Posted on 03/11/2006 9:55:13 PM PST by ChessMan
Liberals, think WWJD!
Progressives need to stop thinking of Christianity as something against to battle against.
By Jason Ketola
The world is full of polarization, bifurcation and dichotomization. One of the most distressing examples of this is the way secular liberals have been pitted against Christians, or rather, the way liberals have pitted themselves against Christians and vice versa. Through the constant recapitulation of tired stereotypes, opportunities for solidarity have been lost and divisions have become further entrenched. Recently, I had the privilege of seeing a movie which epitomizes this problem.
In early February, The Bell Auditorium featured a test screening of a very preliminary version of "Freak of Nature," a documentary by Amanda Taylor about the science of animal homosexuality. The film showcased many species, from penguins to sheep, in which same-sex partnerships emerge or in which individuals have been observed to only engage in sexual activities with members of the same sex.
Of course, gender and sexual orientation are complicated enough to have whole fields of study devoted to them, so we should be careful in applying our contemporary notions of homosexuality to animals, something which the film makes clear. But, the simple observation that there are animals that will pair bond with members of the same sex or will only engage sexually with the same sex has clear social implications. This point is not lost in "Freak of Nature," which includes commentary from historians, biologists, psychiatrists and social critics along with interviews of many laypeople.
The film has great potential as a thought-provoking conversation starter, which problemizes a lot of what the religious right, in particular, says about homosexuality. Social critic and advice columnist Dan Savage, for instance, points out the way conservative Christians have "moved the goalposts" on gays, first saying they were destroying the institution of marriage for wanting to wear leather pants, dance shirtless in clubs and have promiscuous sex; and yet when gays wanted to get married, move to the suburbs and start families, that was destroying marriage. The experts in the film provide a lot of fodder for thought like this; the discussion of how sexual orientation has been understood over time being especially striking.
The film's potential is lost, however, at the point when the question is broached of why we are so uncomfortable about homosexuality in America. In a totally unsophisticated manner, Taylor presents a several-minute montage of laypeople lambasting Christianity, culminating with Dan Savage calling the religion "bullshit" that was made up by "some guy in a desert a few thousand years ago." Granted, many Christians aren't exactly gay-friendly, and there's a history of some Christians doing extremely hateful things to homosexuals, but referring to someone's cherished beliefs with expletives isn't the greatest way to make friends.
The Michael Moores of the world already have made enough self-congratulatory films for progressives. If any movement is to be made in increasing tolerance of homosexuality, we as liberals need to stop attacking Christianity outright and instead focus on the values of compassion and love which are common to us both. Many progressive brands of Christianity exist that do not demonize gays, and there are movements within fundamentalist denominations to become more tolerant. Taylor would do well to include a bit of this balance rather than paint such a crude picture of a nuanced and varied religion.
Fortunately, "Freak of Nature" is far from being a finished product, and Taylor has time to make changes. Sadly though, the glaring problem with "Freak" that I've elaborated on here is far from isolated. Progressives all too frequently rant against the stereotype of Christians as naïve bigots. In caricaturing the faith, they miss the fact that many Christians are deeply concerned with ethical issues and with proper treatment of other people and the planet. Think WWJD.
Every group has its fanatics who say and do things the vast majority of us find pretty despicable and Christianity is certainly not wanting in that department, but if we can get beyond that minority, there's a great opportunity for collaboration on social issues. Making compassion and tolerance the bedrock of discussions of sexual orientation is a place to start. In "Freak of Nature," Taylor has shown us how to bring those conversations to a grinding halt. Our task is to avoid falling into the old us-them thinking, which is the very kind of thinking we're hoping to change.
Here's the bottom line: There are a lot of conservative Christians in the world and a lot of secular liberals. If we want the world to be a better place, we should start looking for common ground rather than waste our time attacking each other.
Jason Ketola welcomes comments at jketola@mndaily.com.
I DO care about eroding some simple things that we as a society have come to commonly value for the sake of a few others who don't have those same values.
My best friends are gay, and are pretty cool folks. I am cool with them and their lifestyle, it is america afterall and we have the freedom to be ourselves. But when you complain about myself and my beliefs and how they play into politics (ie, those evil christians are injecting their values into things) and then proceed to do the same thing yourself don't come crying to me.
WWJD? Here's a hint - read the Book of Revelation, 2 Peter, and more. Jesus hates my sin as much as yours - the only difference is I am not trying to justify my sinful life, I know I s*ck and my life is fraught with sinful ways. My goal is to change myself to fit his values and example, not to change the rules to fit my life.
I am no better in the sin dept, I am, however - I hope, better in the 'I know I am sinner and want to change for the Lord' dept.
Well put.
Not to mention my desire for 'relations' with any number of really beautiful women - I have the desire for many but i put such things aside as it is not pleasing towards the Lord (let alone my wife). I have many desires which I supress - does that mean I suffer?
Well not really. As I have gotten older I have seen the wisdom of the Lord in all this. Giving into one's desires will eventually come around to hurt you and the ones you love the most. God was right, IMHO - on both a practical and spiritual level.
IF I were gay, and professed to be christian, I would consider an honor to God to bear my cross and not engage in things which I felt would dishonor him. In the end, perhaps many gays who have so sacrificed will be high in heaven as they did the right thing by God.
As for me, if I am but a janitor in Heaven I will be happy - for I am unworthy of his gift. I will take what the lord gives me and be thankful.
