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]

Originally Posted by HelenM

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:

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]

Originally Posted by HelenM

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]

Originally Posted by HelenM

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.

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]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

then what does Phelps get?

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Shake

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]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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]

Originally Posted by Roland98

...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]

Originally Posted by Farren

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]

Originally Posted by Farren

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]

Originally Posted by Shake

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?

[Roland98]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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.

Originally Posted by vm

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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.