Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: An Anti-Gay, Anti-Liberal Terrorist Previous entry: Found Lacking

Shooting in Tennessee—Knoxville church had just put up gay-affirming sign

CrimeLGBTReligion

Out & About, Tennesee’s LGBT paper, reports one aspect of the high-profile tragic shooting at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church that I didn’t see when I flipped on the TV to see coverage on CNN this AM. While you probably heard that Jim D. Adkisson, 58, opened fire with a shotgun during a church event killing two (more than 200 people were attending a performance of “Annie”), the Knoxville congregation had also recently put up a sign to publicly welcome LGBTs to worship.

Greg McKendry, 60, was killed when he confronted the gunman as he entered the church.  Knoxville Police have charged Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Powell, with first-degree in the death of McKendry.  Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said Adkission shot eight people with a 12-gauge shotgun. Of those shot, all were adults- four women and three men.

...Knoxville Police have not yet released a motive for the shooting. The church is the site of some gay affirming activities. A member of the congregation wrote in a national blog that the church just recently put up a sign welcoming gays. One of the goals of the church’s long range plan is to “Increase congregational participation in human rights programs forgay/lesbian/transgendered persons.”

That church member was Elrod of The Moderate Voice:

I was not there this morning as we had friends visiting from out of town. But we seriously considered attending with our friends. This is such a shock to the community here. Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church is such a welcoming community. Though it’s decidedly more liberal than East Tennessee as a whole, we have very good relations with the rest of the community. I don’t understand why anybody would do this. All we know right now is that the suspect was not connected to the church in any way. I have no idea if the man had some sort of political or cultural agenda (TVUUC had just put up a sign welcoming gays to the congregation), or if it’s just some lunatic acting for no reason at all.

Before opening fire, one witness said Adkisson shouted something to the congregation that suggests he was there for a purpose—“It was hateful words. He was saying hateful things.”  The FBI is officially investigating whether this brutal attack in a house of worship was a hate crime.

More after the jump, including additional information about the church from Out & About.
Going back to the MSM coverage of this horror—for instance, the article on the CNN web site covering the story, has a vague reference to the progressive positions of the church, but no mention of the new gay-affirming sign as a possible motive.

The church, on its Web site, describes itself as a community that has worked for social change—including desegregation, women’s rights and gay rights—since the 1950s.

Well, that would be true of UU churches generally, no news there. Out & About elaborates:

It is home to Knoxville’s Spectrum Café, which is a social gathering place for Knoxville area high school youth who “support the principles of diversity, tolerance, and the worth and dignity of every human being.”  Teens who come to Spectrum respect each others’ ideas, religious views, race, sexual orientations, abilities, and ethnic backgrounds. The group welcomes “self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who are questioning their sexual or gender identity.”

The Knoxville Monday Gay Men’s Group meets at the church each Monday from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.

David Massey is one of the coordinators of Spectrum Café, also known as “Spectrum Diversi-Tea and Coffee House,” which will begin its eighth year this spring. “We advertise it as a safe harbor for teens who identify as LBGTQ and their straight friends and allies, plus any other youth who are being harassed for religious beliefs, appearance, or abilities,” Massey said in an interview with UU World Magazine.

The proximity of the posting of the gay-affirming sign to the attack, plus the eyewitness report that Adkisson’s statements prior to blasting the crowd are relevant facts to report, after all, we will likely find out what he said—members of the congregation were recording the performance of Annie when the tragedy occurred; police are reviewing the videos. The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that Adkisson left a manifesto in his car, but its content has not been released.

Pay attention to the national MSM coverage—let us know in the comments whether this angle sees the light of day in reports.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 10:29 AM • (94) Comments

I’m a UU and we recently justed voted in a congregational meeting (in Lexington, KY) to post a similar sign. We had a really honest discussion about the possibility of something like this. Knoxville feels like its just down the road (well, down 75). Thanks for posting about this and I’ll let you know what surrounding UU churches will do in response.

