House of Hate

[HelenM]

I didn't see it personally, but I know that on Sunday evening the Chicago Anti-Bashing Network held a protest outside my church before the evening service began, holding signs and shouting such things as that we are a "House of Hate". This was in honor of us having Stephen Bennett as guest speaker Sunday evening. Evidently they were also shouting that he is a liar.

Regardless of what you might think of Stephen Bennett or my church's beliefs, do you think this sort of activism is likely to produce any positive results?

Helen

[JoeP]

Since I don't know (or remember) what church you go to and therefore what its beliefs are, and I don't recognise the name of Stephen Bennet, I can offer you a totally unbiased opinion.

No.

All it will do is increase tensions and rivalry; even hatred - which their slogan would make it appear they're against. But from their point of view it may have the "positive" effect of raising their visibility and getting more people to join or support their organisation. However, these would only be people who already think it's right to behave this way.

joe

[Godless Dave]

Regardless of what you might think of Stephen Bennett or my church's beliefs, do you think this sort of activism is likely to produce any positive results?Yes. Sometimes you need to be blunt to get the truth across - especially when the people you are opposing use deceit to get their point across.

It is true, though, that some people just enjoy being blunt and choose to do so when there are other more effective forms of communication.

Stephen Bennet is a liar and a hatemonger. The truth should be told about him. He does not deserve the courtesy of reasoned debate. From his website (http://www.sbministries.org/):

SBM’s Simple, Uncompromising Message: No One is Born “Gay”



And Complete Change is Completely Possible!


Your church knew who he was when they invited him to speak. Now they have to deal with the consequences.

[Goliath]

Regardless of what you might think of Stephen Bennett or my church's beliefs, do you think this sort of activism is likely to produce any positive results?


Positive for whom? Maybe not for you, but possibly for them (and possibly for anyone else listening to them).

Even though I don't know who Stephen Bennett is, I quite frankly admire those protestors..these days, it takes some serious guts to hold a protest outside of a church.

[viscousmemories]

Regardless of what you might think of Stephen Bennett or my church's beliefs, do you think this sort of activism is likely to produce any positive results?
I don't know anything about your church's beliefs or Stephen Bennett, but Google tells me he's an anti-gay activist of some sort, so I'll try to answer the general question.

Actually it's a pretty loaded question, because there are a lot of built in assumptions there. For example that activists plan their actions based on the liklihood of positive results and not just to act out their anger and frustration, that it's possible to quantify the results of such an action at all, that it's possible to accurately contrast the results of that action vs. non-action, that the results of such an action are likely to have the same results in every circumstance, etc.

That said, I can imagine what I would consider at least one positive outcome: There may be members of your church who believe that homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights and protections as every other human (which I believe is a mistake), and the angry protestors might cause them to do some reading or talking to others which might lead to a change of heart.

But of course that would only be a positive outcome in my estimation. Surely not in the estimation of those who put forth the opposite. And besides, does this possible outcome outweigh the emotional duress the members of your church are being subjected to? Again I don't think it's really possible to accurately contrast the degree of individual suffering to draw such a conclusion. Still, if I was a member of a minority group that was subject to a national movement to restrict my civil liberties, I would very likely be out there raging against those who would attempt to strip me of my rights.

[livius drusus]

I'd say it's ineffective in a boy who cried wolf kind of way. Whenever activists flatten nuance I believe they do their cause a disservice. If Bennett is House of Hate-worthy, then what does Phelps get?

It reminds me of a poem I read in 8th grade English. I can't remember its name and I've searched for it high and low to no avail, but the basic premise was that if every product or person is described as "super" "advanced" "new and improved", then superlatives become the average and therefore lose all meaning.

[Roland98]

Still, if I was a member of a minority group that was subject to a national movement to restrict my civil liberties, I would very likely be out there raging against those who would attempt to strip me of my rights.

:yup:

As far as Helen's question, I guess it would depend on what the group's agenda was as to whether there were any "positive results." Were they trying to just draw attention to Bennett's campaign against gays? Were they trying to get people at Helen's church to change their minds about the rights of gays, or the basis of homosexuality? I do think even "angry protests" like these can indeed have "positive results" depending on the anticipated outcome of the group doing the protesting. I'm not sure how calm I could be if someone like Fred Phelps was the featured speaker at a local church, or if being calm would even be advantageous in a situation like that. When someone speaks of absurdities like the "gay agenda" as Bennett does, and shows such little respect for the rights of others and simple human dignity as he does, I do think they deserve to be called out on it. And if your church sponsored him, I agree they need to take some responsibility for it as well.

[Goliath]

then what does Phelps get?

For now, my wishes for the legality of doing to him what I want to do to him. :fuming:

[Godless Dave]

To me Bennet is worse than Phelps in some ways. Bennet pretends he is trying to help gay people. Obviously he doesn't really care about gay people, else he would have talked to several of them and tried to understand them, which he clearly hasn't. Phelps is open and straightforward with his hatred.

[Farren]

To me Bennet is worse than Phelps in some ways. Bennet pretends he is trying to help gay people. Obviously he doesn't really care about gay people, else he would have talked to several of them and tried to understand them, which he clearly hasn't. Phelps is open and straightforward with his hatred.

I think that kind of "The enemy you know is better than the one you can't see logic" is often dangerous though. Often the difference is as much in substance as presentation. IOW, given the power and authority, one might hunt down and exterminate gay people while the other just puts them in forced therapy.

[Godless Dave]

Don't get me wrong, Fred Phelps is scum. But I suspect Helen's church would never dream of inviting Phelps to speak because he is so openly vile and hateful, whereas they had no problem inviting Bennet.

[D. Scarlatti]

That song sure does suck. Listen to the lyrics, it's all about ME ME ME. And check out all the credit card emblems at the top of the page. This guy is just another self-centered, self-righteous "religious" asshole, in it for the bucks, and trading on the irrational fear and hatred for people that are different than his customers. This sort of thing is so far removed from my understanding of Jesus' message that it's hard to believe his "followers" can call themselves Christians with a straight face (pun intended).

Why are some people so obsessed with gay people? What did gay people ever do to them? And if Bennett can "cure" gay people, can he, by the same token, make me gay? Somehow I doubt it.

[Shake]

What a scary site that is (SBM). What I saw on there was an attempt to sugar-coat their mission of "curing" homosexuals. Also, some of the same misconceptions that such people have about atheists. They think that both (atheists and gays) are angry, either at society or god (or both), and are exhibiting this behavior mainly as a way of rebelling. There's also that attitude of, "love the sinner, hate the sin," abundant on that site. What they don't understand is that their concept of sin, specifically of being either gay or atheist (in some cases both, I'm sure), is lost on those that they would attempt to change. How is being true to yourself and your beliefs a sin? I really don't care what some centuries old book says.

Too bad the Queen has retired from Nutwatches.

I think it could have some positive results ... if anyone took the time to listen to the protesters and learn why they were upset.

Did you go to his speech? I'd be curious to know how it went.

[Farren]

I didn't see it personally, but I know that on Sunday evening the Chicago Anti-Bashing Network held a protest outside my church before the evening service began, holding signs and shouting such things as that we are a "House of Hate". This was in honor of us having Stephen Bennett as guest speaker Sunday evening. Evidently they were also shouting that he is a liar.

Regardless of what you might think of Stephen Bennett or my church's beliefs, do you think this sort of activism is likely to produce any positive results?

Helen

I don't know Helen, I think it might. Like vm I had to Google Bennet and what I get is that he's a "former" gay person claiming gay people can be "cured" by God's grace.

Now one doesn't even need scientific studies to allow the possibility of biological rather than psychological gayness. One just needs simple logic.

Its clear that sexual attraction is an automatic rather than chosen response and its impossible not to imagine, logically, that some men would be attracted to men and some women to women. Even if attraction to the opposite sex is our "normal wiring" people are born with six fingers, single valves in their hearts where there should be two, overactive glands, sharing body parts with another person and even tails.

I don't mean to imply that gay people are freaks but that something as subtle as automatic sexual preference, which relies massively on two or three button sized nodes in the brain is far, far more likely to depart from the norm than many very visible and undeniable abberations that do occur.

Simple logic dictates there must be a proportion of people who are 100% biologically gay, no choice involved.

So now you have this guy, going around saying homosexuality is always a "choice" and it can be "cured" by acceptance of a believe and unless you believe that acceptance of that belief automatically cures cancer, excess fingers and cleft lips, that guy is lying. He is a liar. He may not be deliberately lying. He may really believe what he's saying but its wrong. It's simply not the truth.

That untruth, in turn, is responsible for millions of people getting treated as if they are sick, morally corrupt, evil and/or contempable for the simple crime of being born a certain way. Imagine a nation pitying, despising and continuously trying to "fix" people with six fingers by telling them all they have to do is renounce their sin and the extra fingers will go away.

I know your OP was about the effectiveness of the form of protest, but the reason I raise all of this is that I think a subtext was the appropriateness of the form of protest.

Its not appropriate to start a shouting match when your friend wants to watch a different movie from you. But, on the opposite extreme, if a group of people who you believe preach hate is recruiting and meeting in your town, it might be appropriate to raise enough of a stink so that they are exposed and shamed in the eyes of others, so that anyone who's neutral about them can see that its definitely not OK in the eyes of some people, that there is an opposing view.

People say "silence gives consent" and in a situation like that, where you might feel there's more profit in playing to the gallery than trying to convert the already converted, it can be more profitable and more appropriate to shout as loud and as clearly as possible to illustrate just how much you do dissent for the fence sitters and the waverers. Especially in a society where many are brought up with the default assumption that you are ashamed of what you are and you actually accept your guilt and continue to engage in sin despite that.

So if you're gay or you support the right of gay people to live free of ostracism and discrimination and somebody, by invitation, is preaching the message that you or your friends are sick, morally depraved, misled or whatever and are basically lying then yes, I think it could be both effective and appropriate.

[edit]
Just one thing I have to add. This is a very awkward topic to discuss with you because you're a lovely, lovely, lovely person and I would never directly attack your faith or church under normal circumstances.

Unfortunately phrasing my reasoning inevitably means an oblique criticism of your church and its decision to host Bennet. I hope you understand that it in no way extends to any negative judgement of you because you're simply super.

