She was being interviewed for Miss America and was asked about same-sex marriages. She said simply that she thought that marriage should be between a man and a women. She has been derided in some places. She lost (probably) due to the comment.
on the opposite side the evangelical church is parading her around as a voice for their ’side’.
David Crowder tells: http://emprise34.xanga.com/
I know people who are ‘anti-gay’ and get shouted down whilst (sometimes) having some serious and sensible concerns about family and how to reconcile people’s identities with the challenging biblical passages on the subjects.
I struggle with some of the negative challenges of living in a multi-cultural community but if I voice concerns can easily get labeled a racist.
I eat meat and have some people tell me that it’s deeply unchristian thing to do.
Don’t get me started on drinking a Starbucks coffee at Greenbelt!
She did not lose b/c of her comment. She lost because she sounded incoherent, like when she said ‘opposite marriage’. She has a right to her views even though i disagree with her.
i struggle with being intolerant to people who are intolerant of me being queer. G-D help me is my continual prayer.
she seems to have been very honest. unsurprisingly i don’t agree with her… but i respect her view and she delivered her answer respectfully. full marks on that front. this should have been the beginning of a constructive conversation… but instead everyone jumps on it. this shows the complexities of intolerance im lots of ways. btw… full marks to you for managing to post a youtube clip in the comments… i didn’t know you could do that. the questioner comes over as a bit of a sneaky wise ass… or is that intolerant of me?
slightly changing the subject… i hate it when somebody claims to represent my views, but completely misrepresents it by being cocky, rude, ignorant or just plain trouble making and does my views a complete disservice… man, i’m intolerant.
queermergent… welcome… i’m not surprised you struggle with that. it is hard to live your life under constant fire from certain quarters. it would be surprising if you didn’t occasionally snap. ‘god help me’ is a reasonable prayer i would say. peace bro.
slightly changing the subject… i hate it when somebody claims to represent my views, but completely misrepresents it by being cocky, rude, ignorant or just plain trouble making and does my views a complete disservice… man, i’m intolerant.
I don’t know about others, but I’m glad that you feel that way.
Zefi: Intersting point on the 1+1=3 situation. I don’t think of us have a fully informed opinion. However, I think there’s a difference in being intolerant and re-educating someone. Presenting a new view point to someone isn’t intolerance. but assuming that they will change their mind is… (?)
it is Existential Punk aka Adele from previous comments/communication. i started Queermergent as a group blog for the LGBTQ community of faith and it is on WordPress and i am always logged in now. So, i am a ‘SIS’!
i don’t really care about these contests as i think they are stupid and baseless. i really wouldn’t care if MS CA won or not. IT MAKES NO DIFF. TO ME. i disagree with her views on homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage, and if she lost b/c of her views that is plain wrong. But referring to heterosexual marriage as ‘Opposite Marriage’ is pretty ignorant sounding, IMHO!
i think all sides can be intolerant and think they know it all. We are human and that’s one of the conditions of being human. None of us are immune, including myself!
11. Miss USA is a pure beauty pageant – unlike Miss America, there isn’t even a “talent” portion. The Q for the judges is which surgically enhanced model they want to have representing them at the Miss Universe Pageant. When asked about this question once the contest was over, the new Miss USA delivered an answer that basically said “everyone has the right to be happy.” She didn’t come across as any more intelligent but she avoided giving her personal views on the subject. IMO she comes across as a “safer” choice for the judges to ship overseas because they know whatever she says it will be cute and uncontroversial.
Miss California sounded a bit ditzy but the dude that asked the Q (Perez Hilton) is a gay gossip columnist known to be a complete jackass. He knew if he baited her that he would get a ton of free publicity that would up his blog numbers and give him more clout (which it did). My frustration is when people use folks like Existential Punk for their own benefit.
i agree, Perez Hilton is a jackass. i do not like him at all.
i agrre and am frustrated when people use folks for their own benefit. i think she is doing just that by using her views of gays and same sex marriage to further along herself.
It reminds me of a bit off an old Tom Lehrer intro to one of his songs, “National Brotherhood Week”. Something along the lines of “There are people in the world, who are intolerant of their fellow man…and I *HATE* people like that.”
i don’t really care about these contests as i think they are stupid and baseless. i really wouldn’t care if MS CA won or not. IT MAKES NO DIFF. TO ME. i disagree with her views on homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage, and if she lost b/c of her views that is plain wrong. But referring to heterosexual marriage as ‘Opposite Marriage’ is pretty ignorant sounding, IMHO!
Oh, when you claimed “She did not lose b/c of her comment. She lost because she sounded incoherent,…” I thought you’ve done your homework to even dare to say such thing. My humblest apologies.
Zefi: Intersting point on the 1+1=3 situation. I don’t think of us have a fully informed opinion.
