Bono: What's always bothered me about the fundamentalists is

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
80sU2isBest said:


Just remember that you said you are going to hell. You made that judgment upon yourself. No one else here did. I'd sure hate for you to be walking around all day saying "Those evil Christians told me I'm going to hell"



well, the people that protest Queer Pride parades or the opening of the Harvey Milk school in New York or outside of Matthew Shepard's funeral have made it very clear that they believe i'm going to hell.

i don't believe in hell. so there's no way i think i'm going there. what i'm doing is placing myself within their fabricated context.

i was also being slightly tongue-in-cheek and responding more to A_Wanderer's post than any specific condemnation, which no one on FYM has made ... except for that GOP_Catholic guy who was banned a few months ago ...
 
nbcrusader said:


Will anyone not make it?


these marvelous Springsteen lyrics, i think, sum up my view of what we call "salvation":



LAND OF HOPES AND DREAMS

Grab your ticket and your suitcase
Thunder's rolling down the tracks
You don't know where you're goin'
But you know you won't be back
Darlin' if you're weary
Lay your head upon my chest
We'll take what we can carry
And we'll leave the rest

Big Wheels rolling through fields
Where sunlight streams
Meet me in a land of hope and dreams

I will provide for you
And I'll stand by your side
You'll need a good companion for
This part of the ride
Leave behind your sorrows
Let this day be the last
Tomorrow there'll be sunshine
And all this darkness past

Big wheels roll through fields
Where sunlight streams
Meet me in a land of hope and dreams

This train
Carries saints and sinners
This train
Carries losers and winners
This Train
Carries whores and gamblers
This Train
Carries lost souls
This Train
Dreams will not be thwarted
This Train
Faith will be rewarded
This Train
Hear the steel wheels singin'
This Train
Bells of freedom ringin'
This Train
Carries broken-hearted
This Train
Thieves and sweet souls departed
This Train
Carries fools and kings
This Train
All aboard

This Train
Dreams will not be thwarted
This Train
Faith will be rewarded
This Train
Hear the steel wheels singin'
This Train
Bells of freedom ringin'
 
Irvine i know a really good church in the heart of DC that openly accepts gays, and in fact some of the organizations within the church are specifically for gays and lesbians. If you're at all curious i can tell you more.
 
U2democrat said:
Irvine i know a really good church in the heart of DC that openly accepts gays, and in fact some of the organizations within the church are specifically for gays and lesbians. If you're at all curious i can tell you more.



thanks for the offer, and i might be interested in finding out more.

these days, i don't feel like there's much use for church itself -- seems like window dressing to what really matters, and what really matters, to me, these days, i'm finding very hard to accept, which is why i call myself a "passionate agnostic."

but who knows -- in a few years, i might find the need to go back to church. so, sure, pass the info along.
 
Irvine511 said:




well, the people that protest Queer Pride parades or the opening of the Harvey Milk school in New York or outside of Matthew Shepard's funeral have made it very clear that they believe i'm going to hell.

I don't know anything about the Harvey Milk school, but everyone who protested at Matthew Shepard's funeral should have been jailed.

However, some of these "Queer Pride" parades get downright nasty, with dog-collared, scantily-clad and leather bound people running around simulating sex acts and bondage scenarios. Do you think that should be allowed in public? Not me. I don't care if it's homosexuals or heterosexuals doing it.
 
80sU2isBest said:
However, some of these "Queer Pride" parades get downright nasty, with dog-collared, scantily-clad and leather bound people running around simulating sex acts and bondage scenarios. Do you think that should be allowed in public? Not me. I don't care if it's homosexuals or heterosexuals doing it.



this is a huge point of contention within the gay community ... my thoughts are that Queer Pride parades have outlived their usefulness, and such displays of sexuality aren't necessary anymore. one thing that must be understood is that now it is possible for gay people to be visible in media, but only within specific parameters of behavior outlined by majority hetereosexual culture.

for all of their supposed good intentions, American journalism and Hollywood popular culture has helped to create and nurture a dichotomy within American culture: The Good Gay vs. The Bad Gay.