Comment #1: Thealogian  on  07/28  at  10:47 AM

The FBI is officially investigating whether this brutal attack in a house of worship was a hate crime.

How could it not be?  If ‘hate crime’ means anything, this is the definition.  Jeez, I hope the FBI gets involved and uncovers this guy’s associates.  He might be a lone crazy, but it’s also entirely possible that there are others directly connected to him ready to kill more people.  This is terrorism, but I kind of doubt that Federal law enforcement is going to treat it that way, since it doesn’t further the Bush administrations political goals.

Comment #2: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  10:50 AM

Now, now, CNN is just being prudent.

Perhaps the guy knew there was video recording of the performance, and he is a copyright crusader.

Or maybe, like many of us, he is sent into a murderous rage by the sound of the song, “Tomorrow.”

=thomas

Comment #3: Misplaced Patriot  on  07/28  at  10:50 AM

Thank George Bush that there haven’t been any terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Funny how this act of domestic terrorism won’t have people screaming about taking off their shoes or otherwise forfeiting liberties for safety.  Seems Americans aren’t always reduced to quivering masses when confronted with terrorism.

I’m sure Adkisson is a good Christian man who’s attack can totally be understood.  Really, he was the victim, as they provoked him by posting that sign.  Just like a woman wearing a short skirt in a bad part of town.  They were asking for it.

Comment #4: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  07/28  at  11:00 AM

I’m sure Adkisson is a good Christian man who’s attack can totally be understood.

My first thought too. But,

The man being questioned by police in a deadly church shooting was a “nice guy” who became upset when the subject of religion came up, according to his neighbors.

Jim Adkisson’s neighbors in a Knoxville suburb described him as quiet and helpful, but sensitive about certain topics.

“I was telling him about my daughter graduating from Bible college and I was a Christian and stuff, and he just automatically almost turned angry,” neighbor Karen Massey told WVLT-TV, a CNN affiliate.

“He was angry with his parents because they had made him go to church all his life,” she told the station.

“When the subject of religion came up, it set off like a light in him or something I noticed,” Massey told WATE-TV, another CNN affiliate. “And at that point I thought I’d never bring up religion again.”

Oh God, I hope he’s not an atheist.

Comment #5: Grammar RWA  on  07/28  at  11:07 AM

You know it’s funny, I have to say I don’t get the whole point of putting up a sign like that.

Here in New York, which is incredibly liberal, especially re LGBT issues, most establishments that market themselves toward the gay community, are gay owned, or are attempting to put forward a “welcoming” face tend to just put a rainbow flag in the window. 

I don’t think it’s a bad idea to put up a more explicit sign (or that the sign means that they brought this on themselves, obviously), but there are ways to do it show your support that might not attract so much negative attention, especially in such a conservative part of the country. 

I guess there’s a part of me that thinks that the sign was a sort of “patting ourselves on the back” gesture more than a real attempt to attract gay congregation members .  Especially considering that it’s UU church, which is well known as being a gay-affirming denomination.

Comment #6: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  11:09 AM

“Oh God, I hope he’s not an atheist.”

No.  Just another religious nut.

Comment #7: Northern Virginia  on  07/28  at  11:13 AM

Dangerously close to concern trolling, in my opinion, Opoponax.  Maybe the UU congregation is well know to you to be gay-affirming, but there are lots of gay people that are socially isolated and don’t know where to go.  Especially in the more conservative parts of the country.  I think those are exactly the kind of places where the church should put up those kind of signs. 

As for attracting the wrong kind of attention ... well I guess staying in the closet also avoids attracting the wrong kind of attention.  But I hope we are past that as a society.  I know we aren’t everywhere, but we will never get there if we just give up.  Obviously, you have to be somewhat wise about stirring up the crazies, but just welcoming gays to your church shouldn’t cross that line, IMO.

Disclaimer: I’m straight and an atheist, so I really shouldn’t be telling gays and churches how to handle their affairs.