Me neither, dear Ben. I don’t expect people to have all the data. But if you live on the internet long enough, you should realise that many don’t even bother about the basic data; they just say things as if they’re enlightened on various subjects. Worse yet, when you present current-proper-facts-backed-by-blood-and-sweat-researches, they just brush you off and claim their “rights” to continue being ignorant and uninformed. (read: I have rights to have my own opinion/view)
I maintain that it’s ok to suck if you know you suck, because usually people like this would try to improve because they know they suck. Yeah, I try my very best to get sucky people to confess that they suck the same as the people accused of being sucky. Human intellect is nociception-less.
Of course I don’t mean the majority of people here. You guys are ok.
i should have been clearer in my comment, so i am sorry. The blip i heard of her on the news made her sound incoherent. No one really knows why she lost, and if there are those in high places who do know the truth, they aren’t gonna tell us.
The girl who did win sounded coherent and kept her personal views out of the contest. So, maybe it was combo of both as to why MS CA lost?
i get tired of the Christian Right accusing us of a ‘GAY AGENDA” WHEN THERE IS NO GAY AGENDA, OTHER THAN WANTING EQUAL RIGHTS! The Christian Right has an agenda of their own and that is to make this a CHRISTIAN NATION! They forget we are a Republic and that there is separation of church and state. So, there is not mob majority rule and no one religion imposed on government and people.
It is so fascinating that the only intolerance we accept is intolerance against intolerant people. Shouldn’t we try to be more understanding of intolerant people as well, in the same way we wish they’d be of others?
Referring to jon’s comment in #9, “she seems to be very honest” this from reading Wikipedia in Zefi’s link to me seems quite dishonest: “It later became publie that the Miss California Pageant assisted Prejean in getting breast implants”
Now, I”m not disagreeing with her beliefs, but the question was “Prejean was asked by contest judge Perez Hilton whether she believed every state should legalize same-sex marriage. ” and NOT what she believed about whether there should BE same sex marriage or not.
One of my pet peeves is the common trend in life where people do not, or is it will not, ansewr the question asked of them directly as it was asked.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The words “separation of church and state” do not exist in the US Constitution and therefore it is a bogus quote.
Waht it says is that the Federal Government can not establish an official government religion and also that the government can not keep you from doing your religion.
Thus saying that the Federal Government has no involvement with, nor takes any action concerning religion. The Federal Government isn’t allowed to touch anything religious with a ten foot pole,positively or negatively.
which means the US Supreme Court and any Federal Court have no legality to hear cases involving religion.
That’s the business of the States, however their own laws allow.
The individual states and commonwealths can do whatever their own individual constitutions allow concerning religion.
And the Federal Government can’t (legally) do squat about it.
Since it is the STATES which issue marriage licenses it very much IS an issue for states to allow same-sex marriage.
This makes it a state issue in my mind and not a religious issue.
Individual Religions are free to have same-sex marriages or not. If you don’t like what yours says about it, change to one that does or work within yours to change peoples minds and see if the majority of members of that religion will agree.
Or, in the meantime, simply get a civil ceremony if your state allows.
If the religion allows it but the state does not, campaign for the state to change it.
But the second one side or the other uses their religiousness, or their non-religiousness as a basis for that they have lost their credibility in my eyes.
Well, I dunno, maybe that argument is mistaken and even false – and Federal Courts CAN get involved in religion, since the ammendment says the word “Congress” and doesn’t say the Judicial Branch side of Federal Government. It also doen’t say the Executive Branch, so maybe even the President can rule on religion?
Constitutional arguments can get exeedingly interesting, no?
Second time poster here. I just found this comic. (Thanks, Jon!)
I find it hard to be tolerant of the intolerant. With God’s grace working in my life, I’m learning to smile, nod, and not blast the fools (too badly) who want to choose how I live my life. I mostly just choose to not subject myself to their intolerant behaviors.
I don’t go to the churches where the rhetoric is hatred, either from the pulpit or the parishoners, buy cars from companies that are not LBGT friendly, or associate with people who do not epitomize God’s love in the flesh.
I am a man who is married to a transman, which has led to some difficulties to those around me. My first marriage was to a woman, and it ended very badly. I now choose to make a family w/ someone who treats myself, and my child well.
Tolerance is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps that church that espouses the doctrine of “God Hates Fags” believes they are carrying a message of love. (I doubt this, but I too need to realize my own intolerances.)
Robb: just copy the link into the main body of the text.
Valentine: I think condoning hate is distinctly different from intolerance.
I also get the impression that opinions and general attitudes are different on opposite sides of the Atlantic…
I don’t ‘hate’ gays but I do struggle to discuss how to reconcile the difficult biblical bits with a LBGT ‘lifestlye’ without being labelled intolerant (indeed I have just had to wrestle as to whether the word lifestyle and use of ‘quotation’ marks will offend!).
I know that when the kingdom is fully realised both sides of many fences will be united hence tolerence of intolerance is probably needed to get there.
But how far should tolerance of intolerance go:
to xenophobia?
to racism?
to other things that it is too late to think of….