The Good Gay is loveless and asexual, and thus welcomed into Americas living rooms. think of Ellen, Will and Jack, the Queer Eyes, etc. however, back on her show, Ellen could have never, ever casually get in the sack with someone, let alone embark on the sexual hijinks the heterosexuals on "Friends" seem to do quite often. nor could she fall in love. nor can Will or Jack. (the exception to all this being "Queer as Folk," but that show brings up a whole other set of issues). most gay people on TV are likeable and positive, but not one of them regularly portrays same-sex passion and desire, especially not in the ways that heterosexual lust is depicted in soaps by day and in hospital and courtroom dramas by night. straights have it all - love, respect, admiration, good jobs as doctors and lawyers, and hot sex. gays must remain chaste or at least discreet.

what these displays of sexuality were meant to do was to say that, yes, sex is part of being homosexual. there was also, much earlier, a belief that gays are far more liberated in their attitudes towards sexuality, and that dominant culture -- at least on the surface -- was repressed and Victorian, and that it was up to gay culture to tweak the mainstream, to frighten the skittish, to be in-your-face and mock the society from which they had been ostricized.

now, all that has changed. homosexuality is undergoing a great period of normalization and domestication, due to the growing realization that, gosh, gays are people too and their lives and loves are every bit as legitimate as those of straight people. gays now want access to previously exclusively heterosexual domains like the military and marriage. this is to be applauded, especially by actual conservatives (since gays aren't going anywhere, nor have they gone anywhere for as long as there have been people).

i'm young, and i don't find these displays of overt sexuality all that appealing. they seem like relics from another time, so in some ways i agree with you, and they also provide visuals for people who want to make the point that homosexuality is deviant behavior. hence, The Bad Gay. in reality, it is a naturally occuring abnormality like being left-handed or having red hair.

but i would also ask if you noticed the gay police officers, firemen and women, government works, and all the other normal, clothed, smiling, happy people walking with their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, neices, nephews, grandmothers, and, yes, sons and daughters. since that makes up, you know, probably 90% of the parade.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:

but i would also ask if you noticed the gay police officers, firemen and women, government works, and all the other normal, clothed, smiling, happy people walking with their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, neices, nephews, grandmothers, and, yes, sons and daughters. since that makes up, you know, probably 90% of the parade.

The same can be asked of you, Irvine. Have you ever noticed the Christians who do NOT beat up gays or dehumanize them, or just the loud and proud minority who do?
 
Irvine511 said:

The Good Gay is loveless and asexual, and thus welcomed into Americas living rooms. think of Ellen, Will and Jack, the Queer Eyes, etc. however, back on her show, Ellen could have never, ever casually get in the sack with someone, let alone embark on the sexual hijinks the heterosexuals on "Friends" seem to do quite often. nor could she fall in love. nor can Will or Jack. (the exception to all this being "Queer as Folk," but that show brings up a whole other set of issues). most gay people on TV are likeable and positive, but not one of them regularly portrays same-sex passion and desire, especially not in the ways that heterosexual lust is depicted in soaps by day and in hospital and courtroom dramas by night. straights have it all - love, respect, admiration, good jobs as doctors and lawyers, and hot sex. gays must remain chaste or at least discreet.

Then, Gays are written for TV the way I want them to write for heteros as well; I do not like shows like Friends - I hate lust and sex on TV.
 
80sU2isBest said:


The same can be asked of you, Irvine. Have you ever noticed the Christians who do NOT beat up gays or dehumanize them, or just the loud and proud minority who do?



i dont' see too many men in dog collars on Fox or CNN urging the passage of disciminatory legislation.

you can't possibly make the argument that the fringe elements on the borders of what might loosely be called "gay culture" have even a modicum of the political weight and influence that Christians who seek to discriminate against gays and lesbians do. it's apples to oranges.

and you seem to think that simply because you do not beat up gays that this makes one some kind of noble person. hardly. that seems to be at least a minimum of socially acceptable behavior -- we do not harm those different from us.

and your comments, and the comments of others who define homosexuality as "sinful" or "against god," are by definition dehumanizing. in fact, they are pornographic. what do i mean by that? pornography reduces humans to flesh, and such comments reduce homosexuality to a sexual act. what many do not care to understand is that homosexuality is a constitutive condition, that is you are attracted, physically and *emotionally*, to members of the same gender. when one condemns homosexuality, you are condemning the way in which someone is hardwired to love another human being.

what's bothering me is that i've gone to great lengths in other threads to point out so-called conservative Christians who do not agree with either you, or agree with the Christians on TV who think that gays represent a threat to be contained (Dread, Coemgon, others). what you are missing is the fact that there is a clear and present threat to to lives of gay people by Christians. no, not all christians, and goodness, can we get out of kindergarten and speak in political terms without having to qualify each and every statement? i have always been speaking about the political application of Christianity and statements based on specific Bible readings that give credence to such actions. you have a point in that the political christians do speak, often inaccurately, for the whole; but you cannot make the point that the few gay men in bondage on a single sunday in June are anywhere nearly as effective and influential as the Christians on TV. those people must be combated, imho, because their opinions have real and direct consequences. if the men in leather bother you, avert your eyes.
 