[LadyShea]

"Positive results" is subjective as others have pointed out. Do anti-abortion demonstrations and picket lines in front of clinics produce positive results? Only those involved can say as it depends on thier goals.

[livius drusus]

I think it could have some positive results ... if anyone took the time to listen to the protesters and learn why they were upset.

You think calling someone's church a House of Hate is likely to result in their taking that time? It seems to me you could at least target Bennett himself instead of painting the whole congregation with one ugly brush and then expecting them to approach you.

[Roland98]

I think it could have some positive results ... if anyone took the time to listen to the protesters and learn why they were upset.

You think calling someone's church a House of Hate is likely to result in their taking that time? It seems to me you could at least target Bennett himself instead of painting the whole congregation with one ugly brush and then expecting them to approach you.

...assuming their goal actually is to reach out to the congregation. We don't know that it was.

[LadyXoc]

I don't know what results the protestors were trying to acheive, either. "House of Hate" doesn't seem very original, or designed to encourage civilized conversation. But neither does Bennett's message, frankly. I'm inclined to say if he has the legal right to proclaim that sort of spew, others have a right to carry signs with cliches on them. I'm also wondering what effect the entire scene might have on, say, a teenage member of that church who may have been in the closet. The more I think of it, I have to say that I find his message so utterly repulsive that I should probably just butt the hell out of this whole conversation. Never mind. < /Emily Litella>

[livius drusus]

I think it could have some positive results ... if anyone took the time to listen to the protesters and learn why they were upset.

You think calling someone's church a House of Hate is likely to result in their taking that time? It seems to me you could at least target Bennett himself instead of painting the whole congregation with one ugly brush and then expecting them to approach you.

...assuming their goal actually is to reach out to the congregation. We don't know that it was.

I don't think that was their goal at all, but I thought that's what Shake was saying, unless he was referring to passersby taking the time to listen to learn why the protesters were angry.

[viscousmemories]

So now you have this guy, going around saying homosexuality is always a "choice" and it can be "cured" by acceptance of a believe and unless you believe that acceptance of that belief automatically cures cancer, excess fingers and cleft lips, that guy is lying. He is a liar. He may not be deliberately lying. He may really believe what he's saying but its wrong. It's simply not the truth.
Actually I didn't find anything on his site that indicates he believes that homosexual inclinations are a choice or sickness, but that homosexual behavior is a choice and sinful. As strongly as I disagree with the latter I still think it's an important distinction from the former.

That untruth, in turn, is responsible for millions of people getting treated as if they are sick, morally corrupt, evil and/or contempable for the simple crime of being born a certain way.
I am inclined to agree that painting homosexual behavior as sinful contributes to a climate of intolerance and hostility toward homosexuals, but then I'm not so sure. I mean, most Christians paint adultery as sinful too, but nobody seems to be worried that promoting such a perspective is inherently dangerous or damaging to adulterers.

[Godless Dave]

People say "silence gives consent" and in a situation like that, where you might feel there's more profit in playing to the gallery than trying to convert the already converted, it can be more profitable and more appropriate to shout as loud and as clearly as possible to illustrate just how much you do dissent for the fence sitters and the waverers. Especially in a society where many are brought up with the default assumption that you are ashamed of what you are and you actually accept your guilt and continue to engage in sin despite that.
That's what I was trying to say. Thanks, Farren, for being more articulate than I.

[Goliath]

Too bad the Queen has retired from Nutwatches.


She did? That's unfortunate...I enjoyed reading those back in my IIDB days.

Speaking of Her Majesty, does anyone know why she hasn't dragged Her Royal Ass over here, yet? :D

[Roland98]

Actually I didn't find anything on his site that indicates he believes that homosexual inclinations are a choice or sickness, but that homosexual behavior is a choice and sinful. As strongly as I disagree with the latter I still think it's an important distinction from the former.

I don't think so.

Today, I speak nationally and share the truth about homosexuality - how no one is born that way, how it has everything to do with the childhood and complete change is completely possible. As a father now myself of a little boy and girl, my true heart's desire and passion is for the protection of America's children and I'll do whatever it takes to protect them. My message is not politically correct and many do not like me for boldly proclaiming the truth. I've learned early on whenever you confront sin, don't expect to win a popularity contest.

***

They didn't like our message that homosexuality was not something one was born with and that all homosexuals could completely change. They didn't like the fact that I said I was 'gay' and I completely changed. What even bothered them more was on national television I had the 'audacity' to use those vile and 'forbidden' words Jesus, God and the Bible. Thus, the pro-gay hammer fell and they deleted the most important part of my story - how I went from 'gay to straight.'

***

That's the secular pro-homosexual media today for you. It's all too common - and expected. Besides, it does not further nor help their diabolical agenda.

***

Make no mistake about it. America is being seduced and deceived by the homosexual agenda. Our children are being indoctrinated and many are being infected with HIV. Read Kirk and Madsen's book for yourself. Better yet, listen to report 'America: Sodom and Gomorrah Resurrected.' If nothing else will open your eyes, I guarantee that will.

There is a calculated agenda out there. They are after you, but more importantly, they are after your children. Television, radio, newspapers, magazines and the internet - the media is the means.

from here. (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/bennett_20020827.html)



I am inclined to agree that painting homosexual behavior as sinful contributes to a climate of intolerance and hostility toward homosexuals, but then I'm not so sure. I mean, most Christians paint adultery as sinful too, but nobody seems to be worried that promoting such a perspective is inherently dangerous or damaging to adulterers.

As you can see from above, he paints it as more than "sinful," but also "calculated" and "diabolical," and adds the scare tactic that "they are after your children." I am sure that this certainly does contribute to a climate of "intolerance and hostility toward homosexuals," in much the same way the aforementioned Phelps does. I don't think it's going too far to refer to him as a hate-monger.

[HelenM]

Stephen Bennet is a liar and a hatemonger. The truth should be told about him. He does not deserve the courtesy of reasoned debate. From his website:

Quote:

SBM’s Simple, Uncompromising Message: No One is Born “Gay”

And Complete Change is Completely Possible!

Maybe I shouldn't have raised this because it's such a sensitive issue.

It's just that - how do you get from the above to him being a 'hatemonger'? What may seem obvious to others isn't obvious to me. But probably as a consequence I will be seen as 'in denial' or as having my head in the sand.

I heard much of his talk - there seemed to be no hate in him. The people shouting outside, on the other hand - now they seemed to be the ones inciting hate, to me. (From what I've heard aboutf the protest)

Helen

[Farren]

Actually I didn't find anything on his site that indicates he believes that homosexual inclinations are a choice or sickness, but that homosexual behavior is a choice and sinful. As strongly as I disagree with the latter I still think it's an important distinction from the former.

That's a fair point. I was making an assumption based on the general way of these things rather than basing my comments on sure knowledge. Who knows? He might be taking the most moderate stance a Christian can take on the issue. Perhaps Helen can enlighten us?


I am inclined to agree that painting homosexual behavior as sinful contributes to a climate of intolerance and hostility toward homosexuals, but then I'm not so sure. I mean, most Christians paint adultery as sinful too, but nobody seems to be worried that promoting such a perspective is inherently dangerous or damaging to adulterers.

Another excellent point. Once again its the existence of "Burn them! Burn them!" Christians that makes me leap to assumptions.

It could be, like, this really moderate guy saying "Our faith teaches us that this kind of behaviour is wrong but some of us have the misfortune to be born with these desires and we, as Christians, should reach out to them with compassion and understanding and try to convince them that its better not to succumb to those desires" which is hardly hate speech.

Thanks vm, its nice having someone with a well balanced way of looking at things around to inject a little calm reason into an emotional issue.

[HelenM]

Even though I don't know who Stephen Bennett is, I quite frankly admire those protestors..these days, it takes some serious guts to hold a protest outside of a church.

For what it's worth, the church affirmed their right to protest on public property i.e. on the street outside the church and also said they were welcome to come inside and listen as long as they didn't disrupt the service.

Helen

[LadyShea]

I mean, most Christians paint adultery as sinful too, but nobody seems to be worried that promoting such a perspective is inherently dangerous or damaging to adulterers.

Adultery is breaking a contract/agreement/vow with another person, and one made before God if the couple is Christian, and is definitely a chosen activity. I don't think adultery and homosexuality are really analogous.

[HelenM]

I am inclined to agree that painting homosexual behavior as sinful contributes to a climate of intolerance and hostility toward homosexuals, but then I'm not so sure. I mean, most Christians paint adultery as sinful too, but nobody seems to be worried that promoting such a perspective is inherently dangerous or damaging to adulterers.

Well, exactly. What Christians say does rather get taken out of context, at times.

Is it hatemongering against fat people for someone who has lost weight successfully to say "Change is possible!" - because after all, some people don't seem able to lose weight?

Should Stephen Bennett not be allowed to share his belief that change is possible, which is based on his own experience?

Helen

[HelenM]

I mean, most Christians paint adultery as sinful too, but nobody seems to be worried that promoting such a perspective is inherently dangerous or damaging to adulterers.

Adultery is breaking a contract/agreement/vow with another person, and one made before God if the couple is Christian, and is definitely a chosen activity. I don't think adultery and homosexuality are really analogous.

Having sex with a person of the same gender is a chosen behavior; I think the analogy would be with that.

A person has no control necessarily over a desire to have sex outside their marriage but they have control over whether they carry through with it.

Helen

[beyelzu]

I'd say it's ineffective in a boy who cried wolf kind of way. Whenever activists flatten nuance I believe they do their cause a disservice. If Bennett is House of Hate-worthy, then what does Phelps get?

It reminds me of a poem I read in 8th grade English. I can't remember its name and I've searched for it high and low to no avail, but the basic premise was that if every product or person is described as "super" "advanced" "new and improved", then superlatives become the average and therefore lose all meaning.

If anything people like phelps are actually even less of a threat to civil liberties than this guy is because phelps is such a foaming at the mouth monster that he alienates the middle.

But regardless, Stephen Bennet is definitely part of the problem. How do you think he and his supporters feel about Bush's constituional amendment to "protect traditional marriage."


If you are going to be political and ideological ideals with monsters expect to be considered a monster.

[Roland98]

Is it hatemongering against fat people for someone who has lost weight successfully to say "Change is possible!" - because after all, some people don't seem able to lose weight?

