Category Archives: Religion

Gender and Sexuality, Religion

Thirty Days

Leave a comment

For the first time ever, I watched the show “Thirty Days” tonight. My friend Beth told me about it, and I wanted to check it out. I particularly wanted to watch tonight’s episode, as it was about a young (mid-twenties) conservative Christian from Detroit who went to live with a gay roommate in the middle of San Francisco’s Castro District for thirty days. I was pleasantly surprised by the show, and I wanted to take a few moments to review and critique it.

To be honest, when I originally heard about the details, I wasn’t entirely thrilled. I took issue with sending the guy to San Francisco. San Francisco is the “gay mecca” of the United States, and as such, I don’t feel it’s a very accurate representation of the lives of most gay people. Those of us wholive outside of San Francisco (and possibly NYC) tend to live more isolated lives and have to deal more directly with straight people much more often. As such, I wasn’t sure that sending someone to San Francisco was the best way to give them a clear view of what it’s like to live life as a gay man.

Having watched the show, I have to admit that I find it necessary to reevaluate my opinion. An essential byproduct of sending Ryan to live in the Castro District was that it caused Ryan to be the one who was isolated. He was a straight, conservative Christian surrounded by a bunch of gay guys. If Ryan really thinks about that experience (and I get the impression he did and will), it probably gave him a much more clear idea of what many of us experience every day than we realize. This understanding would come to him by being in an analogous situation himself.

He got a first taste of this kind of experience his first night in town. Ed, Ryan’s thirty-something roommate for the month, took him to dinner with eleven other gay guys. Having watched the footage, I have to admit that I hope the dinner conversation was highly edited. Every conversation focused on homosexuality and issues relating to it. And in a number of instances, the twelve gay guys put Ryan a bit on the defensive. (I have to admit that Ryan handled himself relatively well under the circumstances, too.) At one point, one of the gay guys even asked Ryan about how many times he’s had people on the street throw beer cans at him. Ryan said never, and the person who asked the question indicated that it had happened to him more than once.

While there, Ryan also attended MCC services on at least two Sundays and had a number of meeting with the minister. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed with this part of the program. If what I saw was an accurate representation of the MCC, I don’t think I’d be impressed at all. They aired brief segments from two of the services that Ryan attended, and both services went on about homosexuality. If this is a regular practice at every church service, I would have a serious problem with that, as there should be more to religion and spirituality than just sexuality. (And this is coming from someone who serves a goddess who values sexuality extremely highly!) Similarly, Ryan’s meetings with the minister appeared to focus entirely on the topic of homosexuality, and there was a lot of head-butting there. It just seemed to me that there should have been an equal amount of searching for common ground as there was in arguing over this one topic. (Though I do give them credit for apparently keeping it more or less civil.)

They took Ryan to a gay bar. Let me just say “Wow!” Ryan did not find that the greatest of experiences, and I can’t say as I completely blame him. There were a large number of barely dressed men (some looked to me as if they were running around in only briefs), and it definitely had the “meat market atmosphere” — even moreso than the two clubs I have been to. One of the patrons picked a (verbal) fight with Ryan, which I felt was rather stupid. Though on the flip side, having had conservative people pick similar kinds of fights with me, I do have to admit that I felt it wasn’t an entirely bad thing for Ryan to have to experience.

After that, Ed felt that Ryan was getting too frustrated and upset. So Ed took Ryan to join a gay softball team. I found it interesting that the team actually played in a league where all the other teams were (mostly?) straight. It was nice to see that the team wasn’t totally isolationist in nature, and played teams that were not all-gay.

During his time playing softball, Ryan got to spend time with his team’s coach, Charles. Ryan gained a lot of respect for Charles, realizing that he broke all of the gay stereotypes. And later, Ryan got to hear Charles’s coming out story. Charles was one of those (hopefully) rare people who actually got thrown out of his house by his parents (he was 12 at the time) when he came out. Charles also indicated that at the time, he was highly religious and “went to bed every night, praying to wake up and be ‘normal’ the next morning.” Ryan was very silent about this, and I think this story really confronted some of his own preconceived notions.

Ryan did make a few enemies at the local “gay chapter” of the VFW. Being a Reservice, Ryan has strong opinions on gays in the military. This did not go over well with the veterans he was speaking with. Both sides got quite upset. However, it did lead to an interesting discussion with Ed later that same day. When he got back to the apartment, Ryan and Ed talked about it. Ryan asked Ed to try to understand why a bunch of straight soldiers might have a problem with having a gay guy in the barracks. (Personally, I think straight guys have a problem with it because they’re afraid gay guys will treat them as poorly as they themselves treat women, but that’s besides the point.) Ed then turned around and asked Ryan about a hypothetical question. He asked Ryan to suppose that things went really bad in teh Middle East and that the United States found themselves at war with the whole region. This would probably mean that they’d have to reinstate the draft. So Ed asked Ryan to suppose that he (Ed) was drafted and ended up in Ryan’s unit to serve during war. He asked Ryan whether he’d rather put up with Ed as a gay man serving with him or possibly not having enough manpower beside him to keep him and the rest of his unit safe.

