Click here to return home.

Go back one page

Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and 
credit to the original author.

Ezekiel J. Krahlin

TARGETING SACRED SPACES © 2001 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin (Little Pony) From: Ezekiel J. Krahlin Subject: [GN] Targeting Sacred Spaces Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet Date: 2001-05-06 04:24:38 PST On Sun, 06 May 2001 Ginger Trumbley wrote: << There's the problem, Ezekiel. In order for it to be nonviolent, the people disrupted have to see it as nonviolent. >> I certainly agree, that therein lies the problem: homophobic churches would insist on any disruption of their services by gay activists as "violent". This, in order to demonize their cry for justice. And you, too, Ginger, would demonize any gay person for showing some courage in the face of very violent bigots. << That's what the father of nonviolence, Mohandas K. Gandhi, would say. >> Nonsense. << You see, disrupting a worship service IS violent. >> No, I *don't see. If this is how you define violence, I'd say you are playing the hand of the homophobes. You must be a right-wing saboteur, posing as a gay activist. So what's new, Ginger? If there is no physical damage to human being, in the act of dissenting, then there is no violence. Plain and simple. Your Orwellian double-speak is typical of homophobes who want to denigrate gays who don't "know their place". << No, it's not hitting people or shooting people, but it does violence to the spirit of those who do find what's going on sacred, violence that many (including myself) would consider far worse than physical violence. >> Wow, you really don't want gays to have their equality, do you? By your reasoning, gays who break up a religious service via non- violent dissent, are not only guilty of commiting violence, but far more horrible and criminal than our enemies, who bludgeon us to a bloody pulp. And just because we are bashed in places declared non-sacred. You are one twisted spook, Ginger. You talk EXACTLY like a "loving" Xian, who attempts to declaw any form of gay pride and dissent by hiding behind God's robe. << You know how it kills you at the core when someone throws an antigay slur at you? >> No, it does not "kill me to the core", you bloated bag of homophobia. What does kill me to the core, is whenever a gay brother or sister gets violently bashed or murdered by a bigot...under the approving eye of The Supreme Court and "Family Values". << Would you really want to make another human being feel that? >> Damn right I would. Then we'd be more likely to gain sympathy and compassion from the majority, instead of violence at worst, and apathy at best. Homophobes are bullies, more than anything else. And the only thing bullies respect is PAIN. This can be administered in the form of prison sentences...but since our government continues to drag its feet in its abysmal regard for gays, we need to find our own way to exact justice. (And when I say "we" I mean the truly united gay community; I certainly don't include *you in my picture.) If in using aggressive dissent--as in breaking up church services--we can give these homophobes a dose of the pain we live with daily (terrorism, bludgeoning, exclusion even from family), without shedding a single drop of blood in so doing...I believe we will finally accomplish the respect due us as human beings. << Part of nonviolent protest is respecting (even if they don't respect you; hell, ESPECIALLY if they don't) the feelings of those you're protesting, seeing them as people of worth and treating them that way. >> These anti-gay bigots do NOT respect us at all. How could they when they either do violence upon us gays, or approve of the violence done? Respect must be earned...and these demons certainly have not. Consideration of respect is no longer an issue for our concern. How we survive through this, and what actions we should take in order to see justice done against all this anti- gay hatred and violence, is the matter of the day. The Religious Reich has sorely abused words like "love" and "respect", by claiming such traits, yet obviously doing quite the opposite. I suppose you think that Jews in Germany lacked enough "respect" for their Nazi overlords, and thus *deserved their end in concentration camps. I suppose you think that learning to show respect for Hitler and Mussolini, won the War for us and our allies. Actually, what we allies did was to BASH BACK, with concerted force and intelligent strategies. And this, my dear phony Ginger, is precisely what the gay community needs to come to terms with. We need our own "allied resistance", underground and widespread. We can disrupt, we can sabotage, we can bring these filthy overlords to their knees, and have all our demands for freedom met...and we can do this all without shedding a drop of blood...IOW, non-violently. Any definition of violence other than physical damage to human a distortion of the term, and a way of demoralizing the troops into apathy and loss of faith. I therefore charge you, Ginger Trumbley, with committing sabotage on behalf of the Religious Reich. It is clear to me that you are a plant to damage our cause, by seeing to it that we gays do not unite, and that voices like mine are demonized in order to frighten other gays from the truth about our noble cause. You are posing as a gay activist, who filtered her way in some years ago...seeming quite liberal, but once you gain a voice in