Should Stephen Bennett not be allowed to share his belief that change is possible, which is based on his own experience?

Helen

But he's not only sharing his experience. He's sharing his experience and saying everyone else are liars and part of an evil "agenda" when they protest that his experience isn't universal (and is, in fact, very much the exception to the rule as far as homosexual orientation goes).

I know people from other boards who've tried the "become straight!" programs. They've posted how much pain it caused them, and how basically even those who "succeed" are simply left to be celibate and really aren't attracted to the opposite sex at all; they simply learn to repress any sexual desires whatsoever in order to avoid being tempted by "sin." And for Bennett and those like him to give the false hope that everyone can change like he supposedly did is painful enough; to then add insult to injury by saying homosexuals are evil and "after our children" is simply despicable, IMO. I don't care how calmly and rationally he's able to say it.

[LadyShea]

Is it hatemongering against fat people for someone who has lost weight successfully to say "Change is possible!" - because after all, some people don't seem able to lose weight?

Should Stephen Bennett not be allowed to share his belief that change is possible, which is based on his own experience?

Helen


Of course he should be allowed to share his belief, but others should be allowed to disagree, loudly and vehemently, with his beliefs if they beleive they are causing harm.

I have to go back to the abortion debate, because that is the only issue where I have been on the front lines of a protest. Unlike many of my pro-choice bretheren and sisteren, I fully supported the anti-abortion forces right to protest...to be there. They are perfectly within their right, IMO, to yell that we are baby killers and dykes and whatever else they yelled. The only line for me is a physical one from either side...no blocking of access, no assault, no bombs or guns.

I think this protest of your church would be the same. Freedom to call whoever whatever, but not to block access or assault people

[beyelzu]

I am inclined to agree that painting homosexual behavior as sinful contributes to a climate of intolerance and hostility toward homosexuals, but then I'm not so sure. I mean, most Christians paint adultery as sinful too, but nobody seems to be worried that promoting such a perspective is inherently dangerous or damaging to adulterers.

Well, exactly. What Christians say does rather get taken out of context, at times.

Is it hatemongering against fat people for someone who has lost weight successfully to say "Change is possible!" - because after all, some people don't seem able to lose weight?

Should Stephen Bennett not be allowed to share his belief that change is possible, which is based on his own experience?

Helen


the problem is that you are conflating a medical condition obesity, or at the very least lifestyle choices that can lead to serious medical problems, with sexual orientation.

This kind of worldview enables people to feel good when they oppose civil liberties for gays and lesbians.

It is an easy line of logic.

Gay is just a choice, people should choose to be straight, god created adam and eve, obviously there shouldnt be gay marriage or civil unions.

[beyelzu]

Is it hatemongering against fat people for someone who has lost weight successfully to say "Change is possible!" - because after all, some people don't seem able to lose weight?

Should Stephen Bennett not be allowed to share his belief that change is possible, which is based on his own experience?

Helen


Of course he should be allowed to share his belief, but others should be allowed to disagree, loudly and vehemently, with his beliefs if they beleive they are causing harm.

I have to go back to the abortion debate, because that is the only issue where I have been on the front lines of a protest. Unlike many of my pro-choice bretheren and sisteren, I fully supported the anti-abortion forces right to protest...to be there. They are perfectly within their right, IMO, to yell that we are baby killers and dykes and whatever else they yelled. The only line for me is a physical one from either side...no blocking of access, no assault, no bombs or guns.

I think this protest of your church would be the same. Freedom to call whoever whatever, but not to block access or assault people


seconded.

[livius drusus]

Is it hatemongering against fat people for someone who has lost weight successfully to say "Change is possible!" - because after all, some people don't seem able to lose weight?

I tend to agree that Bennett is not a hatemonger in the sense that I think of the term (ie, actively wishing the target of your hate ill), however I think Roland brought up some quotes which make your above analogy inapt. Specifically, would it be hatemongering against fat people if someone advocated fighting the fat agenda to indoctrinate your children via their media mouthpieces alongside the more innocuous "Change is possible" message?

Should Stephen Bennett not be allowed to share his belief that change is possible, which is based on his own experience?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting he be silenced, but if included in his beliefs are some noxious media control/they're coming for your children themes, then it seems to me the protestors have grounds to call him a hatemonger. I still don't think targetting your church is the soundest position, mind you, but that gay agenda to infect your kids with AIDS stuff is a more minister of propaganda than ministering to a congregation.

[beyelzu]

I think it could have some positive results ... if anyone took the time to listen to the protesters and learn why they were upset.

You think calling someone's church a House of Hate is likely to result in their taking that time? It seems to me you could at least target Bennett himself instead of painting the whole congregation with one ugly brush and then expecting them to approach you.
The protesters let the church know that people are opposed to the message no matter how it is sugar coated.

The congregation invited him, they knew what he stood for I would imagine. When they gave someone with reprehensible views a forum to speak, when they invited him to their church, they picked a side in an ongoing societal debate about gay rights. Quite frankly, they picked the wrong one. The protesters did the right thing.

[viscousmemories]

As you can see from above, he paints it as more than "sinful," but also "calculated" and "diabolical," and adds the scare tactic that "they are after your children." I am sure that this certainly does contribute to a climate of "intolerance and hostility toward homosexuals," in much the same way the aforementioned Phelps does. I don't think it's going too far to refer to him as a hate-monger.
Okay I just read that transcript. He does target homosexuals (not just homosexuality) quite a lot in that essay. And more than just coincidentally contributing to a climate of intolerance, he seems to actively oppose tolerance:

I hardly watch television at all anymore. I can't stand to take another painful injection of 'tolerance and acceptance.' Unlike the majority of most other 'over medicated' Americans, I refuse to take the pro-gay media's medicine any longer.

Futhermore he admits that he is an anti-gay propagandist:

Kirk and Madsen successfully laid out their game plan for using the media to be the homosexual's main propagandist conduit - and I am using their own plan as well.

Man, I don't know. I'm really on the fence on this one honestly. I mean my gut reaction is that this is pretty clearly hatemongering, but then again Fred Phelps actually endorses hate. I mean he actually says "fags" are an abomination in the eyes of God and should be killed, etc. Whereas this guy promotes a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach that just doesn't seem to be in the same league as Phelps... yes he thinks that gays have an agenda to promote acceptance of what he considers a sinful lifestyle, but he's not saying they should be rounded up and shot. So while I personally find it detestable to imbue people with guilt and self-loathing for what I believe is a natural tendency, is it hatemongering?

Ugh. Too many variables and too many visceral reactions on my part. I'm gonna take a break from this for a bit but I think it's a fascinating and important discussion. I'm glad you brought it up, Helen. Despite the massive derail it seems to have taken. If it's a derail... I can't even decide that. Heh.

[livius drusus]

The protesters let the church know that people are opposed to the message no matter how it is sugar coated.

Assuming that was their goal, fine. Do you know for a fact it was?

The congregation invited him, they knew what he stood for I would imagine.

Why do you imagine that? I read his site and it seemed to me like the same misguided claptrap touted in the DSM until 1973, only with a God angle instead of a psyche one. The blather Roland linked to was the first indication I saw of the more insidious positions he holds.

When they gave someone with reprehensible views a forum to speak, when they invited him to their church, they picked a side in an ongoing societal debate about gay rights. Quite frankly, they picked the wrong one.

/me shrugs

Life is far more nuanced than the Manicheans would have us believe. The church might pick another speaker to counter Bennett next time. You have no idea, so why assume they crossed some kind of crystal clear dividing line between the right side and the wrong side just by allowing Bennett to darken their doorway?

The protesters did the right thing.

Again, that depends on their goals.

[Scotty]

Sheesh vm, don't you understand? It is all based on fear, and remember what Yoda said "...Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering".

You understand now?

;)

-Scott

[Farren]

Well, exactly. What Christians say does rather get taken out of context, at times.

Is it hatemongering against fat people for someone who has lost weight successfully to say "Change is possible!" - because after all, some people don't seem able to lose weight?

Should Stephen Bennett not be allowed to share his belief that change is possible, which is based on his own experience?

Helen

Helen, I just have to re-iterate this so you know: I won't accuse you of having your head in the sand or call you rude names because I really think you're a sweetypie. So any engagement on my part is done with love and respectful disagreement here.

Consider this: If a quack was going around telling gullible people "garlic and love cures AIDS", would you approve?

As I outlined in my earlier post, it is simply not possible to concieve of a fair number of people not being 100% biologically gay. The sexual behaviour of both men and women are largely determined by the relative sizes and of two or three button sized nodes in the centre of the brain.

The chances of these nodes being "wired" for female preferences in an otherwise male body or vice versa are as likely and conceivable as the chances of having a skin condition, astygmatism, a club foot, a cleft lip or whatever.

Faced with someone with a cleft lip, you wouldn't say "Oh no, that's just a personal choice. You can change that if only you believe"

This isn't about belief. Why should it be possible that our bodies can come out markedly different from the norm in thousands of ways but not sexual desire, which is a primitive, reflexive response? Its bizarre to even consider that biological homsexuality isn't possible. Its like saying warts aren't possible.

So, I think, anyone who applies reason can see that someone who says gays can be "cured" through belief is wrong. Flat out wrong. Scientifically wrong. Logically wrong.

There's the outside chance that some people engage in a gay lifestyle because of choice rather than biological impulse, but examine your own feelings. Have you ever, ever thought "Hey, lemme try living with someone of the same sex for a few years, that'll be kinky!". If you find the thought totally unappealling I assure you, that's how the vast majority of straight people feel.

I can speak about this with a little authority because I'm straight and I did, actually, sleep with a guy, just to see what it was like. And it held no appeal for me whatsoever and I stopped. I assure you, no straight person without some very complex emotional issues and strange circumstances settles into a gay lifestyle. It's not, in any sense, terribly seductive if you're straight.

So this guy is, 100% without a doubt, wrong on two counts. The first being that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and the second being that there's some kind of diabolical agenda that can somehow "seduce" large numbers of straight children into becoming gay. If kids get seduced into homosexuality and stay that way it means they are gay. They can't help it.

You ask

Is it hatemongering against fat people for someone who has lost weight successfully to say "Change is possible!"

First it must be said that that's not comparable. You can't stop being gay if nature has ordained you are gay.