Comment #8: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  11:20 AM

Especially considering that it’s UU church, which is well known as being a gay-affirming denomination.

The UU church is not well known at all, for anything. If you’re gay and looking hard to find a church, because you just want to go to church really badly, then you might learn of UUs by word of mouth or google. But if you’re not actively seeking, you could drive past that church a thousand times and never realize that you’re welcome to go in, until there’s a sign saying so.

They probably could have just put up a rainbow flag on their church sign. Maybe it didn’t occur to them. Maybe they wanted to be conspicuous to straight people, to remind everyone that they can’t always count the church-going among the anti-gay.

Comment #9: Grammar RWA  on  07/28  at  11:21 AM

The Yahoo News story, which is how I first heard of it, does mention both the mysterious “hateful words” and the Churches progressive stance.

Comment #10: Ruby  on  07/28  at  11:22 AM

Yeah, it seems kind of odd that an atheist would choose a Unitarian church to shoot up, in rural TN where I’m sure there are plenty of Evangelical megachurches to get legitimately riled up about.  The UU church is also welcoming towards agnostics and atheists, does not require a belief in god, and is in a lot of ways centered around the idea of exploring the very meaning of belief, faith, mythology, ritual, moral and metaphysical questions, etc.  In fact, isn’t UU a popular choice for atheists and agnostics who want to raise their children with an awareness of spiritual questions that doesn’t necessarily center on dogma or a specific belief in god?

Comment #11: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  11:23 AM

This wasn’t a hate crime.  It was a love crime.  He did it because he loved Jesus. [/snark]

Comment #12: ummeli  on  07/28  at  11:24 AM

It was a love crime.

If killin’ folks is wrong… I don’t wanna be right….

Comment #13: atheist  on  07/28  at  11:28 AM

Especially since they were reaching out to teens…who might not have been sure that “rainbow flag in window” equals “you are welcome here.” What’s wrong with advertising “we welcome LGBT people to worship here”?  Any more than advertising Vacation Bible School, Mom’s Day Out, or any other service a church may provide?

And if he was anti-relgion, how dumb would it be to shoot up a UU church…which includes atheists and agnostics among those who are welcome there? I am much more inclined to believe it was about homophobia.

Comment #14: emjaybee  on  07/28  at  11:29 AM

Well, we should know more about this guy’s motivations pretty soon. Was he a mad atheist? A homo-hater? Just totally fuckin’ crazy? Stay tuned.

Comment #15: atheist  on  07/28  at  11:30 AM

I’m with caren

Comment #16: watercat  on  07/28  at  11:34 AM

“isn’t UU a popular choice for atheists and agnostics who want to raise their children with an awareness of spiritual questions that doesn’t necessarily center on dogma or a specific belief in god?”

Yes, atheists and agnostics are pretty much the majority of UU’s in my experience. There are several jokes about this: such as, where can you find an atheist with children on Sunday mornings? The UU Church. Etc.

Addressing The Opoponax’s thought on the sign. My congregation recently voted to put up a similar sign because we wanted to make sure that coded language and winks aren’t the way people get to know our position on gay rights. We want to be upfront (and not self-congratulatory) about it but make sure that actually stating in clear language our support of GBLTQ’s and GBLTQ families is spelled out. There’s power in being honest and it takes the dialogue to another level. If a family passes by the church (say, a Conservative family) passes by the church in their car and a child asks what it the sign means, the parents actually have to explain why they don’t welcome gay people in their church. Maybe the parents will actually question that themselves or their child will realize that their parents are hypocrites to say that Jesus loves everybody, but some people are deserving of hate. Who knows, but regardless, I don’t like victim blaming. I have the right to walk down the street naked with money in my hands and NOT be raped/mugged. Its always the rapist/muggers fault; similarly, its the terrorist/gunman’s fault for killing people, not UU’s for being honest about who we are and whose personhood we honor.

peace

Comment #17: Thealogian  on  07/28  at  11:37 AM

Dangerously close to concern trolling, in my opinion, Opoponax.

