… I have to admit, prior to this, all I knew about “Duck Dynasty” was that I had seen something at the local Walgreens with that title on it, and a photo of three rather scruffy looking rednecks. Now, I know a bit more, though I admit, I am no more inclined to watch a show about a family that has made a fortune making duck calls than I was before. This mess certainly did them no real harm…
Yep….we can do much better http://gayambassador.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/15-things-i-learnt-about-discussing.html
You forgot one,
17. Always remember EVERYONE has THE RIGHT TO SPEAK THEIR MIND, it’s so important the bill of rights begins with it and freedom of religion.
Speaking for myself, I believe anybody who does not hold the first amendment as the primary right of the individual should be deported, and they should be deported because they are working to tear down the foundation this country is built upon.
Anne
Autumn, you make such an excellent point! I think the casting the first stone argument leaves open the counter-argument that it is an admission of sin…but the parable of the good samaritan is right on the money. It takes time and thoughtfulness to develop these kinds of responses but in my opinion…a much better response!