I believe God is love. How could God condone something that is essentially an act of created love? There are homosexual animals in nature, such as: wolves, geese, giraffes, penguins, and even domesticated dogs. God, in my beliefs, would not create one thing for his other creations (homosexuality) and then deny it, and the created act of love, to His other creations (us.)
I’m not trying to convince you that the relationship I have w/ my loving partner is the only way to be, but it IS between myself and God when I finally meet my Maker. As long as both partners in a relationship are cognizant, and consenting, what happens in a relationship of equals is their business. Love is love. To deny love is to deny God.
Then you have folks who feel they can do as they please and if you suggest otherwise, you’re labeled intolerant, etc. For example, I don’t give a rip what people do behind closed doors. But if you are a “religious leader” (this includes anyone who accepts money from a church or other Christian entity to serve as a worship leader, preacher, speaker, etc.) that means here in the US, you will be judged (and probably cost you your career) if you are seen say going out and getting drunk, frequenting strip clubs, casinos, gay bars (or straight bars that are known to be pick-up joints) and the like (esp. if one leaves a trail via flickr, facebook, etc.) I now keep my mouth shut and let folks run the risk of wrecking their careers because I’m being tired of getting slammed for simply suggesting that folks not act like they’re on spring break when they’re on church biz.
where’s the line between intolerance and losing one’s patience for having to deal with frat boy behavior? I don’t hate these folks, they just annoy the crap out of me. (I’m sure we all have people like this in our lives.)
BeckyG – Sorry, I don’t really understand American Christianity. I don’t really understand the concept of frat boy behaviour or spring break.
I know that I frequent bars and ride a Harley and have long hair and earrings and use facebook and flickr.
I don’t particularly worry about wrecking my career. I don’t have a career. I have a role within the church.
I know that there is an expectation and a role that needs to be preserved. I suspect that it is a cultural difference.
When I was working at the Cathedral in Uganda I dodn’t drink – because in Uganda perception is that Christians don’t drink. The bishop said “thanks for coming, you will be able to show people what is faith and what is culture”. Largely the popular belief was “christians don’t have long hair and earrings”.
valentine… thank you, your family sounds wonderful. “Love is love. To deny love is to deny God.” that’s spot on in my view, a simple line which absolutely nails it! i may nick it for a cartoon.
forrest… you’re right. i’d not spotted that she answered a different question to the one she was asked. i’m sure that years of dogma drummed in to her from an infant won’t have helped the girl.
robb… sounds like you might as well have had the odd pint as well!!! … only jokin’.
One of my pet peeves is the common trend in life where people do not, or is it will not, ansewr the question asked of them directly as it was asked.
Forrest, I suggest you watch the video. I’m assuming you haven’t, since you wrote the things you wrote. In actuality, two questions was asked in one breath.
I find it hard to be tolerant of the intolerant. With God’s grace working in my life, I’m learning to smile, nod, and not blast the fools (too badly) who want to choose how I live my life. I mostly just choose to not subject myself to their intolerant behaviors.
My guess is that these people have yet to barge into your house and rearrange it.
I don’t go to the churches where the rhetoric is hatred, either from the pulpit or the parishoners, buy cars from companies that are not LBGT friendly, or associate with people who do not epitomize God’s love in the flesh.
Ah, then I’m sure you disagree with what LBGT community did to Anita Bryant, eh?
32. Robb – I am referring to what you experienced in Uganda where it helps to know the cultural norms of a place before visiting there in a professional capacity. Here in the US the best way I can describe it is that for all the talk of sex, the church can be very Victorian in many ways.
In the United States, a priest with long hair, bike and piercings would would never get a gig in an upper class church but he’d be left alone to do as he please if he was working with folks on the fringes. (But the priest “might” be asked to remove a few piercings and tie his hair back when going to church headquarters to solicit money.)
In most cases, people don’t care if the priest has a beer or two. But a priest who was on church business frequented strip clubs, casinos, bars where people go to have casual sex (straight or gay) would probably find himself on the outs fairly quickly.
My point with intolerance is if you try and help someone by pointing out the cultural differences one needs to take into account when traveling to the US, then you’re called intolerant (and worse) when in fact, you’re just trying to clue someone in.
You are unlikely to get a gig in an upper class church in the UK. But I wouldn’t really want one.
Fortunately we don’t have to solicit money to get a stipend.
“a priest who was on church business frequented strip clubs, casinos, bars where people go to have casual sex (straight or gay) would probably find himself on the outs fairly quickly.”
I think that is a pretty universal thing! Welcome to the church catholic
Personally I find it kind of difficult to reconcile any Christian doing that.
I think it sounds like a strange place. A lot of our TV comes from the states and it doesn’t look anything like the church of God TV. The Sex and the City’s and (show my age) Ally McBeal’s of the world don’t sound like they would be acceptable viewing – and yet they are massive shows. I suspect that there are two very different Americas to be discovered as a traveller – something I hope to do in the next few years. It sounds very polarised.
Has anyone read or seen “The Parable of the Good Punk Rocker”?
