Pet Fundies

[Vex]

Of course it's personal! I never implied otherwise, formergothardite. And I've also tried to express an absolute commitment not to violate the narratives/experiences of people who have been and continue to be oppressed by homophobia. And I am not saying it's OK or that it's not a big deal. I am just trying to find my own path in dealing with it as best as I can while bringing my own (pro-gay) message/agenda to the table. If my approach is flawed, so be it. But it is genuine.

Anyway, I feel like I am going around in circles with this discussion. If you all think I'm wrong, go for it. I just don't think it's useful for me to rehash the same arguments. We're clearly at different interpretations and approaches here and that's OK with me. I just don't see how I can clarify my point any further in a helpful way. Again, if I have caused offense, I apologize. I will take on board what you have all said and think about it. That's all I can promise really. Be well!

You HAVE caused offense, but you're apparently ending the discussion (be well!) so we can't continue to explain how you are being offensive. How many times have we heard fundies say they will take on board our remarks and suggestions and thinking about it only to not do any of that at all? It FEELS like 'I don't like how this is going and I'm going to make X Y and Z patronising platitudes and shut down the discussion'.

Just because some fundie won't vote against (or for) gay marriage doesn't make them okay. Or even less bad. As long as they believe it is a sin and a lie and that it IS a choice and they don't think children belong in gay homes or gay families should marry in the church, they are just as bad as the Zsusanas of the world. It's insulting to me as a lesbian to hear that somehow them being slightly less than totally prejudiced against me means I should give HER a pass.

You probably won't read or reply to this, but what the hell. May as well try.

[formergothardite]

Of course it's personal! I never implied otherwise, formergothardite. And I've also tried to express an absolute commitment not to violate the narratives/experiences of people who have been and continue to be oppressed by homophobia. And I am not saying it's OK or that it's not a big deal. I am just trying to find my own path in dealing with it as best as I can while bringing my own (pro-gay) message/agenda to the table. If my approach is flawed, so be it. But it is genuine.

Anyway, I feel like I am going around in circles with this discussion. If you all think I'm wrong, go for it. I just don't think it's useful for me to rehash the same arguments. We're clearly at different interpretations and approaches here and that's OK with me. I just don't see how I can clarify my point any further in a helpful way. Again, if I have caused offense, I apologize. I will take on board what you have all said and think about it. That's all I can promise really. Be well!

By acting like fundies who teach that being gay is a wicked choice that is an abomination are not as bad as people who teach their children racism, you are violating the experiences of people who have suffered at the hands of these fundies you like and connect with. Your actions imply that "it isn't that bad" because if it was that bad you wouldn't freind these people.

You want to go be friends with people who believe horrible, horrible things and teach those things to their children and who continue a cycle of discrimination, go for it. But don't come here and expect people to act like you aren't as bad as someone who friends a KKK member. I do hope you think about why you don't view oppressing gay people as bad as oppressing people because of the color of their skin. There is no difference and I hope you can come to see that.

[Soldier of the One]

Am reading it and don't really know what to say.

Just a few brief points then:

1) I am not running away from the discussion because I am uncomfortable to take an unpopular viewpoint. I knew by opening this thread, it might be controversial or disagreed with on any number of levels.

2) I am genuinely sorry I have caused offense and I do apologize. I am not, however, going to step down from what I believe - at this moment, which may or may not change! - to be my valid opinion. I've tried my utmost best to be a respectful communicator. It saddens me that I've still managed to cause offense. But I have to strike a balance between reflecting on that genuinely but also articulating how I feel or believe on the matter.

3) I am not here to create drama. This is a free interchange of ideas. If things have gone sour, that's a shame, but that's no reason for me not to engage. If I choose to disengage from the topic it's because I've simply run out of things to say.

4) I am not a fundie and not playing lip service by saying I will take things on board. I mean it because FJ to me is primarily a learning experience. I've learnt an awful lot here, including the abortion threads. (I'm a moderate pro-choicer). I might not always agree with the more radical voices at FJ but I enjoy learning from them. All that I can control is to keep my end of the debate civil. If that sounds trite, well, sorry, but there's no other way that I can phrase it. I am not here to make friends (sure, it would be nice if friendships evolve out of online contact but it certainly isn't my primary goal) but I am not here to piss people off either. If I have, then I regret that that is the outcome of the topic but sometimes it can't be helped.

