Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I do not have any idea of any other way to say that hate speech under the guise of religion is wrong. That is not a 'get rid of religion' or 'anti-religion' statement.

I absolutely agree that hate speech is wrong. In your previous post, however, you didn't mention hate speech. You said you wanted Benny Hinn and his ilk off the air, completely. You said you wanted religious universities shut down. Are you suggesting that everything that comes out of these people and institutions is always hate speech, no matter what?

There is a difference between loudly and publicly not liking a person or group of people and hate speech. If some TV preacher thinks homosexuality is a sin, well, he has a right to think that. He even has a right to preach it to his congregation. I don't believe it becomes hate speech until that preacher begins to incite violence against the group he thinks is sinning. I'll grant you that it's a very, very fine line, but I think the line has to be there. If it isn't, then it's not really stretch for people on their side to claim that everything negative we say about Christians is hate speech. Where does that end?

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I absolutely agree that hate speech is wrong. In your previous post, however, you didn't mention hate speech. You said you wanted Benny Hinn and his ilk off the air, completely. You said you wanted religious universities shut down. Are you suggesting that everything that comes out of these people and institutions is always hate speech, no matter what?

There is a difference between loudly and publicly not liking a person or group of people and hate speech. If some TV preacher thinks homosexuality is a sin, well, he has a right to think that. He even has a right to preach it to his congregation. I don't believe it becomes hate speech until that preacher begins to incite violence against the group he thinks is sinning. I'll grant you that it's a very, very fine line, but I think the line has to be there. If it isn't, then it's not really stretch for people on their side to claim that everything negative we say about Christians is hate speech. Where does that end?

Your post brings me to the concept of liberty, which I think all in a society ought to be able to exercise- even those I disagree with.

There are many people with views I would love to see restricted from media, yet, there is that "free speech" concept to consider. And it applies to all, even the most vile bigots of our time.

It is easy for me to go off on generalizations about fundamentalist Christians, yet, I do try to step back and remember that not all of my assumptions are based upon fact. Just as what those very people assume about me in general, is not true.

Frankly, there are many aspects of assimilation (Aj has pointed out some) that are very positive forces for people to actually effect change in society from a personal perspective. And it does NOT have to take away one's individual integrity or ties to racial or ethnic, sexual orienhtation, or gender identity at all. My history as a mid-century Italian and Latin American follows a course much like Aj's. Although, I find it very difficult to discuss this as the racialiazation of Italian immigrants is just not of much interest today in the US that has little sense of US immigration and race outside of African American and Latin American (mainly the plight of mexican Americans) concerns. However, I see the necessity for this (just not the lack of knowledge) because both continue to have levels of structural racism that effect just about every aspect of their economic and social conditions in negative ways. I wonder about the lack of discussion of Native American inequities are not part of discussions, however.

There is a process of positive augmentation of what an outsider brings to the assmilation equation that changes the assimilated whole. Therefore, what has been "mainstream" is changed or the variations of more diverse 'cogs" on the societal wheel is increased.

[Cin]

I have been reading this thread and it got me to thinking about the ways that I have changed over time. I am sure that my own personal evolution is not unique and if I can be moved to think in different ways so can others.

I used to believe that revolution was the only way to achieve the kind of world I wanted to live in. Tear it all down and start again. I had a favorite fantasy in which oppressed people everywhere would rise up together, throw off their yokes and wrest power from their oppressors. Of course not only is that extremely unlikely to ever happen, but even if by some miracle it did, without some fundamental change in human behavior, before you could say plus ça change, there would be more yokes, and necks aplenty to put them on.

Over time I have come to believe it is possible to invoke change by working toward encouraging small shifts in the ways that people think about a particular issue. If you can change the way that the majority of people think about one thing, for example that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, then I believe you have the beginning of cultural change that will translate to systemic change. Though when it comes to human rights it often seems the laws change and then people adjust themselves over time. But I think the perception of majority sentiment needs to be there before the legislature can succeed.

Cultural or societal change often happens accidentally or naturally because of a need, an invention, or a discovery, but it certainly can happen by design. Change does not have to depend on awe inspiring acts of bravery or greatness, although often these are the catalysts and it is small numbers of focused and dedicated individuals or even one great leader who plant the seeds of change. But once the idea is planted, I think cultural growth happens over time as a result of the way we choose to live our lives.

Living bravely and honorably as we are confronted with challenges and choices in our daily lives, measuring the cost of each choice and its worth, engaging in respectful disagreements (emphasis on respectful) with those who hold ideologically opposing points of view and focusing on common ground rather than differences are all ways I think we can move toward the changes we seek.

What am I willing to give up, what will I compromise to achieve my goal? First off I have to figure out exactly what is my goal. Mostly it is that I would like to see a global mind shift to where human life becomes of the ultimate importance. Laws should not be made based on values formed from specific belief systems that are placed above human life. There is nothing of greater value and dignity than human life. If that became a universal belief, I think most everything else would fall into place. It would be like an invisible revolution. Such a transformation of thought would have to result in phenomenal change. What am I willing to give up to get this? A lot.