The hatemongering charge comes from elsewhere. Roland posts excerpts from his site where he charges the media and the gay community with having a "diabolical agenda" to "seduce our children". Last time I checked, calling people a community "diabolical" in the Christian community is about as mean a put down as you get.

You may say "But that doesn't imply that Christians will hate them. In our church we treat people with compassion and understanding" but what about the kid in the front pew who's 100% pure unadultrated gay listening to this stuff?

I had a friend at school who was gay as gay could be. He never admitted it to his family but they knew. They belonged to a charismatic church where the pastor's favourite bugbear was gays. Didn't help that his father was a thug and used to grab him and smack his head against a wall from time to time for being such a "queer", even though he made a brave show of dating girls and stuff. He went backward and forward with his Christianity. One week he was saved and renouncing his homosexuality for ever. The next he was tearfully saying he couldn't deny what he was. I walked in on him one Christmas putting his neck in a noose.

Three years later, having thrown himself out of cars on the highway, slit his wrists and developed a drug psychosis he ended up in an insane asylum. Thankfully after many sad years his life took a good turn and he is now a teacher at a clothing design school, with a loving, supporting boyfriend.

That's one of the kids in every church this guy is preaching in. They may not have a thug for a father, they may have a stronger character, but they're tied up in an agony of self-doubt and loathing because of this guys message. Because they are gay and no amount of belief can change it.

Some more liberal churches today say "You can be gay. We acknowledge that its something you cannot change. But that's a burden God has placed on you because in order to be moral you must sublimate your desires and remain celibate" - even that's better than telling people "you can change your biological nature" because at least it allows people to acknowledge and stand by the truth, to themselves and others. But that's not the message this guy is preaching.

Is he a hate-monger? Yes. At the very least he's a self-hatred monger.

You may then wonder "How can he have made the change then? I don't doubt his sincerity". One possible, even probable answer is that he's bisexual, because, for the same reason that nature produces gay people, it produces bisexual people. There's no compelling rational reason why that abberation from norm shouldn't occur in a purely biological manner.

[Goliath]

For what it's worth, the church affirmed their right to protest on public property i.e. on the street outside the church and also said they were welcome to come inside and listen as long as they didn't disrupt the service.

That may be true, but it still was very brave of these protestors to take a stand against the status-quo that is xianity in the US. Just to identify onesself publicly as being opposed to any aspect of xianity is a display of bravery, IMO.

[beyelzu]

The protesters let the church know that people are opposed to the message no matter how it is sugar coated.

Assuming that was their goal, fine. Do you know for a fact it was? no but I am willing to give them the befefit of the doubt. besides do you have another suggestion as to why they might be there?

The congregation invited him, they knew what he stood for I would imagine.

Why do you imagine that? I read his site and it seemed to me like the same misguided claptrap touted in the DSM until 1973, only with a God angle instead of a psyche one. The blather Roland linked to was the first indication I saw of the more insidious positions he holds.

Well I did a quick google search and came by his website. I just have to say that it doesnt seem to me that Stephen Bennet isnt exactly hiding his agenda.

with quotes like this from his website

"Emerging as One of the Nation's Key Speakers on the Issues

of Homosexuality & the 'Gay' Agenda…"

gay agenda, riiiiight.

"Men and women can then move on to healthy heterosexuality - as part of God's perfect design and plan for man and woman."

I like this one, it really screams tolerance.

"Finally, SBM is a public policy organization raising awareness and the truth about homosexuality, as well as informing the public about the dangers and misinformation campaign being promoted by the 'gay' agenda"

I really like this one as well. I wonder what the dangers of the gay agenda are?
Keep in mind that I just went to the guys website, I didnt even have to look farther then the main page. You really think the church didnt know?

When they gave someone with reprehensible views a forum to speak, when they invited him to their church, they picked a side in an ongoing societal debate about gay rights. Quite frankly, they picked the wrong one.

* livius drusus shrugs

Life is far more nuanced than the Manicheans would have us believe. The church might pick another speaker to counter Bennett next time. You have no idea, so why assume they crossed some kind of crystal clear dividing line between the right side and the wrong side just by allowing Bennett to darken their doorway?
chances are that they didnt. but let's ask helen.

helen, is the church doing some sort of point counter point debate and offerring up the opposing view in the coming weeks?

The protesters did the right thing.

Again, that depends on their goals.

I dont care about their intentions, opposing dipshits is it's own reward.

[Goliath]

If you are going to be political and ideological ideals with monsters expect to be considered a monster.

:clap:

It took a talking penis to put into so few words what I tried to say in so many. :D

[beyelzu]

If you are going to be political and ideological ideals with monsters expect to be considered a monster.

:clap:

It took a talking penis to put into so few words what I tried to say in so many. :Dthanks,
never underestimate a talking penis. :D

[livius drusus]

The protesters let the church know that people are opposed to the message no matter how it is sugar coated.

Assuming that was their goal, fine. Do you know for a fact it was? no but I am willing to give them the befefit of the doubt.

I don't see that same willingness in your judgement of the church, though.

besides do you have another suggestion as to why they might be there?

Sure. To change people's minds.


Well I did a quick google search and came by his website. I just have to say that it doesnt seem to me that Stephen Bennet isnt exactly hiding his agenda.

<snip quotes>

Keep in mind that I just went to the guys website, I didnt even have to look farther then the main page. You really think the church didnt know?

I did a search for his name and came across his website as well. The gay agenda crap didn't leap out at me at all and I read several pages.

chances are that they didnt.

It's the assumption I have a problem with. It's layered on a bunch of other assumptions as well, like that the whole congregation was involved (and is therefore to be condemned as crossing the line of demarcation between the right side and the wrong side) in the decision to invite Bennett. What if it's just the minister or some board of elders thing? Why condemn the entire church as a "House of Hate" without asking these kinds of basic questions first?


I dont care about their intentions, opposing dipshits is it's own reward.

Well, I care. Pat answers don't satisfy me.

[LadyShea]

I have a question. Do those of you who feel the protestors were somehow wrong, or misguided in their methods, also feel that all protesting with placards and name calling is wrong? Was it just the fact that this was a church that is rubbing people the wrong way? For example, people use to picket the South African embassy during apartheid...if they had placards reading "House of Hate" would that bother you since not all South Africans supported apartheid? Would you question the protestors motives?

That didn't come out right but hope you get the gist of what I am asking.

[viscousmemories]

I have a question. Do those of you who feel the protestors were somehow wrong, or misguided in their methods, also feel that all protesting with placards and name calling is wrong? Was it just the fact that this was a church that is rubbing people the wrong way? For example, people use to picket the South African embassy during apartheid...if they had placards reading "House of Hate" would that bother you since not all South Africans supported apartheid? Would you question the protestors motives?

That didn't come out right but hope you get the gist of what I am asking.
I'm not one who believes they were necessarily wrong or misguided, but I know what you're saying.

I try always to be calm, rational, reasonable and accurate when I engage in debates. I really have strong feelings about civil liberties issues, though, so it's very hard for me to maintain that (imo essential) composure in such discussions.

But I've recently come to believe that political activists - on whatever side of whatever debate - revile that attitude. People who are calm are branded apathetic. Rational gets you the Vulcan label. Reasonable is coddling the enemy and accurate is quibbling about semantics. You are either full bore for or against the named enemy, and you damn well better just take the word of the "experts" as to who the enemy is, because questioning their wisdom isn't smiled upon either. You are with them or against them, period.

That said...

I also realize that because I'm not an activist, and don't really have much of an appreciation for that mentality or behavior, I'm not a good judge of what is an appropriate response to the dissemination of propaganda.

Which is to say, I guess, that I don't see how screaming at and insulting people is going to get them to change their views or earn you the respect of anyone else, so unless the purpose was just to vent hostility at the church I don’t get what they hoped to accomplish. But again, honestly, I am aware that it might simply be the case that I am naïve about the nature of political warfare, and there really is no place for calm, rational, reasoned and accurate criticism of the opposition in an effective anti-propaganda strategy.

[beyelzu]

The protesters let the church know that people are opposed to the message no matter how it is sugar coated.

Assuming that was their goal, fine. Do you know for a fact it was? no but I am willing to give them the befefit of the doubt.

I don't see that same willingness in your judgement of the church, though. indeed, I have a bias against churches based on years of familiarity.

besides do you have another suggestion as to why they might be there?

Sure. To change people's minds. well, the protesters would be foolish in that case. Protest rarely changes someone's mind, it is not reasoned debate. I think protest let's the target know that you find his/her/their actions unacceptable. I think that it is part of the nature of protest.


Well I did a quick google search and came by his website. I just have to say that it doesnt seem to me that Stephen Bennet isnt exactly hiding his agenda.

<snip quotes>

Keep in mind that I just went to the guys website, I didnt even have to look farther then the main page. You really think the church didnt know?

I did a search for his name and came across his website as well. The gay agenda crap didn't leap out at me at all and I read several pages. I find this assertion surprising. All of the quotes I listed are right on the main page and I think that a reader gets a pretty good idea just from the quotes I listed.


chances are that they didnt.

It's the assumption I have a problem with. It's layered on a bunch of other assumptions as well, like that the whole congregation was involved (and is therefore to be condemned as crossing the line of demarcation between the right side and the wrong side) in the decision to invite Bennett. What if it's just the minister or some board of elders thing? Why condemn the entire church as a "House of Hate" without asking these kinds of basic questions first?
Groups are judged by their leaders and their official positions. Members of a voluntary group should know what kind of message their leaders are sending. Also, it doesnt matter if just the pastor or church elders or whatever invited Bennet. The protest will, at the very least, let church members know that Bennet's message isn't embraced by everyone. Maybe they will question Benet and bother to go to his website. I dont think the church's actions are acceptable even if a powerful minority without popular support is responsible. Take bush for instance, he is our president and if reelected we send a message to the world that his actions are ok with us.

sorry I seem to be rambling.

I dont care about their intentions, opposing dipshits is it's own reward.

Well, I care. Pat answers don't satisfy me.Sorry if I seemed glib, but short of some really off the wall goals, I fail to see how it is possible to think the protesters were wrong. Is it a matter of degree? If so, I believed I addressed that earlier in this thread.

:)

and now some smilies so my post will be fun.