Ryan actually admitted that he had to contradict himself. He admitted that having gotten to know Ed as a person over the past several days, he’d have no problem serving with him specifically. In fact, Ryan admitted that he felt that Ed had a lot to offer the military. As such, Ryan found himself having to reevaluate his blanket statement about gays in the military, and I respect him for having the integrity to admit that.

Ed also took Ryan to meet his family, which was an eye opening experience. While there, all of the men (Ryan, Ed, Ed’s father, and Ed’s brother) shot firearms. In a brief interview afterwards, Ryan admitted that it gave him a chance to see Ed as not just a gay guy but a brother, a son, and an uncle. And he was amazed at how his family treated him.

Ryan also attended a PFLAG meeting, where he got to talk to a father whose daughter came out to him her sophomore year in college. He got to listen to this father talk about his fears and worries, and his desire to see his daughter treated with the same respect and dignity a her two straight brothers. Ryan said this also touched his heart.

There was a lot more that happened, but I’m not going to go into everything. These are the experiences that really struck me, and I wanted to share them, as well as my brief thoughts in them. In closing, I’d like to talk about the brief segment in the show where Ryan eventually went home. He spent his first night home showing photos to his family and talking about his experiences. They only showed about thirty seconds to a minute of the discussion, but it was amazing to watch. His family asked all kinds of questions, and it seemed to me that Ryan was a bit troubled and shocked by the questions. Ryan himself admitted that when he got home and talked with his family that night, he really saw how much he had grown. He saw his own earlier attitudes and how much he had bought into the stereotypes reflected in his family now. He said that realizing how much he had bought into the stereotypes was the most powerful result of the experience. He found himself having to reevaluate his opinions.

I get the impression that his religious beliefs about homosexuality didn’t change as a result. To be honest, that’s okay (well, sorta). It would be unreasonable to expect such a change to happen just because of a thirty day experience. However, I did feel that he came away with a rather different perspective and that he did find his preconceived notions challenged in many ways. And I think that he should be commended to being open to that.

Rants, Religion, Work

Religious Rant/Ramblings

Leave a comment

Today was a pretty good day. I didn’t get a lot of work done, but I did enough to keep myself from getting overwhelmed with guilt. Primarily, I rewrote all of my PCI-X code for the new processor. That was quite an adventure, as I had to handle three different PCI-X cores on the same processor. I hope that all works when I get a chance to finally test it. Of course, that won’t be until the middle of next month, by the look of it.

I spent more of they day putzing around online. Particularly, I spent a good deal of time getting highly annoyed at the one topic on one of the religious forums I visit. Someone started a thread called “Ask a Pagan,” for people to ask all kinds of questions about Paganism. Unfortunately, while a few people have asked some interesting and probing questions, most have taken the opportunity to ask pointed questions to prove why Paganism is “wrong.”

That just annoys me. Why is it that some people have to be such jerks? Why is it that any opportunity to learn about another religion has to be used as a way to “trap” that religion in some way to disprove it? Why can’t more people be like Stace, who sincerely asks questions to better understand others and their viewpoints? But I guess that takes maturity. And my experience, maturity is something that’s severely lacking in our society today. Instead, everything has to be turned into a penis-measuring contest of one sort or another.

Of course, I have to admit that I found a lot of the Pagans’ answers trite, boring, and annoying, too. For starters, they let themselves get dragged into the whole “how can all paths be valid” argument, though “abyss that pretends to be an argument” might be more accurate. Truthfully, I’m not sure I care for the whole “all paths are valid” model anyway. I think there has to be a decent middle ground between saying “I have a monopoly on truth” and sayng “well, everything anyone wants to believe is true.” Of course, this gets into bigger questions as to what constitutes “valid” and whatnot. And while I could probably go on a lengthy ramble abou that, I’m not sure I care to at this time. Let me just say that I think it’s time to say, “Truth is a very complex thing and I think that people can have equally accurate and yet distinct perceptions of truth, but it is not my concern to determine or comment on the ‘validity’ of any particular claims of truth.” But that probably only makes sense to me, and that’s subject to change.

Religion

Circumstance as a litmus test?

Leave a comment

Ive been listening to Frank Perettis This Present Darkness on tape again. Its a highly enjoyable book for the most part. Some of the theological implications make me wonder at times, though. I suspect part of that is just because Im not a Christian. But a lot of it even makes me wonder how well it fits to a Christian perspective.

Take for example the one part I listened to on my way to work this morning. It takes place shortly after the church votes (but just barely) to keep Hank as their pastor. Hank and his wife, Mary, are sitting together in the kitchen of Grandma Edith Duster. Edith is one of Hanks biggest supporters, and she spends much of this particular conversation encouraging Hank. In it, she makes the comment that if Hank wasnt where God wanted him to be, he wouldnt be accomplishing as much as he can. The more that I think about this, the more it seems like divining the will of God from mere circumstance. And to be honest, that strikes me as an odd, fickle, and possibly dangerous thing to do.