one group or another, you begin to sabotage any truly liberating voices like mine. Perhaps I am wrong in my assumption about you being a saboteur. However, your denigrating proposals for effective dissent by labeling them as "violent" really plays into the hands of homophobic bigots. If this is your form of activism, girl, you gotta go. Time to sweep away all the dead wood that's been clogging up the arteries of Gay-Volution, and let some fresh blood take over and lead us to victory. << It doesn't mean backing down or giving in to your opponent--no way. But it does mean utilizing the Golden Rule (and you don't have to be a believer to do that) and letting it be your guide in a protest situation and always. >> Bullshit. The Golden Rule only applies among civilized, non- violent folk. The Golden Rule didn't work for Hitler, nor for numerous other why should it suddenly take on an aura of respectability for gay rights? The most violent, heinous crimes of humanity have been against our homosexual population. And you spew out "golden rule" pap? << As to effectiveness, seems to me the most the old ACT-UP St. Patrick's protest did (and I love ACT-UP) was make people even angrier--that anger still exists among many in the Catholic community today. >> More of Ginger's bull dung! Those religious bastards really get ticked off when gays don't know their place, don't they! You can't blame ACT-UP for the arrogance of religious zealots. Just as you can't blame a woman for being raped. It also remains to be seen whether the Catholic community at large harbors any particular hate towards ACT-UP, or whether gay activism has opened more hearts than closed. But the anger of Catholics towards ACT-UP, is every bit as cruel and maniacal as the anger against Jews supposedly threatening the "purity" of the German culture...yet one example of how the majority is often wrong. << And I can't blame them one bit >> Of course you can't. We know whose side you're *really on! << So no, I will never agree with disrupting a worship service. >> Thanks for the clarification. I'll remember not to invite you to our demonstrations. God forbid you should soil any church with the dignified struggle for equality, a God-given right to every individual! << Disrupting worship, however, is a slap in the face to basic decency toward other humans. >> Maybe these violent-prone goons *deserve a slap in the face! Certainly such an action is like a mere sting of a gnat, when compared with the gay bashing so strongly promoted by such church-goers. Perhaps such a harmless sting will wake them up to the kind of cruelty they put on gay people. Or perhaps it will take several stings, including prison time for defamatory and violent behavior. Sting, sting, sting! << Just because they're mean to you doesn't make it right for you to be mean to them in return. >> "Mean" to me? That's hardly strong enough to do their evil justice. Violent bludgeoning and murder, is hardly a "mean" is an abhorrent evil that can only be properly addressed with harsh sanctions and retaliation. This has always been the case throughout history, for any oppressed minority that seeks freedom. What I am proposing is to finally be truly *mean to these bigots; give them no quarter in which to excuse their violence. I propose aggressive actions against these demonic forces...short of violence. However, this does not mean you shouldn't defend yourself and even strike back, if you begin to get bashed. At least, carry pepper spray as a from of legal weapon. << (I learned that back in kindergarten, >> It seems that kindergarten is where you learned *everything. Too bad you stopped there, and never moved on to the first grade. << Sadly, many of them do. >> I am not saddened by this; I am OUTRAGED. << And therefore, you should crash their sacred space? >> Indeedily doodily! Give 'em a taste of their own hell! << Brings you down to their level, doesn't it? >> Not at all. Just as allied forces defeating the German army with acts of sabotage and disruption, never lowered them to their level. << Even if I do not find something sacred, I will respect it if someone else does. >> Of course. Always put your best foot forward. But when your adversary continues to stomp on that foot, showing respect must come to an end, and you must take up aggressive measures, in order to protect not just your individual freedom, but your very life. << I won't recite any pledge of allegiance or sing the US national anthem, but I will stand. >> Because you don't want people to *really see your dissent. It's a half-assed ploy only to assuage your conscience, to fool yourself into thinking you are a lot more progressive then you really are. I would *never stand, but sit there quite firmly. Then *everyone in the audience will witness my dissent. In your case, only people at your immediate side will notice you not singing. (Zeke said:) > For one, I'd like to see African-American > lesbians and gays unite, in order to oppose > their own churches which continue to preach > against homosexuality (and there are many). > They can attend as a united front, and when > the preacher begins to condemn gays...they > can shout him (or her) out, so that the > service can no longer continue. << Would that accomplish anything? I don't think so. It would just piss people off and make them less likely to listen. >> I strongly disagree. I believe that many blacks would be impressed, for they'd recall similar strategies used in the South, to win