:cool: :D

[livius drusus]

I have a question. Do those of you who feel the protestors were somehow wrong, or misguided in their methods, also feel that all protesting with placards and name calling is wrong?

It depends, of course, both on your goals and on the names being called.

Was it just the fact that this was a church that is rubbing people the wrong way?

Um, no... I wouldn't be bothered in the least if people protested outside of Phelps' church. I just don't like everyone being tarred with one brush based on who their speaker was one Sunday. It doesn't seem fair to me.


For example, people use to picket the South African embassy during apartheid...if they had placards reading "House of Hate" would that bother you since not all South Africans supported apartheid?

An embassy is an official branch of government. It's actually considered territory of the country it represents. If someone is protesting a government policy, I have no problem with them calling an institution of that government a "House of Racism", say.

If they called the whole country of South Africa a House of Hate, otoh, I'd have a problem with it. For one thing, it totally dismisses the people working on the front lines to effectuate change.

Would you question the protestors motives?

I don't question their motives; I question their ends and means, and yes, I would ask those same questions of anyone.

That didn't come out right but hope you get the gist of what I am asking.

I think I did, but I'm not sure.

[beyelzu]

Um, no... I wouldn't be bothered in the least if people protested outside of Phelps' church. I just don't like everyone being tarred with one brush based on who their speaker was one Sunday. It doesn't seem fair to me.

but what if there are members of phelp's church that are decent people who stay because they hope that they are a moderating influence?

see where I am going with this?

[livius drusus]

Um, no... I wouldn't be bothered in the least if people protested outside of Phelps' church. I just don't like everyone being tarred with one brush based on who their speaker was one Sunday. It doesn't seem fair to me.

but what if there are members of phelp's church that are decent people who stay because they hope that they are a moderating influence?

see where I am going with this?

Yes, beyelzu m'dear; it's all kinds of crystal. :wink:

It just doesn't work for me though, because members of Phelps' church at the very least accept his doctrines or they wouldn't be members. I wouldn't have a problem with people calling the local Aryan Nations Christian Identity church a House of Hate, because hate is in fact the fulcrum of their belief system.

I seriously doubt we can say the same for Helen's church, but if it turns out that they do actively hope for the painful death and eternal damnation of homosexuals, then bring on the placards.

[Goliath]

I don't see that same willingness in your judgement of the church, though.


:?

Why should any church get the benefit of the doubt?

Like I said before, you people confuse the hell out of me sometimes....

[LadyShea]

I'm not one who believes they were necessarily wrong or misguided, but I know what you're saying.

I try always to be calm, rational, reasonable and accurate when I engage in debates. I really have strong feelings about civil liberties issues, though, so it's very hard for me to maintain that (imo essential) composure in such discussions.

But I've recently come to believe that political activists - on whatever side of whatever debate - revile that attitude. People who are calm are branded apathetic. Rational gets you the Vulcan label. Reasonable is coddling the enemy and accurate is quibbling about semantics. You are either full bore for or against the named enemy, and you damn well better just take the word of the "experts" as to who the enemy is, because questioning their wisdom isn't smiled upon either. You are with them or against them, period.

Unfortunately, calm rational discussion is rarely responsible for large change. If the activsts of the 60's had simply written letters to Congress or whatever, do you think the Civil Rights movement would have gotten very far?

Now, that being said, I will tell you that I no longer particpate in any kind of demonstration. People wanted me in the streets against the war and what have you....but, my experiences at abortion demonstrations SHOOK ME TO THE CORE. I am not easily shaken. The hate and rage from both sides literally scared the shit out of me. I do appreciate people who can get out there and picket for whatever they belive in, but I can no longer do it. I still consider myself an activist though, I just particpate in other ways that don't make me fear for lives.

I also realize that because I'm not an activist, and don't really have much of an appreciation for that mentality or behavior, I'm not a good judge of what is an appropriate response to the dissemination of propaganda.

My gut feeling in this case is that the homosexual community of Helen's town hasn't had a physical target for their pent up anger or rage until this Bennet guy....and when he came to town, they went all out. I had never heard of him, but you bet your ass the GLBT community knows exactly who he is and where he is. I wouldn't be surprised if he has protestors at ALL of his speaking engagements.

Helen, was this choice of a controversial speaker discussed with the congregation?

Which is to say, I guess, that I don't see how screaming at and insulting people is going to get them to change their views or earn you the respect of anyone else, so unless the purpose was just to vent hostility at the church I don’t get what they hoped to accomplish. But again, honestly, I am aware that it might simply be the case that I am naïve about the nature of political warfare, and there really is no place for calm, rational, reasoned and accurate criticism of the opposition in an effective anti-propaganda strategy.

I don't know the answer either, only that a calm reasonable person having a discussion is more easily hand waved away, patted on the head and sent home, and/or unnoticed. Screaming mobs aren't so easily ignored : shrug

[HelenM]

My gut feeling in this case is that the homosexual community of Helen's town hasn't had a physical target for their pent up anger or rage until this Bennet guy....and when he came to town, they went all out. I had never heard of him, but you bet your ass the GLBT community knows exactly who he is and where he is. I wouldn't be surprised if he has protestors at ALL of his speaking engagements.

I think it is a common experience for him, yes.

Actually, it was a Chicago group who came out to our village to protest. The Lesbian and Gay association of our village dissociated themselves from the Chicago group's protest and instead held their own peaceful one in the morning, handing out flyers and attending services without causing any disruption. The speaker in the morning was the senior pastor whose topic was "The Truth about Same Sex Marriage". Although what he actually said was a) this is what the Bible says marriage is - and he didn't say anything about what it doesn't say and b) he talked about how the Bible says there is no difference between any of us - church people or visitors from the local association - everyone is a sinner and needs to be saved by God. I don't recall him singling out homosexuals in anything he said.

Helen, was this choice of a controversial speaker discussed with the congregation?

His beliefs are in accord with what the church believes, so I don't really see why they would.

I don't know the answer either, only that a calm reasonable person having a discussion is more easily hand waved away, patted on the head and sent home, and/or unnoticed. Screaming mobs aren't so easily ignored : shrug

True. But that doesn't necessarily mean they effect positive change. And isn't there the risk that stereotypes of gay people as hateful activists will be reinforced when groups of activists have these kinds of protests?

Although Stephen Bennett said more than once that gay and lesbian people are the most wonderful people you could ever meet and he loves them and most of them don't behave like the protesting activists outside our church that evening.

Helen

[viscousmemories]

The rest of your post makes a lot of sense to me, thanks. :)

I had never heard of him, but you bet your ass the GLBT community knows exactly who he is and where he is. I wouldn't be surprised if he has protestors at ALL of his speaking engagements.
This part is what I was just thinking about in the shower. I don't know why churches typically invite people to speak. Is it always an endorsement of the speaker's views, or is it simply providing a venue for the person to pitch them. If it's the former, then yeah I can understand the protestors wanting to condemn the group for endorsing the guys views. But if it's the latter, it seems like the protestors are condemning the church membership for giving a viewpoint a fair hearing. Even though I was able to deduce from a cursory reading of the guy's website that I vehemently disagree with him, I don't like the idea of someone else deciding what is and isn't acceptable information for me to listen to.

[HelenM]

I seriously doubt we can say the same for Helen's church, but if it turns out that they do actively hope for the painful death and eternal damnation of homosexuals, then bring on the placards.

I'd be interested to see it if anyone can find quotes from Stephen Bennett's or my church's site that say we actively hope for the painful death and eternal damnation of homosexuals.

But on the other hand, anyone who interprets "change is possible" as meaning the above, has already found it, I guess.

Helen

[Roland98]

I'd be interested to see it if anyone can find quotes from Stephen Bennett's or my church's site that say we actively hope for the painful death and eternal damnation of homosexuals.

Is that the only standard for you to consider him to be promoting hate--wishing for the painful death and eternal damnation of homosexuals? Does it not matter to you that he's assisting in creating a kind of hell on earth for many of them?

[LadyShea]

I think it is a common experience for him, yes.

Actually, it was a Chicago group who came out to our village to protest. The Lesbian and Gay association of our village dissociated themselves from the Chicago group's protest and instead held their own peaceful one in the morning, handing out flyers and attending services without causing any disruption. The speaker in the morning was the senior pastor whose topic was "The Truth about Same Sex Marriage". Although what he actually said was a) this is what the Bible says marriage is - and he didn't say anything about what it doesn't say and b) he talked about how the Bible says there is no difference between any of us - church people or visitors from the local association - everyone is a sinner and needs to be saved by God. I don't recall him singling out homosexuals in anything he said.

Shipped in protestors, huh? There are certain, somewhat extremist, groups on all sides of many issues that travel around, following their chosen foil. If Bennet has managed to piss off one or more of them, he, and any church or organization that sponsors him, will be hounded until he stops touring or he softens his rhetoric.


His beliefs are in accord with what the church believes, so I don't really see why they would.

Simply because protests are disturbing. If he has been targeted for constant demonstrations, your church leaders may have chosen to warn the congregation or discuss a decision that may get them on the news. I was just curious is all, no criticism intended or anything.


True. But that doesn't necessarily mean they effect positive change. And isn't there the risk that stereotypes of gay people as hateful activists will be reinforced when groups of activists have these kinds of protests?

Well, civil rights protests were often used to reinforce the stereotype that Blacks were/are inherently violent, but I think these activists did effect positive change.

In Denver about 15 years or so ago, the KKK had a rally on Martin Luther King day. The counter-protestors became violent and people got hurt, specifically a white girl who was demonstrating against the KKK got beat up by black anti-KKK demonstrators. The KKK members never yelled, screamed, or returned the violence. Does this mean that those that are anti-KKK can be stereotyped as hateful activists? Does this reinforce the KKK's stance that Blacks are violent?

It all depends on which side of the fence you're on I guess

Although Stephen Bennett said more than once that gay and lesbian people are the most wonderful people you could ever meet and he loves them and most of them don't behave like the protesting activists outside our church that evening.

Helen

Well, his website tells a different story unfortunately, and I am sure the protestors were reacting to things he said outside of your particular church service.

[livius drusus]

I seriously doubt we can say the same for Helen's church, but if it turns out that they do actively hope for the painful death and eternal damnation of homosexuals, then bring on the placards.

