thought crimes?

[maycocksean]

What was the reaction to the other students to that? Was it accepted as "normal"--just common sense?

I don't recall there being any particular outrage. I think most students just accepted that as the way it was (and more than a few probably figured that it was a good policy. I remember most of my friends in high school were always steering me towards the few black girls in our school in terms of dating. "Oh you should go out with Esther. You two would be so cute together." Naturally, the main reason we'd be cute together was that we were both black. Never mind we couldn't stand each other. Course I kept falling for the white chicks which meant that I did not date at all in high school. First kiss wasn't til college--as embarrassing as that is to admit ).

I honestly don't mean to be confrontational at all and I know you well enough that you won't take it that way, but what would compel you (or your family I suppose) to stay members of such a church? I mean, I cannot imagine doing so, and I don't even go to church myself anymore because I'm tired of priests yammering on about gays from the pulpit. But what you experienced is even more extreme and personal.

No offense taken, but I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. Yolland really probably identified the nature of what was going on the best. A ban on interracial dating was NOT ever official church policy, and I doubt that such bans existed at other Adventist schools in other parts of the country. What I meant was that churches tend to be slower than the rest of society in adapting to social changes and fundamentalist churches slower still. They tend to play it "safe". Further, because my school was a private one, it could "get away" with more that perhaps wouldn't have been allowed to pass in a public school. I've never ever felt that my church implicitly condoned racism, not least because with it's global reach it can't even be defined by one race. We never had a Mormon style race theology enshrined in our beliefs. But, the church was slow to pick up the ball on civil rights, I think. In my parents generation, I read (in our church periodical no less) about how students at our predominantly African American college, Oakwood College were disciplined by the school for going to participate in civil rights marches with Dr. King. The thinking was, I suppose, that good Christians shouldn't be getting involved in all this radical activity? I don't know. But note it was the BLACK Adventist church that was reprimanding these students.

And church communities in general are a major locus of transmission for what's traditional and time-honored, for good and for bad, so that social customs which are greatly eroded or altered elsewhere often persist in them longer--even when that's unsupported by the formal doctrine of the church or denomination in question. I would describe BJU's former policy as racist, but as a Southerner-by-upbringing I do also view it primarily as a consequence of beholdenness to a (bad) traditional worldview native to the region, rather than primarily as a consequence of an f-ed up theology (a la Fred Phelps).

A bit more cynically (not to put words in Sean's mouth here, though), I also think that when you fall into the 'receiving end' category of these kinds of tradition-bound prejudices, and you're experiencing that at a point in time where the initial heave into a more egalitarian way of thinking is still a work in progress, you sometimes accept certain things as 'normal, expected social reality' in a way you never would later. There's a kind of psychological emancipation from a beaten-down, or self-loathing, or timid-outlier mentality (depending on which group you fall into) to a mindset of expectation that you should be treated equally, and accept nothing less without a fight. I experienced this myself growing up, and in various other ways so did many of my friends.

Well said.

I won't deny that the racism I experienced growing up did affect my self-concept for a long time. I will never forget the first time someone outside my family said they thought I was good-looking. I was a senior in high school and it was the mother of one of my friends. And she was white, which, to me was truly amazing. Of course that changed quite quickly when I moved north for college. It didn't take me long to come to the realization that in fact I am pretty damn hot when all is said and done.

Seriously though, there's a lot that I just "accepted" as "normal" even though it was hurtful. It's rather sickening to think back on now.

 

[2861U2]

and I don't even go to church myself anymore because I'm tired of priests yammering on about gays from the pulpit.

What kind of church are you attending where they talk about gays every Sunday? I can't recall anyone/anytime from my church back home or my church here at college ever uttering a word about homosexuality.

 

[BVS]

How would anyone ever learn it was wrong, if they didn't hear it at church?

 

[melon]

What kind of church are you attending where they talk about gays every Sunday? I can't recall anyone/anytime from my church back home or my church here at college ever uttering a word about homosexuality.

Well, frankly, it depends on the pastor/minister, I guess. Catholicism would generally avoid discussions like this during Mass, but I had a priest once in my home parish who gradually went insane and started becoming more and more "fire and brimstone." Interestingly enough, lots of people left to the point that the parish was very poorly attended by the end of his tenure. Now that parish is run by a priest originally from Albania, and he's done an awful lot to get people to come back--and that has meant avoiding hot button issues.

 

[anitram]

What kind of church are you attending where they talk about gays every Sunday? I can't recall anyone/anytime from my church back home or my church here at college ever uttering a word about homosexuality.

I never said he talked about gays every Sunday.

But 2-3 times per year was enough for me (he also talked about other "social" issues that I didn't care about, like the "breakdown" of the family and so on, with the not-so-subtle subtext that women are best of not being TOO ambitious).

 

[Irvine511]

sorry to butt in but i have the same curious and outraged perspective as an Australian. i cannot believe the religous hatred and bigotry that occurs in America , and the outrageous connection between church and government.


feel very lucky not to have to put up with any of it .

what about the whole Aboriginal thing?