I will relinquish any belief in Utopia, or change through revolution, or violence.

I will give up my naïve expectation that if one’s motives are pure the result will be perfect.

I will understand that the end will never justify the means and the means must be just whether or not the end is ever reached.

I will stop being seduced by the idea that all those who think, believe and act like me are inherently good, and conversely that all those who think, believe, and act differently are inherently evil.

I will refuse to accept that it is important to be right at any cost.

I will settle for less than I want.

I will understand that if I hold out for everything and end up with nothing I may as well go work for the other side.

I will put myself in the place of the other and to the best of my ability look at things from that perspective.

I will let that vision from the perspective of the other lead me to understanding.

And I will allow that understanding to dictate the compromises I need to make.

I will use that insight from other perspectives to temper my ideals with compassion.

I will try to live so that the truth that there is nothing of greater value and dignity than human life, any and all human life, will be self evident.

I used to think one had to live out a 60’s sort of existence, be a radical activist, a revolutionary on the front lines in order to feel that you were working toward changing the world. But now I think it’s as much, if not more, about how I live my life that matters. It is the simple act of living well, of trying to show compassion and kindness to fellow human beings that will create the needed changes in society. I think sometimes revolution can be a solitary inward experience. I think many of us live lives of quiet revolution.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I have been reading this thread and it got me to thinking about the ways that I have changed over time. I am sure that my own personal evolution is not unique and if I can be moved to think in different ways so can others.

I used to believe that revolution was the only way to achieve the kind of world I wanted to live in. Tear it all down and start again. I had a favorite fantasy in which oppressed people everywhere would rise up together, throw off their yokes and wrest power from their oppressors. Of course not only is that extremely unlikely to ever happen, but even if by some miracle it did, without some fundamental change in human behavior, before you could say plus ça change, there would be more yokes, and necks aplenty to put them on.

I touched on this a couple of pages back but this moved me to revisit the issue. Like you, I believed that revolution was THE way to achieve a better world. Even after I no longer believed that (and my revolutionary ideas didn't survive contact with my 30s) I kept my mouth largely shut because I did not have a language to talk about what I saw was problematic. Then I spent the last 18 months reading up on totalitarian movements in the 20th century and I had an epiphany that these movements WERE what happened when you got a revolution.

The October Revolution of 1917 started out with the best of intentions. They were going to achieve True Socialism in their time. Not only did they fail to do so but in the process that created a regime of stunning, mind-numbing brutality. The Nazis started out with the best of intentions (although, unlike the Russians, there was a core of evil ideology already present) and in 12 short years turned THE jewel of Western Europe into rubble and brought Europe generally to the very brink of barbarism. In the aftermath of the Japanese occupation, the North Koreans started out not trying to make a truly insane totalitarian state. Rather, Kim Il Song started out trying to rebuild what had been the glory of Korea on a socialist principles. Now North Korea is a state so Orwellian that one who might not know better would be forgiven for believing that 1984 was written *about* that nation.

The lesson I took away from that reading is that come the revolution, what you end up with is another government that has to, just temporarily mind you, suspend freedoms and put off the promised egalitarian paradise. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss has resonance for a reason.

Over time I have come to believe it is possible to invoke change by working toward encouraging small shifts in the ways that people think about a particular issue. If you can change the way that the majority of people think about one thing, for example that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, then I believe you have the beginning of cultural change that will translate to systemic change. Though when it comes to human rights it often seems the laws change and then people adjust themselves over time. But I think the perception of majority sentiment needs to be there before the legislature can succeed.

Your observation about human rights is spot on. I don't know if the majority sentiment has to be there. I would certainly say that my own observation of the United States from the 1940s until the 1970s was that, essentially, the Federal government, in the form of (in order of importance to the effort) the SCOTUS, the POTUS and the Congress, dragged America kicking and screaming into a more integrated nation. When Truman desegregated the military the military did NOT want to go. Brown v. Board shoved integration in schools down America's throat whether they liked it or not. Loving v. Virginia did much the same for anti-miscegenation laws. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were done after Brown but before Loving. But Loving was almost a mop-up operation, a sort of "one more thing as long as we've got the house torn up anyway..." action.

I would have *preferred* that it had all happened through legislation but it couldn't so it happened the way it did.

What am I willing to give up, what will I compromise to achieve my goal? First off I have to figure out exactly what is my goal.

In part, that is why I started this thread. I think we need a discussion along the lines of clarifying what it is we're after.

Mostly it is that I would like to see a global mind shift to where human life becomes of the ultimate importance. Laws should not be made based on values formed from specific belief systems that are placed above human life. There is nothing of greater value and dignity than human life.

Sam Harris (who I don't always agree with) in his book 'The Moral Landscape' talks about morality being something we can look at, without appeal to supernatural entities or cosmic consciousnesses by focusing ourselves on events in the world and how that has effects on states of the human brain. It is a profoundly *human* centered moral vision--or, more accurately, framework for discussing morals.

[lots of really fantastic stuff regretfully snipped]

Cheers
Aj