I'd be interested to see it if anyone can find quotes from Stephen Bennett's or my church's site that say we actively hope for the painful death and eternal damnation of homosexuals.

But on the other hand, anyone who interprets "change is possible" as meaning the above, has already found it, I guess.

That's a bit of a dodge, Helen. As I pointed out above after Roland found those quotes on his site, Bennett's not just saying "change is possible". He's also saying there's a media conspiracy to promote a nebulous gay agenda which aims to indoctrinate and infect our children. That's not wishing them painful death, but it's certainly a demonization which is a) ludicrously inaccurate, and b) hateful rhetoric.

[Godless Dave]

Stephen Bennet is a liar and a hatemonger. The truth should be told about him. He does not deserve the courtesy of reasoned debate. From his website:

Quote:

SBM’s Simple, Uncompromising Message: No One is Born “Gay”

And Complete Change is Completely Possible!
Maybe I shouldn't have raised this because it's such a sensitive issue. On the contrary! Communication is the only way to resolve sensitive issues.

It's just that - how do you get from the above to him being a 'hatemonger'? What may seem obvious to others isn't obvious to me. I'll try to explain further, and take Bennet's claims one at a time.

SBM’s Simple, Uncompromising Message: No One is Born “Gay”
The medical/biological evidence is in no way conclusive that people are born gay, but it is leaning that way. But the testimony of gay people is almost unanimous. They feel like they have always been gay. Bennet is discounting the stated personal experience of the vast majority of gay people. Are they all lying in order to advance the "gay agenda"?

If Bennet really loved gay people he would try to understand them before casting judgement on their behavior.

Complete Change is Completely Possible
Regarding this statement, the medical evidence is clear. Only a tiny minority of gay people can change from homo- to heterosexuality. That Bennet claims to be one of those people does not supersede the experience of all the others. The psychiatric community did not stop categorizing homosexuality as a disorder out of nowhere. The decision was based on decades of attempts to "cure" homosexuality.

Bennet is being dishonest.

Is it hatemongering against fat people for someone who has lost weight successfully to say "Change is possible!" - because after all, some people don't seem able to lose weight?
There are two crucial differences between obesity and homosexuality. Obesity has been proven to be detrimental to one's health in several ways. Second, as you said "some" people don't seem able to lose weight. If over 99% of obese people couldn't seem to lose weight under any circumstances, the situation might be different.

[Godless Dave]

His beliefs are in accord with what the church believes
Then in my opinion your church is a house of hate. I don't know if I would stand outside it holding a sign naming it such, but then again I might.

Bennet's teachings are of the same order as the beliefs that black people are genetically prone to criminal activity or that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the media.

[viscousmemories]

His beliefs are in accord with what the church believes, so I don't really see why they would.
Oops. We cross-posted so that I was saying I didn't know if your church necessarily endorsed Bennett's views while you were posting this. Yeah I think if your congregation shares his POV and invited him to speak as a means of endorsing him, then your church is fair game for the same criticism people have of him. I'm still undecided about whether "hate monger" or "house of hate" are accurate descriptors under the circumstances, though.

Although Stephen Bennett said more than once that gay and lesbian people are the most wonderful people you could ever meet and he loves them and most of them don't behave like the protesting activists outside our church that evening.
That's something of an empty platitude for me. I believe homosexual activity is a natural and healthy expression of human sexuality, and I strongly disapprove of anyone seeking to make people ashamed of it, to demonize it in the public sphere, or to criminalize it. As such if I were gay it would be meaningless for someone to say they love me while attacking my values in that way. My definition of love makes no allowance for such behavior.

[Roland98]

Although Stephen Bennett said more than once that gay and lesbian people are the most wonderful people you could ever meet and he loves them and most of them don't behave like the protesting activists outside our church that evening.

Of course. He can't say that they're not, can he? Even Swaggert (http://www.newyorkslime.com/swaggert.html) said "I'm not knocking the poor homosexuals. I'm not. They need salvation like anybody else," right after he said he'd kill one if he looked at him. :? Even Falwell is often careful to say that God hates the homosexual acts, or that God hates homosexuality, etc. etc., (http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/robertson.html) rather than the more blunt Phelpian phrase "God hates fags." However, it seems rather empty to me given the other things he's said (both Falwell, and others like him, including Bennett). I'm sorry, but you can't just say in one place how these people are so wonderful, and in another place that they're trying to destroy the family and indoctrinate our children into their "lifestyle"; if you're going to speak out of both sides of your mouth, expect to be called on it.

[PatF]

Well, this is a coincidence. I joined this site tonight looking for something completely different and I find this thread started by HelenM. By coincidence, I _did_ see the demonstration because I live across the street from her church. As a matter of fact I saw the evening demonstration and I watched film of the morning demonstration on the news.

In my not particularly humble opinion, the gay demonstrators made a tactical error in their actions here. It's not that I don't agree with their views; I do. (I belong to the church just east of the post office; HelenM can tell you what that is and why that tells you something about me.) However, I thought their behavior was rude and ill-mannered. They were loud and boisterous. They blocked the sidewalk. They argued with passersby.

Had they merely stood silently and with dignity outside the church with signs protesting Bennett's appearance and agenda, I think they would have been much better off.

On the news, they had sound bites from a couple of the demonstrators and I don't think they did their cause any favors. They just seemed incredibly arrogant.

So, for all of you gay activists out there.... If you are going to protest, do it quietly and don't annoy the neighbors who might agree with you but would still like a little peace and quiet. And try to find someone with some public relations experience to speak with the newspeople.

--PatF

[livius drusus]

Well, this is a coincidence. I joined this site tonight looking for something completely different and I find this thread started by HelenM. By coincidence, I _did_ see the demonstration because I live across the street from her church.

That is pretty insanely cool, PatF: a great coincidence and a great first post. Welcome to FF. :welcome2:

[viscousmemories]

Well, this is a coincidence. I joined this site tonight looking for something completely different and I find this thread started by HelenM. By coincidence, I _did_ see the demonstration because I live across the street from her church.

That is pretty insanely cool, PatF: a great coincidence and a great first post. Welcome to FF. :welcome2:
Indeed, always nice to see new faces around here. Welcome, PatF. :)

[HelenM]

Well, this is a coincidence. I joined this site tonight looking for something completely different and I find this thread started by HelenM. By coincidence, I _did_ see the demonstration because I live across the street from her church. As a matter of fact I saw the evening demonstration and I watched film of the morning demonstration on the news.

In my not particularly humble opinion, the gay demonstrators made a tactical error in their actions here. It's not that I don't agree with their views; I do. (I belong to the church just east of the post office; HelenM can tell you what that is and why that tells you something about me.) However, I thought their behavior was rude and ill-mannered. They were loud and boisterous. They blocked the sidewalk. They argued with passersby.

Had they merely stood silently and with dignity outside the church with signs protesting Bennett's appearance and agenda, I think they would have been much better off.

On the news, they had sound bites from a couple of the demonstrators and I don't think they did their cause any favors. They just seemed incredibly arrogant.

So, for all of you gay activists out there.... If you are going to protest, do it quietly and don't annoy the neighbors who might agree with you but would still like a little peace and quiet. And try to find someone with some public relations experience to speak with the newspeople.

--PatF

Hi Pat,

Hey, this is neat! I don't know how long you've been at Unity Temple; I took a course there a couple of years ago and went to the goodbye event for Jay Deacon when he was moving to Massachusetts. Everyone was very friendly to me. I know a few other people who go there because our kids were on the same sports team or have the same music teacher, etc.

I hope you'll stick around. I think you'll like the people here :)

Helen

[HelenM]

Simply because protests are disturbing. If he has been targeted for constant demonstrations, your church leaders may have chosen to warn the congregation or discuss a decision that may get them on the news. I was just curious is all, no criticism intended or anything.

I don't know whether they knew that when they arranged for him to come. But anyway, they did know a week beforehand and they took time in each service to explain to the congregation about the two protests expected last Sunday.

So they did inform us a week before, of what they knew.

Helen

[PatF]

Hi Pat,

Hey, this is neat! I don't know how long you've been at Unity Temple; I took a course there a couple of years ago and went to the goodbye event for Jay Deacon when he was moving to Massachusetts. Everyone was very friendly to me. I know a few other people who go there because our kids were on the same sports team or have the same music teacher, etc.

I hope you'll stick around. I think you'll like the people here :)

Helen

I have been at Unity Temple for about 13 years. I don't go much because I don't have much time off and I prize what I do have. I do miss Jay Deacon though. I thought he was neat.

For those of you who do not know about Unity Temple, here is their URL. http://www.unitytemple.org/ The building, by the way, is Frank Lloyd Wright's first public building. (brag brag brag)

I might stick around but probably not tonight. I am dead tired.

--PatF

[LadyShea]

So, for all of you gay activists out there.... If you are going to protest, do it quietly and don't annoy the neighbors who might agree with you but would still like a little peace and quiet. And try to find someone with some public relations experience to speak with the newspeople.

--PatF

This is so annoying. I don't know if the stupid people jump for the cameras, or if the newspeople go looking for them, but it doesn't matter if its a natural disaster, protest, or 4th of July at the park...the person they interview is always the idiot of the group.

Oh, and hi!
:welcome:

[HelenM]

I believe homosexual activity is a natural and healthy expression of human sexuality, and I strongly disapprove of anyone seeking to make people ashamed of it, to demonize it in the public sphere, or to criminalize it. As such if I were gay it would be meaningless for someone to say they love me while attacking my values in that way. My definition of love makes no allowance for such behavior.

[Bible-believing] Christians speak against any behavior they understand to be sinful according to the Bible. It's not 'an attack' per se.

I think there probably are situations where your definition of love would mean you need to say something or do something that might make another person angry. They might see it as an attack but you feel that it's better to tell them the truth than lie and make them feel good in the short term. Or something along those lines. But perhaps I'm being too vague for you to understand what I'm trying to say.

Helen

[HelenM]

I have been at Unity Temple for about 13 years. I don't go much because I don't have much time off and I prize what I do have. I do miss Jay Deacon though. I thought he was neat.

I did too. I used to e-mail him sometimes.

For those of you who do not know about Unity Temple, here is their URL. http://www.unitytemple.org/ The building, by the way, is Frank Lloyd Wright's first public building. (brag brag brag)

I might stick around but probably not tonight. I am dead tired.