I hardly think that a gay person weighing in on how they happen to feel about visibility issues (especially visibility issues that don’t necessarily involve anyone who is actually gay, just a bunch of well-meaning straight people) counts as concern trolling.

Maybe the UU congregation is well know to you to be gay-affirming, but there are lots of gay people that are socially isolated and don’t know where to go. 

I fully agree with that.  What I don’t understand, as someone who lives in a very gay-friendly major US city (I’m sitting in Chelsea as I type these words, actually),  is why the church chose to go about a million times further in proclaiming their gay-friendliness than establishments like Rawhide do. Again I do not in any way think that the church is to blame for the attack because of the sign.  I’m just not sure it was such a great idea, and I think it really sucks to find out what a bad idea it was in such a dramatic way.  Or, really, that I question the congregation’s motives in doing so, and how much they really thought it through. 

I think those are exactly the kind of places where the church should put up those kind of sign</i >   

Why, so they can have half the fundies in the county picketing every Sunday morning?

<i>As for attracting the wrong kind of attention ... well I guess staying in the closet als o avoids attracting the wrong kind of attention.

Actually, there are times when, as a gay person, you kind of want to STFU about it because, yeah, shit gets dangerous.  I probably wouldn’t wear my “I Prefer Girls” t-shirt to a church function.  Not because I’m a closet case, but because sometimes you just don’t need that shit.    Being out does not mean deliberately courting danger.  Getting gay-baited sucks.  Only a straight person would romanticize it all out of proportion and think that there is something noble in inviting it.

Comment #18: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  11:40 AM

I’m impressed with the courage of the church goers.  In addition to the moral courage they showed by posting the sign outside the church, they reacted quickly to the situation inside and kept this monster from killing a lot more people.

Comment #19: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  11:44 AM

Hes probably a lone gunman, I doubt hes a member of an organization. If he was, the attack would have been more organized and spectacular than this.

Comment #20: Ben D.  on  07/28  at  11:45 AM

However, I WOULD worry about copy cats.

Comment #21: Ben D.  on  07/28  at  11:45 AM

Yeah, my statement about the closet was over the line.  I apologize for that.  I still believe putting out the sign was the right thing to do.

Comment #22: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  11:47 AM

While I can’t comment on the sign-issue, as I suspect that decision was made to suit very local conditions, after living in the South for 4 years, I must say it’s widely known in at least the 2 states I lived in there that the UU church was the “queer church” in town.  Perhaps that aspect of the UU mission is not as significant in other areas where there’s greater acceptance of queer folk, but it’s one way in which the UU church stands out in the South.  The sign is additional evidence, but the progressive, and particularly queer-friendly mission of the church, and especially the church in the South, ought to be recognized as part of the media coverage, I agree.  If the queer side of the case isn’t addressed, then it’s simple straight-washing, and if the regionalism involved isn’t included, then it slants the story unfairly northward (where most major media outlets are located).

Comment #23: neogrammarian  on  07/28  at  11:49 AM

“(especially visibility issues that don’t necessarily involve anyone who is actually gay, just a bunch of well-meaning straight people)”

Uh, so there are no gay people at UU churches? This is about self-righteous straight people being content with showing our pride-creds? That’s pretty damn insulting to the gay and lesbian families that actively attend the church, serve on our boards, and support the church with their money.

Listen, I don’t know why you are getting all adversarial about how much we “well-meaning straight people” deserve to get shot up for being honest. Do you really not see how victim blaming in all cases just serves to distract from the real terrorist/criminals? How is your argument in any way constructive? Why are you holding onto it?

Comment #24: Thealogian  on  07/28  at  11:50 AM

Who knows, but regardless, I don’t like victim blaming. I have the right to walk down the street naked with money in my hands and NOT be raped/mugged. Its always the rapist/muggers fault; similarly, its the terrorist/gunman’s fault for killing people, not UU’s for being honest about who we are and whose personhood we honor.