 

[sue4u2]

I asked someone to leave my place Thursday night when they continued to argue with me regarding gay marriage. Rights in general. She was so passionate about saving the sanctimony of marriage - that I couldn't deal with her any longer. She was with someone I have known for years. I questioned his choice of dates. I haven't heard from him. No matter.
It's difficult in the deep South. My criteria for new friends is quite high.
I've refused, for a long time, to waste any more time on prejudice.

 

[Irvine511]

the sanctimony of marriage

i think you meant to write "sanctity" -- but that's really quite brilliant as written.

 

[mysterious_jen]

what about the whole Aboriginal thing?

i never said we were saints! yes there is racism in australai but alot of it is against other groups now such as muslims. our latest government is working very hard at repairing the damage with the aboriginal community but it is a long long road to recovery. we now have strong anti discrimination laws that cover all religions and status groups. we also have many programs that promote opportunities for aborigninal people in education, goverenment jobs etc.


i am glad we do not have a society that is ruled by religion , racisim or politics to the degree america does.

 

[Kieran McConville]

America was founded by a very different English diaspora than the one that settled Sydney Cove, and therein lie the reasons behind a lot of differences between our two continental adventures.

I cannot tell, in all honesty, how slowly or quickly the times are changing on this stuff. In some social circles, the whole gay thing probably has not budged an inch in forty years. In others, more so. But in those where it has not budged, I've a feeling the attitudes are transmitted lock stock and barrel to the next generation. Not all young people are the hope of the future. We live in an imperfect world.

 

[yolland]

But, the church was slow to pick up the ball on civil rights, I think. In my parents generation, I read (in our church periodical no less) about how students at our predominantly African American college, Oakwood College were disciplined by the school for going to participate in civil rights marches with Dr. King. The thinking was, I suppose, that good Christians shouldn't be getting involved in all this radical activity? I don't know. But note it was the BLACK Adventist church that was reprimanding these students.

It's all one denomination though, right, and that's a Southern college, no? So I'd imagine the administration had quite a tightrope to walk there, even above and beyond any ostensibly 'colorblind' theological views to the effect that "good Christians" aren't 'rabblerousers,' or the already-existing generational divides within the black community concerning the Movement's increasingly activism-oriented youth wing (in which regard King was unique in his ability to bridge both factions--the 'old school' approach of the NAACP and NUL on the one hand, vs. the direct action favored by groups like SNCC and CORE on the other). Whereas most of the black churches, in so many ways the backbone of the Movement, didn't belong to majority-white denominations, and so weren't laboring under those particular tensions.

Public black colleges in the South often faced somewhat similar dilemmas, since they depended significantly on state funding and were invariably under either implicit or (more commonly) explicit orders from the state not to publically endorse desegregation, 'Or Else'. The one my father taught at continued (at the administrative level) to cooperate with that approach into the late 60s, at which point both students and faculty rebelled against what had come to be seen as an Uncle Tom administration, and the college's longtime president got the boot. I remember my father saying he was sympathetic to the president's difficult position through to the early 60s, but after that, it became clear that unfortunately he'd hardened into a disdainful attitude towards the 'radicalism' and 'undignified' activism of the Movement, and had become more obstacle than guardian to the interests of the students. (Telling and in retrospect bleakly ironic story: when my father went down there to formally accept the job, he had to sign, in said president's presence, what was basically a state loyalty oath pledging never to endorse desegregation in his capacity as an employee of the college. He puzzledly pointed out that among the implications of the policy spelled out in the document's fine print was that the college 'shall not employ Whites in any capacity'. The president smiled thinly and oxymoronically replied 'In your case that won't be a problem as long as you comply with the policy.' My father got the overt message; it would be awhile before he understood the simultaneously faintly resentful and faintly amused tone underlying it.)

 

[yolland]

Fair and balanced commentary from Sean Hannity and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) about House Democrats' rejection of a (pointedly) grotesquely unnecessary amendment to the hate crimes bill, proposed by Rep. King during the floor debate.

" Democrats Vote to Protect Pedophiles "

Naturally they never mention that existing federal law--not just some Democrats' optimistic fancies--already contains the supposedly necessary clarification: "Sexual orientation means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." (28 USC sec. 534)

Really revolting.

 

[Irvine511]

it's like a headline out of The Onion.

no wonder the under-30s voted 66% for Obama.

so when is Sean getting waterboarded?

 

[UberBeaver]

Fair and balanced commentary from Sean Hannity and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) about House Democrats' rejection of a (pointedly) grotesquely unnecessary amendment to the hate crimes bill, proposed by Rep. King during the floor debate.

" Democrats Vote to Protect Pedophiles "

Naturally they never mention that existing federal law--not just some Democrats' optimistic fancies--already contains the supposedly necessary clarification: "Sexual orientation means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." (28 USC sec. 534)

Really revolting.

The best part of that video is Peter King, Republican of Iowa, saying that we are NOW living in an Orwellian time in America....not the last few years with the wire tapping, "rendition" and other assorted bullshit - eg the Blue SKkes initiative which allowed more pollution. I still don't understand what he was trying to propose, to be honest. "Homosexual or heterosexual but that does allow for pedophiles," huh? And what does this have to do with veterans coming back from Iraq? I got 2:23 in and got pissed off and stopped watching. It's fucking absurd and demented theatre.

 

[BVS]

Fuck Hannity...

What a vile waste.