Jon – I did on my wedding anniversary…. but we were miles and miles away floating down the source of the river nile.
Robb – it’s not so much solicit money to get a stipend as it is if you want a certain type of career, you need to focus on your image. For example, most of the guys I knew at Divinity School were gay (if you live with folks, it’s not that hard to figure this out). But almost all of them were married or looking for wives because ven in 2009 most cathedrals and high end churches won’t hire a priest if he’ll be living in the rectory with his male partner. (Those who were lesbian seemed to either opt for celibacy or choose careers that were on the fringe anyway so no one cared who they dated.) We do have some renegade type priests and they tend to work with people on the fringes.
I find it very hard to reconcile some of what I see some Christian leaders doing on Facebook (which is a reflection of what they’re doing in real life). Hence my Q about when I veer off from being appropriately ticked that people are acting like jackasses for Jesus into displaying intolerance towards those who won’t grow up and yet want the church to give them money so they can continue on their author/speaker quest. This is much more of a problem in the US because we actually have a Christian (read evangelical) publishing empire where select folks (mostly male authors) can hawk their wares to a largely evangelically minded audience. You have some authors coming to speak in mainline and academic environments but thats’ more of a case of a church paying for a lecturer to give them an edifying talk or running a series of workshops like I’m doing next week for some diocese on new forms of church. And I know for a fact that what I am getting paid is less than what the emergent church boys require for them to perform. (I am adopting Andrew Jones’ policy where I don’t ask for money but people pay what they can so this way I’m entering into a conversation versus being a paid performer. It just feels healthier this way.) The evangelicals are the ones with the serious bucks who pre-financial crash would pay so they could be entertained by the next big thing. Not sure now where all this stands as I’m not part of the mostly male world.
I could make the same analogy to the UK based on what we see on the television. Growing up I got Masterpiece Theater, Monty Python, The Beatles/Stones and the Royal Family. More recently I’ve been subjected to Simon Fuller and a round of British rock stars behaving badly.
With Facebook, the temptation is so there to superpoke, drunk dial and moon people not to mention leaving messages when one is working late (and not really thinking) – I am not blaming the technology but social networking sites make it much easier for one to revert back to high school behavior. I confess that I have gone back and deleted Facebook postings that I realized I made on someone’s wall that shouldn’t be made by someone who has published books that are sold in the religious section of bookstores. The problem is we think social networking sites are “private” and they’re not. You really can’t have a private life online especially if you are in a capacity like a teacher, minister etc. where people expect you to live by certain standards. We expect our rock stars to misbehave but not our religious authors for example.
When I respond to blogs, I don’t use my last name because I have some jerks who tend to target me (not making this up, it’s just how it is if one is a religious satirist). And I’d rather they not venture into the few blogs where I post comments and pee on everyone’s parade as it were. Even so, I’m careful when I vent on a public blog that I don’t say anything that if it got emailed around would bite me in the ass. I learned my lesson the hard way after having some emails I sent out that I thought were private get circulated all over the freakin’ place. I’d do anything not to have sent out these suckers and am very careful now not to hit the “send” button when I’m PO’d.
Vor ein paar Wochen gab es ja diese Debatte um einen gewissen Marburger Kongress, der irgendwann nur noch als “Homoheiler”-Kongress bekannt war.
Kurz nach diesem Kongress war ich mal in Marburg und besuchte den Christus-Treff. I…
Amen!
I really wrestle with how tolerant to be with other people’s intolerance.
Miss California’s comment is a classic example – I understand where she’s coming from but she’s being attacked from certain contexts.
Comment by Ben — May 2, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Woo-hoo! first comment!
Comment by Ben — May 2, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
what’s the story with miss california, ben?
well done on first comment!
Comment by jonbirch — May 2, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
To preserve freedom we take away the freedom of those who undermine it?
To preserve tolerance we don’t tolerate intolerance?
Few months ago I would most probably delight myself in saying that that is hypocritical and contradictory. Unfortunately, I’m less ignorant now. Sigh.
Comment by zefi — May 2, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
You mean this?
Comment by zefi — May 2, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
She was being interviewed for Miss America and was asked about same-sex marriages. She said simply that she thought that marriage should be between a man and a women. She has been derided in some places. She lost (probably) due to the comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LPv9L6sy5c
on the opposite side the evangelical church is parading her around as a voice for their ’side’.
David Crowder tells: http://emprise34.xanga.com/
I know people who are ‘anti-gay’ and get shouted down whilst (sometimes) having some serious and sensible concerns about family and how to reconcile people’s identities with the challenging biblical passages on the subjects.
I struggle with some of the negative challenges of living in a multi-cultural community but if I voice concerns can easily get labeled a racist.
I eat meat and have some people tell me that it’s deeply unchristian thing to do.
Don’t get me started on drinking a Starbucks coffee at Greenbelt!
enough ranting…
Comment by Ben — May 2, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Zefi’s link sums it up perfectly.