For the third time now, I don’t blame the TVUUC for th eattacks, AT ALL.  This isn’t about victim blaming.  It’s about being aware of the potential reality of a situation and acting responsibly.  I don’t think the church should have kept their gay-affirming status a secret, but there are ways to be open about it that are a little more prudent.  If you walked down the street with a sandwich board that said “I have exactly $987.42 in cash on my person!  My wallet is in my back pocket!  Oh, and there’s more where that came from, so no worries!”, while you wouldn’t be to blame if you were robbed, it would still not be such a great idea. 

Again, to reiterate,  my point is not “they were to blame!” but “I’m not sure if that was such a great idea.”

I get to have this opinion.  It is not a homophobic opinion.  My own personal experience as a gay person informs my opinion about this..

Comment #25: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  11:53 AM

What Opoponax said. Saying one should be prudent != victim blaming.

I got my apartment broken into last year, when I forgot to lock my door. I didn’t deserved to get robbed, but I probably should have locked my door.

Comment #26: Ben D.  on  07/28  at  11:58 AM

UU churches have a process they can choose to go through to become a “welcoming” congregation, which means taking active and intentional steps to open up lgbt worshippers.  It actually takes some time and soul searching, since many members of the church, though liberal in their politics, harbor views about gays and lesbians they probably don’t even know about it.  The idea of making the church a place of welcome is a response to the fact that many churches have become decidedly unwelcome to lgbt people.  It’s not the same as a commercial establishment saying “gays served here” since these days in most places you would not assume that gays would not be served.  But many people these days—not just the downtrodden or the isolated—assume that churches are hostile places for gays and lesbians.  The welcoming congregation movemnt is designed to counter that.

I attend a uu church in a very conservative part of the country.  Next weekend, we’ll be participating in the local pride parade.  The event organizers really seek out and value our presence.  We are not tooting our own horn.

Comment #27: sophie brown  on  07/28  at  11:59 AM

I got my apartment broken into last year, when I forgot to lock my door. I didn’t deserved to get robbed, but I probably should have locked my door.

I don’t see ‘leaving your door unlocked’ as analogous to posting a sign that announces that you welcome gays as equals in your congregation.  One is a positive expression of a moral value, and the other is just plain careless.  I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that your analogy sucks.

Comment #28: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  12:01 PM

Alright, how about someone who goes to Saudi Arabia and hands out pamphlets in public saying the Koran is man made? Better analogy?

Comment #29: Ben D.  on  07/28  at  12:05 PM

Uh, so there are no gay people at UU churches? This is about self-righteous straight people being content with showing our pride-creds? That’s pretty damn insulting to the gay and lesbian families that actively attend the church, serve on our boards, and support the church with their money.

Did you not see the word “necessarily” in my sentence?  I did not say that there are no gay Unitarians (I happen to know plenty), but that there are not necessarily any gay members of the particular congregation in question.  It’s rural eastern Tennessee.  The kind of place you get the fuck out of if you’re gay and have any choice in the matter whatsoever.  There are likely not a whole hell of a lot of gay people around there, many will be closeted or at least keep a very low profile, and it’s likely that within the local gay community such as it is, many will choose to continue to attend their preferred denomination regardless of gestures from the local UU   congregation.  There are gay catholics, gay evangelicals, gay methodists, lutherans, episcopalians, etc etc etc.  They have freedom of worship just like everyone else—nothing requires them to leave the denomination that matches their beliefs to seek refuge at UU (and that sort of logic is what’s behind my inkling that this is an issue of a self-congratulatory hetero group).  There is nothing to indicate that any gay people attend this church. 

The framing of the entire issue is “we put up a sign recently”, not “we have several locally high-profile gay members” or “we are known locally as the go-to religious community for gay people.”  That indicates to me that most likely, the congregation of TVUUC is in all likelihood 100% hetero.

It has little or nothing to do with my opinion of UU churches in general.  As I’ve said, I know several gay members of same.

