Since I know the novel well, your argument is complete, well reasoned, and delightful. ["'Delightful.' Heh." � Me] But, would a general reader find it complete, or would he/she need a bit more context from the novel itself for full understanding? That's what this paper needs in revision.
- My English professor, in response to my paper on The Accidental Tourist
After I posted an entry last week that was basically a risk/benefit analysis of being out and proud, I received the following email from Pious Boy:
Believe it or not I have been reading your posts fairly frequently since we graduated.� I�read the�post that you made recently named "And it is."
I�do not understand the stereotype for�Christians as all�hateful people.� Is that how�you thought of me?� The reason that�I even bothered to send you anything was to try and�convince you�to�change what you were doing.� If I was hateful I would have completely ignored you or called you names or been violent toward you.� I did none of these.� The reason I tried to convince�you to change is that I�DO realize you are an equal.
If you do not agree...OK.� If you think what you are doing is best...OK.��But please do not treat me unfairly and unlovingly in this whole�situation.��You gave me your belief and I gave you mine. I don't think that�puts me in the wrong in any way.
Given my English professor's comments about my most recent paper for her class, I came to the conclusion that in my writing I tend to assume certain things and gloss over them in service of a larger point. In rereading last week's entry, I felt the need to address these oversights, specifically those mentioned in Pious Boy's email.
I don't believe there is a stereotype that all Christians are hateful people. That's certainly not a stereotype I believe to be true and I can't recall ever meeting anyone who thought that Christians were totally evil. I did not think of you as hateful, Pious. Please know that. It's true that you didn't ignore me. It's true that you never called me names. It's true that you were never violent. I appreciate the respect you showed me and I hope you felt I gave you the same in return. It was not my intention to treat you unfairly by using our conversations this past summer as a springboard for that entry. I made an effort to avoid painting you in any kind of negative light other than one that is (correctly or incorrectly) perceived by others through your association with the religious community.
This is a knotty issue, though. The church has long condemned and castigated the gay community throughout the world, and the church as a universal body continues to do so today. The Episcopal Church is threatening to split over the ordination of a gay bishop. The Southern Baptist Convention has outlined a new program for the de-gaying of homosexuals, which will be about as successful as previous attempts by other groups (so, not very successful). And then there's the worst church of them all: the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, home to Fred Phelps and friends. Granted, not every church looks upon me negatively. Some are open and accepting of my sexual orientation. The problem is that when so many churches and denominations have such an adverse reaction to my mere existence, it is easy to lump them all into one category. But for the sake of clarity, I'll try not to generalize.
The religious fanatics are the worst, spouting their hatred in neatly wrapped Bible verses.
fanatic: n. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Belief in the Bible does not make one a religious fanatic. Membership in or attendance at a church does not make one a religious fanatic. Accepting Jesus Christ as the one true savior does not make one a religious fanatic. Entering the ministry with the purpose of spreading the good news (and we'll leave the debate about said good news to the Biblical scholars) does not make one a religious fanatic.
Bombing abortion clinics and calling it God's will makes one a religious fanatic. Declaring a woman "inherently evil" and unfit to be a mother because she is a lesbian while acting as an authority on the law of the land makes one a religious fanatic. Protesting loudly at the funeral of a boy who was so badly beaten that his body was unrecognizable, screaming at his parents that their son was an abomination, and then proposing five years later to erect a monument in a public park proclaiming that said boy is burning in hell makes one a religious fanatic. There's a big difference. Sadly (but perhaps understandably) some people fail to see it. This would be where that stereotype comes from, by the way. I'm not defending it. I'm simply pointing it out. Why is there a stereotype that all Christians are evil? Probably for the same reason everyone assumes that Muslims are all terrorists: ignorance. And there's enough of that in both circles to go around forever.
At the end of the day, I can't make you (or anyone) understand how I know, despite a lifetime growing up in a church that proclaimed the shame and the consequences of being gay, that my sexual orientation is completely out of my control, like the color of my hair or my eyes. There is nothing I can say that will properly express that feeling of helplessness: I'm gay and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, but I've known all my life that being gay is horrible and wrong and I really don't want to go to hell. It's incredibly frustrating, but the conclusion I eventually came to was that perhaps what I'd known all my life was wrong. It was very freeing. That doesn't mean I don't still love and respect the church and its members. It just means I disagree with them. I can tell you I'm not wild about the fanatics, but I hope I covered that adequately already.
Like you said, I gave you my opinion and you gave me yours. That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. They're just opinions, after all. I hope that after reading this you have a better understanding of what I meant. And understanding is really all we can hope for from each other, isn't it?
Someone got here by searching for: cheese wagon and bus Reading: The Internet filters at CU are gone (for the most part), so Damn Hell Ass Kings has returned! Huzzah! Listening to: Saves the Day Watching: The Simpsons. Oh, how I have missed it.