Comment by Ben — May 2, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
She did not lose b/c of her comment. She lost because she sounded incoherent, like when she said ‘opposite marriage’. She has a right to her views even though i disagree with her.
i struggle with being intolerant to people who are intolerant of me being queer. G-D help me is my continual prayer.
Existential Punk
Comment by queermergent — May 2, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
she seems to have been very honest. unsurprisingly i don’t agree with her… but i respect her view and she delivered her answer respectfully. full marks on that front. this should have been the beginning of a constructive conversation… but instead everyone jumps on it. this shows the complexities of intolerance im lots of ways. btw… full marks to you for managing to post a youtube clip in the comments… i didn’t know you could do that.
the questioner comes over as a bit of a sneaky wise ass… or is that intolerant of me?
slightly changing the subject… i hate it when somebody claims to represent my views, but completely misrepresents it by being cocky, rude, ignorant or just plain trouble making and does my views a complete disservice… man, i’m intolerant.
Comment by jonbirch — May 2, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
queermergent… welcome… i’m not surprised you struggle with that. it is hard to live your life under constant fire from certain quarters. it would be surprising if you didn’t occasionally snap. ‘god help me’ is a reasonable prayer i would say. peace bro.
Comment by jonbirch — May 2, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
Oh. To be able to confidently say so, I suppose you’ve browse through the other contestant’s comments then?
And should I assume that you didn’t just went through the video, but read up the article concerning this issue as well?
On another note, am I supposed to tolerate it when someone insist that 1+1=3? Aren’t people only entitled to their informed opinion?
Comment by zefi — May 2, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
I don’t know about others, but I’m glad that you feel that way.
Comment by zefi — May 2, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
I didn’t know I could post a youtube clip either. I just copied the link into my text.
I get annoyed by not having the option to say I don’t really have a view. If that makes any sense.
Comment by Ben — May 2, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Zefi: Intersting point on the 1+1=3 situation. I don’t think of us have a fully informed opinion. However, I think there’s a difference in being intolerant and re-educating someone. Presenting a new view point to someone isn’t intolerance. but assuming that they will change their mind is… (?)
Comment by Ben — May 2, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Jon,
it is Existential Punk aka Adele from previous comments/communication. i started Queermergent as a group blog for the LGBTQ community of faith and it is on WordPress and i am always logged in now. So, i am a ‘SIS’!
Comment by queermergent — May 2, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Zefi,
i don’t really care about these contests as i think they are stupid and baseless. i really wouldn’t care if MS CA won or not. IT MAKES NO DIFF. TO ME. i disagree with her views on homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage, and if she lost b/c of her views that is plain wrong. But referring to heterosexual marriage as ‘Opposite Marriage’ is pretty ignorant sounding, IMHO!
i think all sides can be intolerant and think they know it all. We are human and that’s one of the conditions of being human. None of us are immune, including myself!
EP
Comment by queermergent — May 2, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
11. Miss USA is a pure beauty pageant – unlike Miss America, there isn’t even a “talent” portion. The Q for the judges is which surgically enhanced model they want to have representing them at the Miss Universe Pageant. When asked about this question once the contest was over, the new Miss USA delivered an answer that basically said “everyone has the right to be happy.” She didn’t come across as any more intelligent but she avoided giving her personal views on the subject. IMO she comes across as a “safer” choice for the judges to ship overseas because they know whatever she says it will be cute and uncontroversial.
Miss California sounded a bit ditzy but the dude that asked the Q (Perez Hilton) is a gay gossip columnist known to be a complete jackass. He knew if he baited her that he would get a ton of free publicity that would up his blog numbers and give him more clout (which it did). My frustration is when people use folks like Existential Punk for their own benefit.
Comment by beckyG — May 2, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Becky,
i agree, Perez Hilton is a jackass. i do not like him at all.
i agrre and am frustrated when people use folks for their own benefit. i think she is doing just that by using her views of gays and same sex marriage to further along herself.
EP
Comment by queermergent — May 2, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
This cartoon hits home for me.
It reminds me of a bit off an old Tom Lehrer intro to one of his songs, “National Brotherhood Week”. Something along the lines of “There are people in the world, who are intolerant of their fellow man…and I *HATE* people like that.”
Comment by Gene — May 2, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Oh, when you claimed “She did not lose b/c of her comment. She lost because she sounded incoherent,…” I thought you’ve done your homework to even dare to say such thing. My humblest apologies.
Me neither, dear Ben. I don’t expect people to have all the data. But if you live on the internet long enough, you should realise that many don’t even bother about the basic data; they just say things as if they’re enlightened on various subjects. Worse yet, when you present current-proper-facts-backed-by-blood-and-sweat-researches, they just brush you off and claim their “rights” to continue being ignorant and uninformed. (read: I have rights to have my own opinion/view)
I maintain that it’s ok to suck if you know you suck, because usually people like this would try to improve because they know they suck. Yeah, I try my very best to get sucky people to confess that they suck the same as the people accused of being sucky. Human intellect is nociception-less.