5) We all, in different guises, have to accept a) difference of opinion in the world and b) live with people who do not have our best interest at heart, to say the least. Very few people have full amounts of privilege that they get by without any exclusion or discrimination (perhaps if you're an upper-middle class, white, WASP, heterosexual male!). I've experienced different forms of exclusion, discrimination, sexism and racism in my life as well. I am just not willing to discuss details online because it would reveal too much about my identity and I just don't want that in the context of a public internet space.

6) Please consider the possibility that someone is being genuine in a discussion, even if you might not like what they have to say. That's your prerogative. But when I write 'be well', I mean it. It's not a trite comment. I mean that I'd like to round off an unsolvable discussion in a respectful manner and wish everyone well - those who agree and disagree equally.

7) I remain irrevocably committed to gay rights. I know that to the gay posters who take issue with my argumentation this might sound trite or unbelievable but I can only give you my word. In the interest of my own privacy, I am choosing not to reveal more. That's a decision I am making and I know it makes my arguments less credible. I am willing to pay that price.

I hope this clarifies things. I will be reading the thread and contributing when I feel I can add something new to the debate. But I don't think it's useful for me to keep on rehashing the same arguments.

Edited to add a quick response to formargothardite: I certainly do NOT make a difference between gay and racial discrimination. I cannot resolve an issue of different interpretation or communication or ideology but I do want to clarify that.

[formergothardite]

If there is no difference between the two, then why are you acting like one is not as bad as the other and why would you befriend and connect with a group that believes one and not befriend and connect with a group that believes the other? You are saying that they are the same, but your actions show that you don't really view them that way. You would never start a "pet racist" thread, but you started a "pet fundie" one. Actions speak louder than words. Think about why you are treating one group differently than another if both are believing equally horrible things.

[Soldier of the One]

As I wrote earlier, I struggle with issues of Biblical exegesis. This is often raised as criticism in the Atheist community, I am sure, under the rubric of 'why should we cut people slack because it's in their Holy Book' and I think that's a very fair point. Yet, I am also struggling to reconcile my respect for pluralism with my own pro-gay ideals. The majority of the world is homophobic, that's a fact. Should I not travel to homophobic countries as a tourist? Should I not make friends with Muslims who may or may not hold similar orthodox opinions on the matter? And as stupid as some may feel the Biblical argument is, I do think there's a difference between basing yourself in an exegetical tradition and just spewing hatred. I don't eat pork. I don't have sex on my period. I do these things because essentially, my Bible tells me not to and I am emotionally and spiritually vested in that tradition. In order to make my piece with the tension between modernity and religion, I have to engage in a process of exegesis.

OK, so maybe I chose the wrong title for the thread by calling it 'Pet Fundies' but I was just hooking into a common FJ parlance. Maybe I should have titled the thread 'Are You Friendly With or Interested In Fundies Who Seem Nice and Never Have Blogged Offensive Stuff Against Gays'. Because that's what I initially meant. None of the 'fundies' in my life - be it through blogging connections, facebook or real life - have said horrible things or done horrible things to gays (as far as I can know and monitor). They might, however, hold orthodox opinions on the matter which are not my own. Like I said, I have a zero tolerance policy for people who are vocal in their discrimination. But I cannot stop people from believing what they believe, only try and influence them towards a little more openness.

I am not friends with Zsu or Lori or Generation Cedar etc. I don't enjoy reading those blogs. I am friends with people who happen to be fundie in my life (like I wrote to AnnieC). And I like reading some of the more 'reasonable, civil, compassionate' fundie blogs due to their crafting, domesticity, photography, whatever. That's it really.

You might feel that I haven't adequately answered your question... but this taps into a far wider discussion on the role of religion and how much disagreement we should or should not accept in the name of religion. And that's a meta-question that I have no answer to. I cannot force people to love gays, just as people can't force me to hate them. It's a stand-off.

[Soldier of the One]

Quick addition: when I write that I have 'problems with exegesis' does NOT mean that I believe Scripture to be anti-gay and I have to force a round peg in a square hole to make it fit. On the contrary, I have my own progressive exegesis on the matter and believe homosexuality to be part and parcel of the Divine Will. But obviously my exegesis is not acceptable to more orthodox or fundamentalist readings. Just wanted to clarify that. For me, there is no tension or contradiction between my religion, morality or ideals - just a tension in how I deal with other people with other (potentially more exclusivist) opinions!