Fair enough :)

Helen

[livius drusus]

Sweet Jesu. A genuine Unitarian Universalist with a Frank Lloyd Wright place of worship. And I thought the whole coincidence thing was cool...

As a small aside, this (http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html) is an example of why I give churches the benefit of the doubt, Goliath. The fact that their buildings are often breathtakingly beautiful is another.

[viscousmemories]

[Bible-believing] Christians speak against any behavior they understand to be sinful according to the Bible. It's not 'an attack' per se.
I understand, but I disagree that it's not an attack. I can accept that it isn't intended as an attack, but if someone were to attempt to convince me that I am morally deficient for indulging what I consider a perfectly natural, healthy inclination, I would perceive it as an attack.

I think there probably are situations where your definition of love would mean you need to say something or do something that might make another person angry. They might see it as an attack but you feel that it's better to tell them the truth than lie and make them feel good in the short term. Or something along those lines. But perhaps I'm being too vague for you to understand what I'm trying to say.
I think I understand what you're saying, but I think there's a big difference between expressing disapproval of a behavior and judging and condemning someone. Again, people who love me, according to my definition of love, do not systematically debase or demoralize me. Doing so may fit well within their own definition of love, but it won't fit within mine.

From what I understand a lot of guys beat their wives and/or girlfriends "because they love them". Would you expect a woman to accept that as an expression of genuine love, or would it be reasonable for her to conclude that nobody who truly loves her would treat her like that?

[Goliath]

His beliefs are in accord with what the church believes


Then your church is, indeed, a house of hate. If I had been there at the time, I would have gladly joined the protestors.

[Goliath]

[Bible-believing] Christians speak against any behavior they understand to be sinful according to the Bible. It's not 'an attack' per se.

I think there probably are situations where your definition of love would mean you need to say something or do something that might make another person angry. They might see it as an attack but you feel that it's better to tell them the truth than lie and make them feel good in the short term. Or something along those lines. But perhaps I'm being too vague for you to understand what I'm trying to say.

Helen

Prove that your god exists, and prove that the bible is the word of said god. Then, and only then will your argument stand.

[Goliath]

As a small aside, this (http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html) is an example of why I give churches the benefit of the doubt, Goliath. The fact that their buildings are often breathtakingly beautiful is another.

Fair enough...however, my experience with UU churches seem to indicate that they're turning more theistic (promoting the condescending attitude of "It doesn't matter what god you believe in, as long as you believe"), and I really don't want anything to do with that.

And I simply can't agree on the aesthetics of churches. To me, the evil associated to those places drowns out any architectural beauty.

[seebs]

Prove that your god exists, and prove that the bible is the word of said god. Then, and only then will your argument stand.

I think the argument works as long as she acknowledges that it's got presuppositions and/or premises. Since every world model I'm aware of has some presuppositions and premises, I guess I think that's okay.

[beyelzu]

His beliefs are in accord with what the church believes


Then your church is, indeed, a house of hate. If I had been there at the time, I would have gladly joined the protestors.
:yup:

[HelenM]

Actually I didn't find anything on his site that indicates he believes that homosexual inclinations are a choice or sickness, but that homosexual behavior is a choice and sinful. As strongly as I disagree with the latter I still think it's an important distinction from the former.

I don't think so.

Today, I speak nationally and share the truth about homosexuality - how no one is born that way, how it has everything to do with the childhood and complete change is completely possible. As a father now myself of a little boy and girl, my true heart's desire and passion is for the protection of America's children and I'll do whatever it takes to protect them. My message is not politically correct and many do not like me for boldly proclaiming the truth. I've learned early on whenever you confront sin, don't expect to win a popularity contest.

***

They didn't like our message that homosexuality was not something one was born with and that all homosexuals could completely change. They didn't like the fact that I said I was 'gay' and I completely changed. What even bothered them more was on national television I had the 'audacity' to use those vile and 'forbidden' words Jesus, God and the Bible. Thus, the pro-gay hammer fell and they deleted the most important part of my story - how I went from 'gay to straight.'

***

That's the secular pro-homosexual media today for you. It's all too common - and expected. Besides, it does not further nor help their diabolical agenda.

***

Make no mistake about it. America is being seduced and deceived by the homosexual agenda. Our children are being indoctrinated and many are being infected with HIV. Read Kirk and Madsen's book for yourself. Better yet, listen to report 'America: Sodom and Gomorrah Resurrected.' If nothing else will open your eyes, I guarantee that will.

There is a calculated agenda out there. They are after you, but more importantly, they are after your children. Television, radio, newspapers, magazines and the internet - the media is the means.

from here. (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/bennett_20020827.html)



I am inclined to agree that painting homosexual behavior as sinful contributes to a climate of intolerance and hostility toward homosexuals, but then I'm not so sure. I mean, most Christians paint adultery as sinful too, but nobody seems to be worried that promoting such a perspective is inherently dangerous or damaging to adulterers.

As you can see from above, he paints it as more than "sinful," but also "calculated" and "diabolical," and adds the scare tactic that "they are after your children." I am sure that this certainly does contribute to a climate of "intolerance and hostility toward homosexuals," in much the same way the aforementioned Phelps does. I don't think it's going too far to refer to him as a hate-monger.

Although Stephen Bennett said more than once that gay and lesbian people are the most wonderful people you could ever meet and he loves them and most of them don't behave like the protesting activists outside our church that evening.

[Of course. He can't say that they're not, can he? Even Swaggert (http://www.newyorkslime.com/swaggert.html) said "I'm not knocking the poor homosexuals. I'm not. They need salvation like anybody else," right after he said he'd kill one if he looked at him. :? Even Falwell is often careful to say that God hates the homosexual acts, or that God hates homosexuality, etc. etc., (http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/robertson.html) rather than the more blunt Phelpian phrase "God hates fags." However, it seems rather empty to me given the other things he's said (both Falwell, and others like him, including Bennett). I'm sorry, but you can't just say in one place how these people are so wonderful, and in another place that they're trying to destroy the family and indoctrinate our children into their "lifestyle"; if you're going to speak out of both sides of your mouth, expect to be called on it.

I seriously doubt we can say the same for Helen's church, but if it turns out that they do actively hope for the painful death and eternal damnation of homosexuals, then bring on the placards.

I'd be interested to see it if anyone can find quotes from Stephen Bennett's or my church's site that say we actively hope for the painful death and eternal damnation of homosexuals.

But on the other hand, anyone who interprets "change is possible" as meaning the above, has already found it, I guess.

That's a bit of a dodge, Helen. As I pointed out above after Roland found those quotes on his site, Bennett's not just saying "change is possible". He's also saying there's a media conspiracy to promote a nebulous gay agenda which aims to indoctrinate and infect our children. That's not wishing them painful death, but it's certainly a demonization which is a) ludicrously inaccurate, and b) hateful rhetoric.

Roland and livius drusus, for the record, I dislike this type of rhetoric too. I dislike it here and I dislike it in the publications and comments by individuals on discussion boards which compare Christian organizations to the Third Reich and claim they are about to take over the world.

It doesn't change my opinion that Stephen Bennett genuinely cares and wants to help homosexuals in a way he believes they can be helped. That he is not a hate-filled person.

I do think he's unwise to employ such rhetoric; I think it's possible he doesn't realize the extent to which it is going to preclude people listening to whatever else he wants to say. As best I know, he didn't speak this way on Sunday, but perhaps there was a small part of the message I missed in which he did.

Which brings me back to the activism topic - I think attempts to educate him with reasoned discourse would be more likely to change his use of such rhetoric, if anything would, than simply shouting at him that he is a bigot and liar.

I don't consider his message "Change is completely possible" to be hateful although I respect the opinion of those who think he is incorrect.

Helen

[HelenM]

Prove that your god exists, and prove that the bible is the word of said god. Then, and only then will your argument stand.

Fair enough.

Helen

[HelenM]

His beliefs are in accord with what the church believes


Then your church is, indeed, a house of hate. If I had been there at the time, I would have gladly joined the protestors.

If you had been there protesting, I hope I would have known so I could say hi and meet you. And I hope I would have remembered to invite you to listen to the service if you wanted to, even though I wouldn't have been surprised if you responded that there's nothing in the world you'd less want to do than that.

On Sunday evening, as one of the church members was arriving, she and a protestor recognized each other because their children attend school together (evidently some of the protestors were local). They said hi and the protestor said "Why are you here?" The church member said "Because this is my church and I've never heard Stephen Bennett and I'd like to hear what he has to say". The protestor hadn't either, evidently, and the church member invited the protestor in; she responded "I'll come in if I can sit with you". And they did attend together. I don't know exactly what she thought of it but I appreciate that she was willing to come in and listen as well as protest outside.

Helen

[HelenM]

[Bible-believing] Christians speak against any behavior they understand to be sinful according to the Bible. It's not 'an attack' per se.
I understand, but I disagree that it's not an attack. I can accept that it isn't intended as an attack, but if someone were to attempt to convince me that I am morally deficient for indulging what I consider a perfectly natural, healthy inclination, I would perceive it as an attack.

I respect that. For what it's worth, I don't think non-Christians always understand that when Christians say what they say to others about sin they believe it about themselves too. But I don't want to get into "yeah, but they believe they're heaven-bound and everyone else is damned". Just to say that sometimes Christians are misinterpreted as meaning "I'm better than you" when that's not what they believe.

I think there probably are situations where your definition of love would mean you need to say something or do something that might make another person angry. They might see it as an attack but you feel that it's better to tell them the truth than lie and make them feel good in the short term. Or something along those lines. But perhaps I'm being too vague for you to understand what I'm trying to say.
I think I understand what you're saying, but I think there's a big difference between expressing disapproval of a behavior and judging and condemning someone. Again, people who love me, according to my definition of love, do not systematically debase or demoralize me. Doing so may fit well within their own definition of love, but it won't fit within mine.

Following from what I wrote above, then evidently, by implication you are going to interpret Christian theology as an attack. And/or hateful. Which is an interpretation I think is held by many non-Christians. I guess I'm trying to say, it's not a 'directed' attack; it's not an intentional 'attack'.

That you and other nontheists consider expressions of Christian belief an attack - and that Christians often feel attacked, likewise, by nontheist statements of their disbelief in God or their conclusions that God as described by Christians is an evil monster, make it difficult to discuss such things calmly.