Of course I don’t mean the majority of people here. You guys are ok.
Comment by zefi — May 2, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Zefi,
i should have been clearer in my comment, so i am sorry. The blip i heard of her on the news made her sound incoherent. No one really knows why she lost, and if there are those in high places who do know the truth, they aren’t gonna tell us.
The girl who did win sounded coherent and kept her personal views out of the contest. So, maybe it was combo of both as to why MS CA lost?
i get tired of the Christian Right accusing us of a ‘GAY AGENDA” WHEN THERE IS NO GAY AGENDA, OTHER THAN WANTING EQUAL RIGHTS! The Christian Right has an agenda of their own and that is to make this a CHRISTIAN NATION! They forget we are a Republic and that there is separation of church and state. So, there is not mob majority rule and no one religion imposed on government and people.
EP
Comment by queermergent — May 2, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
It is so fascinating that the only intolerance we accept is intolerance against intolerant people. Shouldn’t we try to be more understanding of intolerant people as well, in the same way we wish they’d be of others?
great cartoon.
Comment by Jason — May 2, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
Referring to jon’s comment in #9, “she seems to be very honest” this from reading Wikipedia in Zefi’s link to me seems quite dishonest: “It later became publie that the Miss California Pageant assisted Prejean in getting breast implants”
Now, I”m not disagreeing with her beliefs, but the question was “Prejean was asked by contest judge Perez Hilton whether she believed every state should legalize same-sex marriage. ” and NOT what she believed about whether there should BE same sex marriage or not.
One of my pet peeves is the common trend in life where people do not, or is it will not, ansewr the question asked of them directly as it was asked.
Comment by Forrest — May 2, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Here I go getting controversial – and waiting for people to seriously mistake my points.
The US Constitution says, quoting from a copy available at the Government Printing Office’s website http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html, the following –>
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The words “separation of church and state” do not exist in the US Constitution and therefore it is a bogus quote.
Waht it says is that the Federal Government can not establish an official government religion and also that the government can not keep you from doing your religion.
Thus saying that the Federal Government has no involvement with, nor takes any action concerning religion. The Federal Government isn’t allowed to touch anything religious with a ten foot pole,positively or negatively.
which means the US Supreme Court and any Federal Court have no legality to hear cases involving religion.
That’s the business of the States, however their own laws allow.
The individual states and commonwealths can do whatever their own individual constitutions allow concerning religion.
And the Federal Government can’t (legally) do squat about it.
Since it is the STATES which issue marriage licenses it very much IS an issue for states to allow same-sex marriage.
This makes it a state issue in my mind and not a religious issue.
Individual Religions are free to have same-sex marriages or not. If you don’t like what yours says about it, change to one that does or work within yours to change peoples minds and see if the majority of members of that religion will agree.
Or, in the meantime, simply get a civil ceremony if your state allows.
If the religion allows it but the state does not, campaign for the state to change it.
But the second one side or the other uses their religiousness, or their non-religiousness as a basis for that they have lost their credibility in my eyes.
Comment by Forrest — May 2, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Well, I dunno, maybe that argument is mistaken and even false – and Federal Courts CAN get involved in religion, since the ammendment says the word “Congress” and doesn’t say the Judicial Branch side of Federal Government. It also doen’t say the Executive Branch, so maybe even the President can rule on religion?
Constitutional arguments can get exeedingly interesting, no?
Comment by Forrest — May 2, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Second time poster here. I just found this comic. (Thanks, Jon!)
I find it hard to be tolerant of the intolerant. With God’s grace working in my life, I’m learning to smile, nod, and not blast the fools (too badly) who want to choose how I live my life. I mostly just choose to not subject myself to their intolerant behaviors.
I don’t go to the churches where the rhetoric is hatred, either from the pulpit or the parishoners, buy cars from companies that are not LBGT friendly, or associate with people who do not epitomize God’s love in the flesh.
I am a man who is married to a transman, which has led to some difficulties to those around me. My first marriage was to a woman, and it ended very badly. I now choose to make a family w/ someone who treats myself, and my child well.
Tolerance is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps that church that espouses the doctrine of “God Hates Fags” believes they are carrying a message of love. (I doubt this, but I too need to realize my own intolerances.)
God bless you all,
Valentine
Comment by Valentine — May 2, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
Valentine,
Thank you for your honesty and taking the risk to be vulnerable with us! i really appreciate it!
For everyone, here is a well-thought piece on the possible reasons as to why MS CA lost.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/02/miss_california_usa-2/
EP
Comment by queermergent — May 2, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
What do you do to post a youtube clip?
I stick so many in I should have the importsnt info!!
Comment by Robb — May 2, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Robb: just copy the link into the main body of the text.
Valentine: I think condoning hate is distinctly different from intolerance.