[formergothardite]

A good portion of at least America, used to be racists based on their religious beliefs too. Was the biblical argument against interacial marriage a completely legitimate reason to be racists too? Should we have just accepted religious racism too? Since their holy book told them interacial marriage was wrong and they were emotionally and spiritually invested in that tradition, did that make the racism okay?

The fundies you are talking about, they believe horrible, horrible things about gay people, they just don't blog about it. If someone believes(but doesn't blog about) that gay people are an abomination, that gay people should not be allowed to marry, that children should be trained to view gay people as sinners who have made the choice to participate in sin, are they REALLY reasonable, civil, or compassionate? Are you really saying that a person like Rebecca that would tell a struggling gay teen that they are just sinning and need to get right with god even if she knows that might drive them to depression and suicide is compassionate and reasonable? Is hiding their awful beliefs somehow make them better than people like Zsu Zsu?

[Soldier of the One]

No and no. I don't justify either racism or homophobia on the basis of Scripture and I don't think others should either. But that doesn't mean we cannot be in debate with them. And no, I don't think that a Rebecca scenario is compassionate or reasonable. And no, they shouldn't hide it either but there are ways to have these discussions in more fruitful and respectful ways than others. It's about civil discourse as much as theology.

For example: the Catholic Church doesn't ordain women. Nor does Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Islam - nor are these necessarily gay inclusive spaces. Isn't that just as problematic and reprehensible? They might come across as less fundie because of their cultural integration (or any other given factor) but they still place the same restrictions upon women in religious leadership. (They might be less about submission in the home, mind you, and that is an important factor). What the Pope recently stated about 'the natural order of heteronormative marriage' is problematic and disagreeable but it is firmly within the rubric of his Church. Can we change the Pope? No. But we might have fruitful discussions with many (conservative) Catholics. There is nuance involved to me at least. I respect that people see it differently but that's how I see it.

Each of us can only hope to tip the scales in the favor of goodness. Unfortunately, there's a huge existential disagreement on what 'goodness' entails.

Formergothardite, a question for you then: how do you deal with such issues? With fundamental disagreement? There are lots of people who believe horrible things about lots of other people and vice versa. How do you engage with that issue in your own life? If you're not comfortable answering that question, I totally get that. But your perspective would help.

[formergothardite]

I had to tell my parents that because they have fallen back into being a fundie and believe that being gay is a sin and do not support gay rights I view them as no different than racists. They were horrified and went on about how they weren't racists but are just following their religious beliefs. They refuse to see it. They know that because of this there is a wall between us and if they ever try to tell my kids any of their beliefs about people who are gay I will cut them out of my life.

There are not a lot of Catholics in my life since I live in the Bible belt surrounded by SBC and IFB. But I have stated here many times that I think all of those religions that don't treat women as equal to men are not that much better than churches in the past who didn't treat black people as equal to white people. I have offended a great deal of posters because no one really likes to be compared to a racists, but it is really hard to explain why it is different. Yes, I get that people love their religious organization and that they want to change it from the inside and that is why they don't leave. But at the same time they need to admit that what these religious organizations are teaching is wrong and just as harmful as if they were teaching racial discrimination. Until people are willing to admit that and willing to stand up and say that these things are no different, well, it is going to be hard for things to change.

It is still socially acceptable to treat women and people who are gay as less that straight men. It is still such a huge part of our society that even posters here only pay lip service to it being as bad as the racism and discrimination that happened in the past. I'm hoping that in the future people will look back on these discussions and be just as horrified at the homophobia as we are when we look back at the writings that support racism.

I have debated these things online and irl, it it just comes down to people don't want to see it. They don't want to admit that the discrimination towards woman and gay people that is rampant in religions is harmful and dangerous and destructive. And the "sweet, compassionate, civil" bloggers you are talking about believe and teach those things, they just sugar coat them to make people accept their beliefs a little easier. And obviously it works because even you find them more likable than Zsu Zsu even though they believe essenntially the same things. You might not be accepting the beliefs in your own life, but you are tolerating them more than you would Zsu Zsu who doesn't bother to sugar coat her beliefs.

I'm just tired of people acting like fundies who believe these things but don't blog about them are somehow better than Zsu Zsu.