From what I understand a lot of guys beat their wives and/or girlfriends "because they love them". Would you expect a woman to accept that as an expression of genuine love, or would it be reasonable for her to conclude that nobody who truly loves her would treat her like that?

I would say they most unfortunately have a very wrong understanding of what love is, if they really believe that.

Helen

[HelenM]

Sweet Jesu. A genuine Unitarian Universalist with a Frank Lloyd Wright place of worship. And I thought the whole coincidence thing was cool...

As a small aside, this (http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html) is an example of why I give churches the benefit of the doubt, Goliath. The fact that their buildings are often breathtakingly beautiful is another.

[extremely off-topic post follows]

Some of my children's violin concerts have been held at Unity Temple; it's a neat setting for any event.

They've also played at the Episcopal church opposite mine, a traditional church building with bad sightlines but wonderful resonant acoustics and a huge organ that made their orchestra's rendition of Albinoni's Adagio for Strings absolutely incredible; I could have listened to that forever...

My church has big, pretty stained glass windows but I think the imitation Romanesque style of it is a little odd. Unity Temple is classic Frank Lloyd Wright, as best I know, and an excellent example of how artfully he used simple geometric lines. Well, you saw the photos on their site, probably.

Our village also has Frank Lloyd Wright's home and studio, which is open for tours, and a number of private residences designed by him, which can at least be viewed from the outside. Come visit us sometime :)

Helen

[HelenM]

Anyway...although it is interesting, please understand that I have limited time to discuss every direction this thread has been going.

My actual topic is: do you think this kind of activism is effective?

Helen

[Godless Dave]

Now that I know more about this particular protest (as reported by someone who does not go to the targeted church), I can say that this particular protest was probably not very effective.

But I disagree that Bennet would be amenable to calm, reasoned discourse. Calm, reasoned discourse is what gay rights activists attempted first. Bennet had 30 years to listen to our position presented calmly and reasonably. He disregarded it and called it the "gay agenda".

He had his chance.

[HelenM]

Just one thing I have to add. This is a very awkward topic to discuss with you because you're a lovely, lovely, lovely person and I would never directly attack your faith or church under normal circumstances.

Unfortunately phrasing my reasoning inevitably means an oblique criticism of your church and its decision to host Bennet. I hope you understand that it in no way extends to any negative judgement of you because you're simply super.

I just saw this - thanks, Farren. :)

I realize there are valid reasons to criticize me but I appreciate these general comments.

Helen

[HelenM]

Now that I know more about this particular protest (as reported by someone who does not go to the targeted church), I can say that this particular protest was probably not very effective.

So, you cannot trust what I say about it simply because I go to the targeted church?

But I disagree that Bennet would be amenable to calm, reasoned discourse. Calm, reasoned discourse is what gay rights activists attempted first. Bennet had 30 years to listen to our position presented calmly and reasonably. He disregarded it and called it the "gay agenda".

I don't actually know that people who disagree have attempted calm reasonable discourse with him one-on-one. And fourteen years ago, according to him, he was gay and living with another man.

He had his chance.

I don't really understand this - I think those who say this are shooting themselves in the foot, if what it means is, therefore we're going to engage in hostile activism and not try to explain to him why we object to what he says. Because I expect he simply walks through the hostile protests, protected by security people provided by those who invited him to speak. And don't you think the hostile behavior of the protestors might reinforce any misconceptions he has about the 'gay agenda'?

Helen

[Roland98]

Roland and livius drusus, for the record, I dislike this type of rhetoric too. I dislike it here and I dislike it in the publications and comments by individuals on discussion boards which compare Christian organizations to the Third Reich and claim they are about to take over the world.

I agree with that. And while I certainly don't agree with that characterization, at least Christianity has one facet that homosexuality does not when it comes to these conspiracy theories and accusations of "agendas:" evangelism. AFAIK, there is no homosexual organization in the world that suggests going out and converting other people to "the gay lifestyle."

It doesn't change my opinion that Stephen Bennett genuinely cares and wants to help homosexuals in a way he believes they can be helped. That he is not a hate-filled person.

What's that saying? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that. *shrug* I have no doubt that someone like him can come off as a great guy. Lots of these people are good actors. But reading some blogs where he and his followers went out to "convert" gays, and some of the articles he's written, makes me believe it appears there's quite a disconnect between the way you say he acts, and the message he sends across in other media. Another phrase that comes to mind is "silver-tongued devil."

I do think he's unwise to employ such rhetoric; I think it's possible he doesn't realize the extent to which it is going to preclude people listening to whatever else he wants to say. As best I know, he didn't speak this way on Sunday, but perhaps there was a small part of the message I missed in which he did.

I don't see ignorance as any kind of excuse in this matter. Whether he actually cares about homosexuals or not, the type of conversion method he advocates to "change" their sexuality has been shown by several organizations to be not only ineffective, but dangerous.

Which brings me back to the activism topic - I think attempts to educate him with reasoned discourse would be more likely to change his use of such rhetoric, if anything would, than simply shouting at him that he is a bigot and liar.

I agree with Godless Dave on this one. He's obviously read a lot of the literature; he's obviously dealt with gay activists before. He knows what he is doing is opposed by every mainstream health organization in existance; he just writes it off to the vast "gay conspiracy" and goes about his merry way. He seems to me like every other right-wingnut (hey, he does write for WorldNetDaily ( :eek: ) who cares more about himself and his OWN agenda than the well-being of anyone else.

I don't consider his message "Change is completely possible" to be hateful although I respect the opinion of those who think he is incorrect.

I wouldn't consider it so either, if he didn't advocate it for EVERY homosexual, and tell them ALL it is possible and simple to change--"just accept Jesus and he will change you like he changed me! Amen, brother!" Then you have people like those I know, and those mentioned earlier in the thread, who try and try to change, and wonder why Jesus has forsaken them, and why they are UNABLE to change when so many others are (supposedly) successful, and this sends them down into a spiral of self-loathing and sometimes worse. He is selling something many (I'd argue almost all, but that's probably for another thread) of them will never be able to obtain--opposite-sex attraction and love, and a "normal, mainstream, (and of course) proper Christian" family. and his failure to admit that, well, he's wrong about its success rate, coupled with his attribution of resistance to his methods to the "gay agenda" rather than simple common sense and years of professional research, changes the intent IMO from simply misguided to deliberately misleading. And I feel that such a message of false hope is indeed hateful.

[Godless Dave]

Now that I know more about this particular protest (as reported by someone who does not go to the targeted church), I can say that this particular protest was probably not very effective.So, you cannot trust what I say about it simply because I go to the targeted church?
You said yourself you had not seen the protests. You said someone else at your church told you about them.


I don't actually know that people who disagree have attempted calm reasonable discourse with him one-on-one.As I said before, if he really cared about gay people he would have attempted to talk to at least some of them, and most of them would have told him what every gay person I have ever talked to has told me - that they feel like they were always gay.

When I was 18 years old I, too, wanted to learn about homosexuality and the experience of gay people. So I went to question-and-answer sessions organized by my colleges GLB organization. I got to know gay people one-on-one and talked to them. If Bennet really had the well-being of gay people in mind he would have done the same thing. Either he didn't, or he did and has concluded that they are all lying.

And don't you think the hostile behavior of the protestors might reinforce any misconceptions he has about the 'gay agenda'?I don't think he has any misconceptions about the gay agenda. He is lying about the gay agenda.

[HelenM]

I don't consider his message "Change is completely possible" to be hateful although I respect the opinion of those who think he is incorrect.

I wouldn't consider it so either, if he didn't advocate it for EVERY homosexual, and tell them ALL it is possible and simple to change--"just accept Jesus and he will change you like he changed me! Amen, brother!"

Just one comment here - I'm not aware of him saying that it's simple to change.

Personally I doubt that all homosexuals can change from being attracted only to the same gender to be attracted only to the opposite gender, though I don't have a reason to doubt his word of the word of some others who say that has happened to them.

I asked one of our pastors last week about whether we believe every gay person can change completely so they never experience attraction to the same sex and he said "not necessarily" which is more in accord with what we believe in general.

In general, Christian teaching is that through the power of God, anyone who is not married to a person of the opposite sex can abstain from having sex.

Anyway, I respect your opinion that Stephen Bennett is therefore giving false hope to people and that is hateful.

I touched on it above, but I don't have time to get into the details of Christian theology, which probably would only take us to a point where our different experiences, interpretations and beliefs/non-beliefs guarantee that we will disagree.

Helen

[HelenM]

Now that I know more about this particular protest (as reported by someone who does not go to the targeted church), I can say that this particular protest was probably not very effective.So, you cannot trust what I say about it simply because I go to the targeted church?
You said yourself you had not seen the protests. You said someone else at your church told you about them.

That's not what you said before. Before you implied that my knowledge was less reliable because I go to the targeted church. You could have said it was because I wasn't an eye-witness, but you didn't.


I don't actually know that people who disagree have attempted calm reasonable discourse with him one-on-one.As I said before, if he really cared about gay people he would have attempted to talk to at least some of them, and most of them would have told him what every gay person I have ever talked to has told me - that they feel like they were always gay.

Stephen Bennett said he always felt different, too. As I understand it, he doesn't think gay people consciously choose to be gay.

And don't you think the hostile behavior of the protestors might reinforce any misconceptions he has about the 'gay agenda'?I don't think he has any misconceptions about the gay agenda. He is lying about the gay agenda.

That's your opinion. I don't have evidence that he is deliberately lying so I am not going to assume that he is.

Helen

[Godless Dave]

Now that I know more about this particular protest (as reported by someone who does not go to the targeted church), I can say that this particular protest was probably not very effective.So, you cannot trust what I say about it simply because I go to the targeted church?You said yourself you had not seen the protests. You said someone else at your church told you about them.
That's not what you said before. Before you implied that my knowledge was less reliable because I go to the targeted church. You could have said it was because I wasn't an eye-witness, but you didn't.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. I assumed we all remembered from the OP that you were not an eyewitness. What I meant was that the person who reported the protests to you was not reliable because he or she was a member of the targeted church. I don't expect Republicans to give reliable accounts of anti-Bush protests either.

[seebs]

Well, anyone can