I also get the impression that opinions and general attitudes are different on opposite sides of the Atlantic…
I don’t ‘hate’ gays but I do struggle to discuss how to reconcile the difficult biblical bits with a LBGT ‘lifestlye’ without being labelled intolerant (indeed I have just had to wrestle as to whether the word lifestyle and use of ‘quotation’ marks will offend!).
I know that when the kingdom is fully realised both sides of many fences will be united hence tolerence of intolerance is probably needed to get there.
But how far should tolerance of intolerance go:
to xenophobia?
to racism?
to other things that it is too late to think of….
Comment by Ben — May 3, 2009 @ 1:21 am
In response to Ben, comment # 29
Ben,
I believe God is love. How could God condone something that is essentially an act of created love? There are homosexual animals in nature, such as: wolves, geese, giraffes, penguins, and even domesticated dogs. God, in my beliefs, would not create one thing for his other creations (homosexuality) and then deny it, and the created act of love, to His other creations (us.)
I’m not trying to convince you that the relationship I have w/ my loving partner is the only way to be, but it IS between myself and God when I finally meet my Maker. As long as both partners in a relationship are cognizant, and consenting, what happens in a relationship of equals is their business. Love is love. To deny love is to deny God.
Valentine
Comment by Valentine — May 3, 2009 @ 2:27 am
Then you have folks who feel they can do as they please and if you suggest otherwise, you’re labeled intolerant, etc. For example, I don’t give a rip what people do behind closed doors. But if you are a “religious leader” (this includes anyone who accepts money from a church or other Christian entity to serve as a worship leader, preacher, speaker, etc.) that means here in the US, you will be judged (and probably cost you your career) if you are seen say going out and getting drunk, frequenting strip clubs, casinos, gay bars (or straight bars that are known to be pick-up joints) and the like (esp. if one leaves a trail via flickr, facebook, etc.) I now keep my mouth shut and let folks run the risk of wrecking their careers because I’m being tired of getting slammed for simply suggesting that folks not act like they’re on spring break when they’re on church biz.
where’s the line between intolerance and losing one’s patience for having to deal with frat boy behavior? I don’t hate these folks, they just annoy the crap out of me. (I’m sure we all have people like this in our lives.)
Comment by beckyG — May 3, 2009 @ 6:18 am
BeckyG – Sorry, I don’t really understand American Christianity. I don’t really understand the concept of frat boy behaviour or spring break.
I know that I frequent bars and ride a Harley and have long hair and earrings and use facebook and flickr.
I don’t particularly worry about wrecking my career. I don’t have a career. I have a role within the church.
I know that there is an expectation and a role that needs to be preserved. I suspect that it is a cultural difference.
When I was working at the Cathedral in Uganda I dodn’t drink – because in Uganda perception is that Christians don’t drink. The bishop said “thanks for coming, you will be able to show people what is faith and what is culture”. Largely the popular belief was “christians don’t have long hair and earrings”.
Oh well.
Comment by Robb — May 3, 2009 @ 8:52 am
queermergent… oops, sorry sister!
valentine… thank you, your family sounds wonderful. “Love is love. To deny love is to deny God.” that’s spot on in my view, a simple line which absolutely nails it! i may nick it for a cartoon.
forrest… you’re right. i’d not spotted that she answered a different question to the one she was asked. i’m sure that years of dogma drummed in to her from an infant won’t have helped the girl.
robb… sounds like you might as well have had the odd pint as well!!! … only jokin’.
Comment by jonbirch — May 3, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Forrest, I suggest you watch the video. I’m assuming you haven’t, since you wrote the things you wrote. In actuality, two questions was asked in one breath.
My guess is that these people have yet to barge into your house and rearrange it.
Ah, then I’m sure you disagree with what LBGT community did to Anita Bryant, eh?
Comment by zefi — May 3, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
It’s a bit of a charged statement. Equally you could say, ‘God defines sin, to deny sin is to deny God.’
Comment by Lewis — May 3, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
you could, lewis… but that’s not what he said.
zefi… she was clearly asking to be pied.
Comment by jonbirch — May 3, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
This one made me laugh; thanks (again) Jon!
Comment by HisGal — May 3, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
32. Robb – I am referring to what you experienced in Uganda where it helps to know the cultural norms of a place before visiting there in a professional capacity. Here in the US the best way I can describe it is that for all the talk of sex, the church can be very Victorian in many ways.
In the United States, a priest with long hair, bike and piercings would would never get a gig in an upper class church but he’d be left alone to do as he please if he was working with folks on the fringes. (But the priest “might” be asked to remove a few piercings and tie his hair back when going to church headquarters to solicit money.)
In most cases, people don’t care if the priest has a beer or two. But a priest who was on church business frequented strip clubs, casinos, bars where people go to have casual sex (straight or gay) would probably find himself on the outs fairly quickly.
My point with intolerance is if you try and help someone by pointing out the cultural differences one needs to take into account when traveling to the US, then you’re called intolerant (and worse) when in fact, you’re just trying to clue someone in.