[Soldier of the One]

Thanks for sharing your perspective, formergothardite, and it is helpful. I come from a strange context: secular, progressive on the one hand but interacting and working professionally with people from all walks of life, including fundies. So it's made me sort of a participant observer to viewpoints I wasn't brought up with. Perhaps this makes it easier for me to navigate boundaries that are non-negotiable to others because that's my 'privilege'. I never encountered fundie-ism in any meaningful way growing up and only started interacting with religion and religious communities as an adult. I do have some staunch homophobes in my immediate surroundings (they are not friends) and I have - ironically in light of this discussion! - frequently drawn the parallels between racism and homophobia but they obviously don't see it either. This particular person doesn't have enlightened views generally, so that makes it even tougher.

The religious community I am part of - and have consciously chosen to make it my community - is fully egalitarian, in both gender and sexual (and racial) aspects. I could personally not be part of a different community. But I do acknowledge there are 'shades of grey' for different people. There are Orthodox Jewish female posters even on FJ who stand up for feminism. Personally, that's a dichotomy I cannot bridge in my own life (be a feminist and part of a religious tradition that denies women leadership roles etc) but that doesn't mean I cannot be civil or respectful of those who negotiate those boundaries differently.

There's a lot of intradenominational strife in the Jewish community as I am sure many FJ'ers are aware of and perhaps this had led me to seek after a more 'consensus' model rather than a 'confrontational' model.

We might never see eye-to-eye about this formergothardite, but I do appreciate the interchange of ideas!

[formergothardite]

It just really, really annoys me when people try to pretend that these fundies who are less open and blunt about their beliefs are better in some way. That is what has been bothering me about your answers because that is what you have been doing. You have been saying that they are civil and compassionate and nothing like Zsu Zsu when they really are.

I know you don't agree with that, but that is how it appears. They believe the same shit just one group makes it smell nicer.

[Soldier of the One]

Fair enough.

Maybe we are extrapolating from different subsets and different experiences. I've also always put compassionate, reasonable etc in 'quotation marks' to add a layer of relativity. Clearly, I don't find their theology reasonable or compassionate. But even people with unreasonable theologies can still be good, salt-of-the-earth people. I've seen it often enough in my own circles.

Likewise, there are people who have 'enlightened' politics and views (IMHO) and yet are not very nice or decent people, self-serving or whatever. All I am trying to convey is that there are nuances and shades of grey. This is where you and I differ. I don't think ALL fundies are trying to 'con' us into their lifestyles by 'glossing over' and prettying things.

Some clearly are. Especially the institutions: VF, Gothard, the Duggars. But individual (not very famous) fundie bloggers? They are sharing their perspective and calling it 'ministry'. Of course they hope to convert people... but hey, don't we all? I rejoice every time a liberal is created!

But I don't want to dehumanize an entire class of people. Because then I am doing the same what I claim my political opponents to do. Lumping people into fixed categories creeps me out. Many people do many things for deeply personal motivations or deep spiritual mandates. And can we always fathom their heart?

[LilMissMetaphor]

Some shit is inherently worse than other shit. Chicken shit, for example, is the pinnacle (or perhaps the nadir) of shittiness. Pig shit is also pretty bad. All shit is not created equal.

[formergothardite]

Well, if you want to see people who discriminate against gay people as good and salt-of-the-earth, well, there is really nothing else to say then is there.

[valsa]

But I don't want to dehumanize an entire class of people. Because then I am doing the same what I claim my political opponents to do. Lumping people into fixed categories creeps me out. Many people do many things for deeply personal motivations or deep spiritual mandates. And can we always fathom their heart?

You remind me of people who claim we need to be tolerant of other people's intolerance or else we're just as intolerant as they are. Which is dumb, no matter what side it's coming from.

I agree with people who've said you seem to not care until it's personal for you, so I think you're just hypocrite on this issue.

[valsa]

Well, if you want to see people who discriminate against gay people as good and salt-of-the-earth, well, there is really nothing else to say then is there.

Where's a "super like" button when you need one?

[Soldier of the One]

Some shit is inherently worse than other shit. Chicken shit, for example, is the pinnacle (or perhaps the nadir) of shittiness. Pig shit is also pretty bad. All shit is not created equal.

That is exactly my point.