Last edited:
80sU2isBest said:


Then, Gays are written for TV the way I want them to write for heteros as well; I do not like shows like Friends - I hate lust and sex on TV.

don't worry, the FCC will take care of that for you.

and the irony is that many, many gays write for TV, but market forces and network fears keep gays reduced to sexless "best friend" sidekicks.

one exception being "Six Feet Under" which contains an accurate portrayal of a gay couple. and, of course, that's on HBO.
 
Irvine511 said:

one exception being "Six Feet Under" which contains an accurate portrayal of a gay couple. and, of course, that's on HBO.

:heart: Six Feet Under :heart:

My favorite episode was the Christmas episode from season 2, with the biker funeral.

[/ot]
 
also, their interim minister is a gooooooooooooooooooooooood friend of mine. he was at the hospital when i was born! :ohmy:

plus i have some more interesting info that i'd rather not post on open boards...so if you e-mail me i could pass that along as well.
 
Irvine511 said:




i dont' see too many men in dog collars on Fox or CNN urging the passage of disciminatory legislation.

you can't possibly make the argument that the fringe elements on the borders of what might loosely be called "gay culture" have even a modicum of the political weight and influence that Christians who seek to discriminate against gays and lesbians do. it's apples to oranges.

Skirt the issue, Irivine, all you want. But I didn't ask you about "politics" or any of that. I asked you that question on an individual level, about how you preceive the Christian community.

Irvine511 said:
and your comments, and the comments of others who define homosexuality as "sinful" or "against god," are by definition dehumanizing.

Wrong. Just because I say that homosexuals are guilty of sin does not mean I dehumanize them. I am guilty of sin - I do not dehumanize myself. Three of my friends have lived in a sexual relationship before they were married - I do not dehumanize them. In fact, i did that in the past - I do not dehumanize myself.

If, by saying that someone is less than human because of the fact that they sin, I'd be dehumanizing every person that ever lived, except Jesus!

Irvine511 said:
in fact, they are pornographic. what do i mean by that? pornography reduces humans to flesh, and such comments reduce homosexuality to a sexual act. what many do not care to understand is that homosexuality is a constitutive condition, that is you are attracted, physically and *emotionally*, to members of the same gender. when one condemns homosexuality, you are condemning the way in which someone is hardwired to love another human being.

No, I am not, because I do not believe that homosexuals are "hard-wired" to be gay. I just don't. However, I also don't think that they just wake up one day and decide "I'm going to be gay". It's not as simple as any of that. If you ask me exactly what I think, I won't tell you, because you'll argue with me, and neither of us will change our beliefs.

And I do separate the sexual acts of homosexuals from the "feelings". I do not think that people sin just because thet are "tempted sexually". It only becomes sin when they (1)intentionally dwell on that thought and/or (2) commit the act. That goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
 
80sU2isBest said:


Skirt the issue, Irivine, all you want. But I didn't ask you about "politics" or any of that. I asked you that question on an individual level, about how you preceive the Christian community.

Wrong. Just because I say that homosexuals are guilty of sin does not mean I dehumanize them. I am guilty of sin - I do not dehumanize myself. Three of my friends have lived in a sexual relationship before they were married - I do not dehumanize them. In fact, i did that in the past - I do not dehumanize myself.

If, by saying that someone is less than human because of the fact that they sin, I'd be dehumanizing every person that ever lived, except Jesus!

No, I am not, because I do not believe that homosexuals are "hard-wired" to be gay. I just don't. However, I also don't think that they just wake up one day and decide "I'm going to be gay". It's not as simple as any of that. If you ask me exactly what I think, I won't tell you, because you'll argue with me, and neither of us will change our beliefs.

And I do separate the sexual acts of homosexuals from the "feelings". I do not think that people sin just because thet are "tempted sexually". It only becomes sin when they (1)intentionally dwell on that thought and/or (2) commit the act. That goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals.



1. ugh. good gosh, of course i don't think ALL christians are Jerry Fallwell and have said this repeatedly. in fact, you'll see just how complex and diverse i understand the christian community to be if you read about how i've written that FYM has changed my perceptions. i've always been speaking about political christianity, at least how it is practiced by evangelical protestants in this country, and i'm not skirting the issue -- i'm explaining my position.