"for instance, points out the way conservative Christians have "moved the goalposts" on gays, first saying they were destroying the institution of marriage for wanting to wear leather pants, dance shirtless in clubs and have promiscuous sex; and yet when gays wanted to get married, move to the suburbs and start families, that was destroying marriage."
__________________________________________
This is such utter nonesense. For a Christian, marriage is between and Man and and Woman...period. For this idiot to think that a Christian should approve of two men marrying and raising a family because that is better than a hot wild time in a bar....its laughable...what an idiot... and what a staw man he has constructed...(ok a lace man).
The author is a moron....and he does not have a clue as to what Christianity is about...
Personally, I find it difficult to resolve why someone more aware of their sin should be any more accountable than the conditioned, predictable, gang-minded individuals that make up the great majority of the human race. Those lacking passion for truth or enlightenment have chosen their ignorance.
Or have they?
In most cases it's a simple case of arrested maturity - the causes of which are grand, dark, and ludacris.... Evil.
Indeed you are correct.
I don't care if people live with one another and are gay, is fine with me. Jesus did not say go and change the law and governments, we were to spread the good news and let people decide themselves.
Marriage though is a whole 'nother topic in all this. The idea of a union between two dedicated people whose goal it is to pro-create and further the race is opposed to, in general even without religion, gay marriage.
Not all in marriage will reproduce and raise a family, but most will. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water as it is said.
Gay marriage cannot produce offspring, so to me marriage is not an option as it does not contribute to society as a whole. This does not require religion, heck one could invoke darwin and science in the whole thing and it still makes sense to promote the carrying on of the species.
Liberals are, to me, confused.
This is such a lame argument. Dogs eat their own sh*t and male cats will eat/kill kittens. Just because animals do it doesn't imply that it is socially acceptable for humans to do the same.
The film has great potential as a thought-provoking conversation starter, which problemizes a lot of what the religious right, in particular, says about homosexuality.
No it doesn't...it just says something about the author's assumptions...and essentially his religion, although it's highly unlikely he realizes it. What he's suggesting here is that if homosexual behavior occurs amongst some animals then it must be ok for humans...which is simply ignorant.
Social critic and advice columnist Dan Savage, for instance, points out the way conservative Christians have "moved the goalposts" on gays, first saying they were destroying the institution of marriage for wanting to wear leather pants, dance shirtless in clubs and have promiscuous sex;
This is a pretty stupid statement as well. I'm not aware of any Christians that have stated that wearing leather pants or dancing shirtless in clubs affects marriage in any fashion. As for promiscuous sex...yes, that is quite harmful to marriages...rather it is heterosexual or homosexual promiscuity. If the filmmaker is unable to even conceive of how a Christian might see sexual promiscuity as risking harm to marriages then he's really not a very good filmmaker and an even worse "social critic" if he's unable to step away from his preconceived notions and picture the views of others. Also, there is no moving of "goal posts" as he claims...unless he means he's rejected morality initially, and when it remains he perceives that as a new goal post.
The film's potential is lost, however, at the point when the question is broached of why we are so uncomfortable about homosexuality in America. In a totally unsophisticated manner, Taylor presents a several-minute montage of laypeople lambasting Christianity, culminating with Dan Savage calling the religion "bullshit" that was made up by "some guy in a desert a few thousand years ago."
Ah, the words of an objective social critic there. The author of this article understands the film maker, Dan Savage, employs an inaccurate and unsophisticated view of Christians...but instead of educating Dan Savage he seems more concerned in just disguising the film makers idiocy.
Passion for truth can be blinded by the dark light of confusion.
I think gays, and others, are quite capable of being great and good people on a social level - but in a selfish way. Much like myself really.
Doing good while doing evil - evil being that which is opposed to God's will. In the end it comes down to selfishness and doing what we want versus what we should do. In this vein I am no better than others - but again the difference is I see this and admit it and don't make odd reasonings as to why.
I don't want to bend the lord's will to my desires, though at times I admit I try. A christian that is gay should put the lord's will before their own, which is what I should do myself. We both have problems in that arena - but at least I admit it :)
Shhhhh Don't inject some simple logic into a liberal argument - might cause them to pass out :)
I am not an animal. I am a man.
This article and the subject matter is pure unadulterated bullshit.
I have two male dogs, both "fixed". One will try to hump the other one on occasion. You see, they are DOGS. I am not a dog, I am a man.
Pffffft!....what a bunch of looney crap this article is.
FMCDH(BITS)
Liberals love calling things that they don't feel like actually thinking about "nuanced".
As to what folks do in society is one thing - and we should be concerned with the moral relativism plaguing our society deeper and deeper. To ask WWJD? is a non-starter. The Bible teaches us not to judge others with the exception of behavior within the church. Those judgements forced me to leave the United Methodist movement because they did not follow Scripture and bowed under to societal pressure. All I really care about is not having my 3-year-old daughter subjected to this moral relativism tripe presented as fact. If I choose not to accept one's lifestyle then let it be what it is. It doesn't mean I hate them or anyone else. The author presupposes too many things here.
WWBBD?
In my experience, the argument from nature usually doesn't survive the observation that war, earthquakes, heart disease, insanity, alcoholism, acne, and bad breath all occur naturally.
Dogs will kill puppies too.
One thing Jesus did, that most liberals don't like to do, is read and believe God's laws of sexual behavior from the oldest parts of Scripture--the things that apply to Jews and non-Jews alike, priests and non-priests alike. Laws without loopholes, and for every human being.
Welcome to "Free Republic", I suppose. Been here three days now, I see.
Let the Brokeback jokes flow!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.