My point is that people are complex. Oscar Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party and an anti-semite. Yet he saved thousands of Jewish lives. Was he good? Bad? A bit of both? And yes, I know good 'salt of the earth' people who do not accept homosexuality as part of their worldview. They are not actively stopping people from being gay or supporting restrictive legislation (again, not talking about any fundie bloggers here, I don't know them sufficiently enough to make any sort of judgment) but they do say that homosexual acts are proscribed in their religious community. I think they are dead wrong on that issue but they still can be good (if not mistaken and flawed) people.

Just because I am not sharing a lot of details about my personal life doesn't mean it isn't personal. I've said that time and again. So don't make those assumptions.

[valsa]

That is exactly my point.

My point is that people are complex. Oscar Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party and an anti-semite. Yet he saved thousands of Jewish lives. Was he good? Bad? A bit of both? And yes, I know good 'salt of the earth' people who do not accept homosexuality as part of their worldview. They are not actively stopping people from being gay or supporting restrictive legislation (again, not talking about any fundie bloggers here, I don't know them sufficiently enough to make any sort of judgment) but they do say that homosexual acts are proscribed in their religious community. I think they are dead wrong on that issue but they still can be good (if not mistaken and flawed) people.

Just because I am not sharing a lot of details about my personal life doesn't mean it isn't personal. I've said that time and again. So don't make those assumptions.

You're hilarious in how all-over-the-map you are.

[JesusFightClub]

Fair enough.

Maybe we are extrapolating from different subsets and different experiences. I've also always put compassionate, reasonable etc in 'quotation marks' to add a layer of relativity. Clearly, I don't find their theology reasonable or compassionate. But even people with unreasonable theologies can still be good, salt-of-the-earth people. I've seen it often enough in my own circles.

So, we have a disconnect here. What "good, salt of the earth" person can stick very long to theology which requires him or her to believe an utterly hateful view of the world? How good are they really if they believe LGBT people are abominations, or that black people were better off under slavery, or that women were born to be meek, submissive walking wombs and nothing else?

You could turn that around on me (told you I was a fundie really) and point out that I believe any number of less than mainstream and frequently violent things. Yeah, and I also don't distort history, pretend that I'm so special that God showers blessings on me (subtext: the starving babies of the world get nowt because they live in sinful paganism, unlike me) and I don't own a blog called something like "God's Very Own Precious Beloved Daughter Of The King Of Kings" in order to kid on I'm actually doing something in the world that's of use instead of just showing off all my multiple modest dresses. I may be a nasty bastard with revenge fantasies but I'm honest. They're being about as honest as a completely dishonest thing.

Likewise, there are people who have 'enlightened' politics and views (IMHO) and yet are not very nice or decent people, self-serving or whatever. All I am trying to convey is that there are nuances and shades of grey. This is where you and I differ. I don't think ALL fundies are trying to 'con' us into their lifestyles by 'glossing over' and prettying things.

They're not telling the truth though, are they? And even those who aren't fishing are sitting on the riverbank baiting the hooks for those who are.

For every bashful modest maiden blog where the author represents her life as fantastic - she's so blessed to stay at home on the charming farm helping Mommy bake or sitting at the feet of Daddy listening to his wisdom, she loves her adorable brothers and sisters and the Lord, she reads Jane Austen while sipping tea and nibbling plum cake, and no cloud ever crosses the bluest of blue skies - makes the wistful reader more likely to fall for the Gothard crap and the really nasty shit (which our modest maiden REALLY believes. She's just not telling you.)

Some clearly are. Especially the institutions: VF, Gothard, the Duggars. But individual (not very famous) fundie bloggers? They are sharing their perspective and calling it 'ministry'. Of course they hope to convert people... but hey, don't we all? I rejoice every time a liberal is created!

Are you lying to the class to do it?

But I don't want to dehumanize an entire class of people. Because then I am doing the same what I claim my political opponents to do. Lumping people into fixed categories creeps me out. Many people do many things for deeply personal motivations or deep spiritual mandates. And can we always fathom their heart?

We are not required to fathom their heart. That way woolly liberalism lies. We are, however, required to observe their words and actions and take their measures from that.

[Dev83]

A Rather Unusual Couple (Maiden) for God. She seems real to me - and while I don't agree with her a lot, she seems willing to learn and change. She also talks about her struggles with PCOS and anxiety, and her H seems like a nice guy.

[samurai_sarah]

SOTO- when I was a teen, I was friends with a racist. He thought that *I* was okay, even though I'm biracial. I thought that he was a nice guy.

Then I grew up.