2. you're still fixated on sex. you condemned a sexual relationship between heterosexuals because they were not married. fine. but heteroseuxals have the *option* to be married, homosexuals do not. there is no way for a homosexual not to sin, other than to live a life of total abstinence, at least by your definitions. you can call a sex act a sin, fine. you can say, "anal sex" is a sin. but to call an orientation, which is way, way more complex than simply fucking, a sin is something completely different.

3. you're more than free to share your views, and i'd be interested to hear them. if you'd like, i won't even respond. but i would also add that no one in medicine, psychology or social science would agree with you.
 
I don't understand how homosexuallity could possibly be a choice. What would motivate someone to choose a lifestyle that would guarantee discrimination and hate toward them? I just don't get it. People are either gay, straight, or bi, and born that way, IMO.
 
U2democrat said:
I don't understand how homosexuallity could possibly be a choice. What would motivate someone to choose a lifestyle that would guarantee discrimination and hate toward them? I just don't get it. People are either gay, straight, or bi, and born that way, IMO.



to be fair, i think 80s did say that he didn't think it was a literal choice but something more complex.

but you're right, no one credible believes it's a literal choice.
 
I put it this way in another thread:

"You know, specific heterosexual sex acts are condemned [in the Bible], but what people do to the so-called "same-sex" passages is that they make sweeping condemnations of *all* same-sex acts on the basis of these passages, while opposite-sex acts are treated with nuance. That is, if heterosexuals are forbidden to rape houseguests, then it'll be interpreted as a prohibition against rape. If homosexuals are forbidden to rape houseguests, it's interpreted that God hates all homosexual acts. It's a consistent and bigoted pattern."

Melon
 
I've had a hard time finding a "church I could recieve in" honestly because it seems so many want to spend so much energy pointing outwards towards what is wrong with other people or society. What about me? I'm flawed and guilty of ego. Why not talk about the raging dicotchomy in one own's heart? The line between good and evil is drawn straight down the middle of everyone's.
 
Last edited:
Sound like a good church to me U2Dem. I mean the whole idea of Grace is something that is so simplistic and at the same time so complex. You aren't treated as you ought to be under Grace. Grace can see the beauty inside through all the muddle and the muck. To paraphase a Bono thought, the very idea that that same force of Love that created the universe is interested in me, it is so humbling and overwhelming. And, in my thoughts, it is so contradictory compared to human nature.
 
Last edited:
80'sU2, I'd just like to say that I appreciate your posts. As a person sharing the same views, I've enjoyed being able to see someone else discuss them intelligently and in a christ-centered way. Thanks:)
 
But to kind of refer specifically to the original post, I've been thinking alot about the concept of "equality". Because I think in reference to the original quote there is a large sense of inequality in how we as Westerners think of people in Third World countries. True, some people may be charitable towards them. Sending aid and things like that. But even therein lies a flaw in that. The belief in being charitable lends itself to the idea that we are coming from a position of strength to bestow aid to someone less fortunate. There is a balancing act involved in that.

I know the idea of equality is just that. An idea. But it's definable. Aristotle once said that 'equality consists in the same treatment of similar persons'. Well of course you'd logically ask then, What is similar? Each individual is unique and yet can still be lumped into groups or categories: Woman, Rich, Homosexual.... We can see in just the history of the US how the definition of equality has changed under its Constitiutuion. So given the disparties among people, a belief in equality requires an act. An act of choice.

I choose to believe that people in Third World countries are our equals. They are our equals because they are human beings, just like us. But I don't feel like I'm in the majority (and when I say that I'm not refereing to anyone here). But it is true, if we accepted these people as our equals we wouldn't let 6500 people die a day for want of things you and I take for granted, things like clean water, an immunization, and food/shelter. It isn't about charity. It's about choosing to believe that to do otherwise would indeed debase and literally write off a beautiful and dignified culture that is being held down by an unlevel playing field.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't this thread about Bono's view point about fundamentalists?

I just got this book the other day and am SO GRATEFUL that Bono has finally put IN HIS OWN WORDS his feelings about many things, especially about his take on Christianity and the responsibilities of Christians to do good to others (especially the poor) and not to judge others.

I think his words will not make many fundamentalists who wanted to brand Bono as one of their own very happy.

I agree with Bono.
 
Back
Top Bottom