Back in my college years, I remember learning about the concept of fleecing. Its a term used in certain Christian circles to describe a certain way of testing for the will of God. The idea is based on the Old Testament (from the book of Judges, if memory serves) story of Gideon and his fleece. In that story, God calls on Gideon to save the Israelites from the enemy (the Philistines, I think, but dont quote me on that). Well, Gideon is doubtful and God offers to prove His desire for Gideon. One of Gods proofs involves a fleece that Gideon put outdoors overnight. This happens twice. During one time, the fleece is left bone dry while the ground is wet with dew. The other time, God causes the fleece to be wet while the ground around it is completely dry. Such a miraculous event helps to demonstrate Gods power and will for Gideon. Gideon then agrees.

The idea of modern day fleecing works the same way. A Christian decides on some sign that will demonstrate that a given choice is Gods will. This concept is actually demonstrated in another Peretti boo The Visitation where young Travis Jordan decides that God will show him when he is supposed to head out to join Billy Grahams ministry by making it so that a banjo head he ordered arrives at the music store. In that story, Peretti demonstrates one of the great problems in fleecing; that is, the sign event is often something that is bound to happen anyway. So theres no real proof that the event is just happenstance or a legitimate sign from God. And I know other writers and theologians who have given much deeper explanations on the problem with fleecing.

But it seems to me that Edith Dusters comment is as much a sign of fleecing as any test involving a banjo head. It seems to me that its still a matter of relying on a matter of circumstance or circumstances that may well occur on their own without Gods miraculous intervention to determine whether one is following Gods will. It just strikes me as a shortcut to honest introspection and seeking the Will of God.

Now, I readily admit that part of my opinion on this is almost certainly influenced by my non-Christian views. In fact, Id say its further influence by the fact that Im a witch. After all, it seems to me that relying on circumstance to divine anything be it the Will of God or some impersonal force such as Fate flies in the face of underlying philosophy of my beliefs as a maker of magic. Thats why I have an equal problem with Neo-Wiccans who attribute their circumstances to fate and karma and then choose to passively live whatever life the world deems willing to give them. But it seems to me that the idea that something as fickle and highly susceptible to just about every influence as circumstance should be chosen as a litmus test for anything should bother anyone who remotely believes in free will and personal responsibility.

(Of course, the irony among some Christians is that many who will tell you that they must be in the Will of God because of all the good they’re doing will then turn around in times of trouble and tell you that their tribulations are signs that they’re in the Will of God because it’s obviously Satan trying to keep them down. But that’s probably a whole different entry.)

Religion

Ethics and “Harm None”

1 Comment

You know, when it comes to ethics, I’ve never liked the whole concept of “harm none.” Personally, it’s always bugged me that so many Neo-Wiccans have held the phrase up as the definitive word on ethics. But it wasn’t until I got thinking about it this morning that I really was able to express my beef.

Now, there are a number of reasons to have a beef with “harm none” as the ultimate guideline. For example, it’s easiest to point out that when you get right down to it, 100% harmlessness is rarely possible, if not downright impossible. In fact, this is the one that I see get tossed up a couple times a year in Pagan chatrooms. And while it’s a valid point, it misses one of the more fundamental problems with this idea. In fact, it’s the same fundamental problem that haunts other systems of morality that are based on a series of prohibitions. And that’s the problem that it’s trying to define ethical considerations solely in terms of negative guidance.

Ethics are meant to guide activity. A person tries to determine what course in a given choice through his ethics. And an ethical system that only tells you what not to do or what results to avoid is severely limited. After all, once you weed out all the things you shouldn’t do, you’re still left with the question of what to do.

Consider for a moment this analogy. One should always drive safely. One can safely say that driving safely boils down to driving in such a way where one does not cause or become involved in accidents. In fact, an accident-free driving record is one of the two major factors insurance companies use to determine whether a given driver should qualify for a “safe driver discount.” And yet, if you attended a driving safety course, you would expect the instruction of that course to include more than “don’t get into any accidents.” While the advice is perfectly valid and a commendable goal, it gives no indication on how to achieve it. It’s a dictum based on negative action and not very helpful when applying it to the positive actions you must take. For that, you need positive advice, such as “always obey the speed limit” and “check your mirrors and blind spots regularly.”

The same is true of ethics. Positive action must be taken. One cannot simply “not harm anyone,” but must find guidelines for acting in a way that will bring about the goal (insofar as that goal is desirable, but that’s another issue for another entry). In effect, the ethical system must be expanded offer positive guidelines that can be applied when considering positive action.

However, unlike my analogy, I don’t think that “harming none” is a sufficient goal for ethics. Because we are creatures of positive action rather than negative action (it is more natural to “do something” than it is to spend much time “not doing something”), our ethics should lead us in this. Ethics should lead us to not only avoid wrong behavior, but to lead and even goad us into right behavior, which should be expressed in terms.

“Harm none” does not give us this. It keeps us in that half-ethical state of telling us to avoid wrong — without actually giving practical advice on how to do so — without leading us into action that we know is right. This is why I personally prefer to base my ethics on a set of values, those things that I see as right, honorable, and worthy of being upheld. In this sense, I think that people like Asatru with their Nine Noble Virtues (though I’m not entirely on board with them, either, though I still have yet to put my finger on why) are more on the right track when it comes to a matter of ethics.