Comment by beckyG — May 3, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
You are unlikely to get a gig in an upper class church in the UK. But I wouldn’t really want one.
Fortunately we don’t have to solicit money to get a stipend.
“a priest who was on church business frequented strip clubs, casinos, bars where people go to have casual sex (straight or gay) would probably find himself on the outs fairly quickly.”
I think that is a pretty universal thing! Welcome to the church catholic
Personally I find it kind of difficult to reconcile any Christian doing that.
I think it sounds like a strange place. A lot of our TV comes from the states and it doesn’t look anything like the church of God TV. The Sex and the City’s and (show my age) Ally McBeal’s of the world don’t sound like they would be acceptable viewing – and yet they are massive shows. I suspect that there are two very different Americas to be discovered as a traveller – something I hope to do in the next few years. It sounds very polarised.
Has anyone read or seen “The Parable of the Good Punk Rocker”?
Jon – I did on my wedding anniversary…. but we were miles and miles away floating down the source of the river nile.
Comment by Robb — May 4, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Robb – it’s not so much solicit money to get a stipend as it is if you want a certain type of career, you need to focus on your image. For example, most of the guys I knew at Divinity School were gay (if you live with folks, it’s not that hard to figure this out). But almost all of them were married or looking for wives because ven in 2009 most cathedrals and high end churches won’t hire a priest if he’ll be living in the rectory with his male partner. (Those who were lesbian seemed to either opt for celibacy or choose careers that were on the fringe anyway so no one cared who they dated.) We do have some renegade type priests and they tend to work with people on the fringes.
I find it very hard to reconcile some of what I see some Christian leaders doing on Facebook (which is a reflection of what they’re doing in real life). Hence my Q about when I veer off from being appropriately ticked that people are acting like jackasses for Jesus into displaying intolerance towards those who won’t grow up and yet want the church to give them money so they can continue on their author/speaker quest. This is much more of a problem in the US because we actually have a Christian (read evangelical) publishing empire where select folks (mostly male authors) can hawk their wares to a largely evangelically minded audience. You have some authors coming to speak in mainline and academic environments but thats’ more of a case of a church paying for a lecturer to give them an edifying talk or running a series of workshops like I’m doing next week for some diocese on new forms of church. And I know for a fact that what I am getting paid is less than what the emergent church boys require for them to perform. (I am adopting Andrew Jones’ policy where I don’t ask for money but people pay what they can so this way I’m entering into a conversation versus being a paid performer. It just feels healthier this way.) The evangelicals are the ones with the serious bucks who pre-financial crash would pay so they could be entertained by the next big thing. Not sure now where all this stands as I’m not part of the mostly male world.
I could make the same analogy to the UK based on what we see on the television. Growing up I got Masterpiece Theater, Monty Python, The Beatles/Stones and the Royal Family. More recently I’ve been subjected to Simon Fuller and a round of British rock stars behaving badly.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
I have to admit that I see some truly terrible things on Facebook that priests I know are saying about people. It really bugs me.
Sounds like a scary place to be.
We had a big hoo ha about an advert in the church times that asked for “an ambitious and career minded priest”.
Wha?
Sorry, that seems a bit like anathama to me…
Comment by Robb — May 4, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
With Facebook, the temptation is so there to superpoke, drunk dial and moon people not to mention leaving messages when one is working late (and not really thinking) – I am not blaming the technology but social networking sites make it much easier for one to revert back to high school behavior. I confess that I have gone back and deleted Facebook postings that I realized I made on someone’s wall that shouldn’t be made by someone who has published books that are sold in the religious section of bookstores. The problem is we think social networking sites are “private” and they’re not. You really can’t have a private life online especially if you are in a capacity like a teacher, minister etc. where people expect you to live by certain standards. We expect our rock stars to misbehave but not our religious authors for example.
When I respond to blogs, I don’t use my last name because I have some jerks who tend to target me (not making this up, it’s just how it is if one is a religious satirist). And I’d rather they not venture into the few blogs where I post comments and pee on everyone’s parade as it were. Even so, I’m careful when I vent on a public blog that I don’t say anything that if it got emailed around would bite me in the ass. I learned my lesson the hard way after having some emails I sent out that I thought were private get circulated all over the freakin’ place. I’d do anything not to have sent out these suckers and am very careful now not to hit the “send” button when I’m PO’d.
Comment by beckyG — May 4, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
I am often a fairly intollerent person. I get upset and annoyed very easily.
One of my pet hates though are “chritian” groups such as christian voice that are soo intolerant that it amazes me they can be called christian!
http://www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com
Comment by beatthedrum — May 5, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Gefühltes…
[Bild-Quelle]
Vor ein paar Wochen gab es ja diese Debatte um einen gewissen Marburger Kongress, der irgendwann nur noch als “Homoheiler”-Kongress bekannt war.
Kurz nach diesem Kongress war ich mal in Marburg und besuchte den Christus-Treff. I…
Trackback by bodenpersonal — June 18, 2009 @ 7:41 pm