equality. And *that is something to admire. << A better approach would be picketing outside of the church. >> Nope. Time for shock tactics. Time to grab the demon by the horns and shake him around. Time to get tough. << Here's another measure, and I think this one is excellent. Soulforce is planning a big campaign, whereby glbt people withhold their tithes from unwelcoming churches to which they are members. Don't disrupt the service, disrupt the CASH FLOW. Hee hee hee. >> I'm all for economic clout, a la boycotting. But let's not stop at that, or we'll make so little headway as to be ineffectual in the long run. Besides, all these other forms of dissent that you suggest (no disrupting services) are already defined as "violent" actions by the enemy. << No. Gandhi would disagree because of the spiritual violence you would be committing unto the church members. >> Oh, sure; now you speak for Gandhi, unequivocally. Gandhi was for peaceful acts of dissent and disruption; he did not define any space in which to do this as "wrong"...and that goes for church services. It is both vulgar and manipulative of you to define my suggestions of aggressive dissent as violent, by changing the meaning of violence to include non-physical actions if they are described as "violent" by a bigoted majority. << (And I know; I've discussed this with Gandhi's grandson, Arun, who studied nonviolence at his grandfather's knee.) >> And of course I'm supposed to take your word for this, right? What kind of fool do you think I, we, are, here on this GayNet list? You have done a better job of denouncing yourself, than I could ever do. As for Gandhi's grandson: blood relation does not imbue one with sanctity. Just look at some of Martin Luther King's relations who are quite homophobic...even though his surviving spouse is very pro-gay, and claims that King would be all for gay equality. << Why should they, to a band of disrespectful people? >> Oh, yeah, those awful, disrespectful dare they disrupt our service, only because we have bashed those filthy perverts? Why, even God says we should put them to death! And pray tell, how does one "respect" the bashers/murderers of our lovers, friends, brothers and sisters? So someone murders my lover, and you come running up from left field, to preach to me how I need to learn to respect the killer. << That won't stop them from meeting and worshipping. In my church, we used to joke that no matter how bad the weather got, no matter how cold the building became, we'd meet and have service at the local IHOP. >> Excuse me, but, if we gays could have such churches on the run, I think we'd be accomplishing a lot. We can just hound them at IHOP, or wherever they choose to go, to avoid us, their conscience. << For the benefit of those for whom you protest, most of all, for your own long-term benefit, and, as Gandhi would add, for the benefit of the souls of those whose minds you seek to change. >> Ooops, I forgot, you are channeling the Great Mahatma. Dear, you do NOT speak for Gandhi, or any other dead man or woman. You are nothing but a name-dropper. << Find another way, one that does no violence. Or don't dare call it nonviolent. >> Well, when someone like you defines non-violence as violence, then there is nowhere I can take this...that is, nowhere, if I actually were foolish enough to consider your manipulative notions. I believe I covered all ground in addressing your phony I'll address just one more point of your pointless message: (Zeke said:) > P.S.: As with any of my messages, I give > permission for anyone to freely disseminate > my words w/o first asking. << Oh, damn, it's about attention. >> Partly, yes. I have an ego, which I can't live without. You will never find me guilty of false humility...of which you seem to be more than amply supplied. I believe I have a gift of the spoken word (and of writing), which is to be used to help forward gay liberation. So I am a little vain about it. However, don't doubt for a moment that I am not wholly dedicated to The Cause, and eagerly empower any gays who are open to my ideas...that I may bring out their own great destiny free of my influence. I also celebrate and acknowledge the gifts given by other gays, that advance our cause...and give them full credit for their own good works. I never steal. << I was afraid of that. >> No you weren't. The only thing you're afraid of, it seems, is that gays actually do fight effectively and win their rights! << Sorry, I shan't forward it; >> Of course YOU wouldn't. You have no intention of assisting gays in our liberation. You are set up as a roadblock, to distract us from our lofty goal, with sweet-sounding ideas that would dull us into complacency. << You're very passionate and articulate (and very young, I assume, based on what I've read in many of your postings; >> I'm 50 years old, and quite adept at activist notions and dealing with all forms of anti-gay sabotage...both within Our Family and without. << Please believe me when I tell you it only makes things worse. >> It is obvious that, in believing I am young, you used guilt and talking-down in an attempt to scare me away from doing the right thing...IOW, you abused your power as an adult. You are a real danger to any child within range of your influence. You'd train them all to be sheep for the slaughter. And lastly: I'm glad at least one other person is speaking out against your pabulum. P.S.: Gandhi beat his wife. --- Lavender-Velvet Revolution ********** ---finis