Comment #30: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  12:06 PM

Dear victim-blamers,

You ARE being victim-blamers. Own up to it, apologize, and move on. Being called out for being a victim-blamer does not mean you are a bad person. When something terribly unjust happens, it is probably natural for some people to try to make sense of it by thinking, wrongly, that the victim(s) could have protected themselves by doing or not doing something differently. This is wrong. End of story. Stop it.

Sincerely,

T

Comment #31: T  on  07/28  at  12:06 PM

I don’t think the church should have kept their gay-affirming status a secret, but there are ways to be open about it that are a little more prudent.

Yeah, why can’t people act more prudent?

Anti-war demonstrators for instance, why can’t they just have anti-war rallies indoors? Why do they have to bother people by marching outside, where they could get beat up? They should chant like this, “What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Fairly soon, if its OK with you!”

Comment #32: atheist  on  07/28  at  12:07 PM

Would you proudly proclaim in Riyadh, in public, that you’re an atheist and the Koran is man-made? Would that be good move?

Comment #33: Ben D.  on  07/28  at  12:10 PM

Opoponax, please stop assuming about things you know nothing about.  Knoxville is not “rural.”  It’s a small city, but it’s a city, and yes, there are plenty of gay people there.  It’s still the conservative south, for sure, which makes the gay community less visible than some other places, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.  I have attended that church in the past, and there’s no shortage of queer congregants.  One of closest friends (also queer), still attends semi-regularly with her daughter (thankfully not yesterday).  She was just telling me about a service where there were testimonials from gay teens about how thankful they were to find a church where they’re accepted.  So it sounds to me like the sign was an attempt (from both the gay and straight church members) to reach out to more teens that need help finding such a place.

And yes, as someone who knows people involved, what you and Ben D. are doing sounds an awful lot like victim blaming.

Comment #34: Dustin L  on  07/28  at  12:13 PM

Any attempt to say that it was a misguided idea to put the sign out is making the case for the closet’s continued existence. This was a house of worship; withholding a public statement for the sake of the comfort of homophobes, bigots and crazies is counter to everything “outreach” stands for.

Four little innocent black girls died in a church bombing in Birmingham during the civil rights movement because the people there were fighting for their civil rights. Should blacks have kept children away, or stop their activism because of the fear of Bull Connor and his cretins?

This incident in Tennessee is a reminder that homophobia and political dissent can manifest itself in extreme violence. Instead of hiding, more people need to come out. There are precious few willing to put their lives on the line passively and actively as they did back in the day. That’s why our first reaction is to make the victim the instigator—we don’t want to think about how untethered acts can come from allowing bigotry, legal and social, to hold sway in this country.

Comment #35: Pam Spaulding  on  07/28  at  12:13 PM

No, I wouldn’t. Part of that, though, is because I don’t fell Saudi Arabia is my turf. When I’m on my turf, I do things that can be viewed as ‘imprudent’.

My general point is this: if we always waited until it was safe to call for change, and always tried to be polite about it, we’d never accomplish a single fuckin’ thing.

Just my $ 0.02

Comment #36: atheist  on  07/28  at  12:13 PM

Would you proudly proclaim in Riyadh, in public, that you’re an atheist and the Koran is man-made? Would that be good move?

And how else will we reach the day when it is safe to do so?

Comment #37: Grammar RWA  on  07/28  at  12:15 PM

Ben D -

Please go read up on victim-blaming. You are a victim-blamer, and it is extremely unseemly. In your victim-blaming, you also seem to be advocating/excusing religious extremism and terrorism. Also unseemly.

Sincerely,

T

Comment #38: T  on  07/28  at  12:15 PM

Look, the whole thing just makes me incredibly nervous because I sometimes attend an Episcopal Church. You know, the denomination with the gay bishop. In the south.

Comment #39: Ben D.  on  07/28  at  12:17 PM

Would you proudly proclaim in Riyadh, in public, that you’re an atheist and the Koran is man-made? Would that be good move?

I have a friend who was detained for drinking water outside during Ramadan in Saudi Arabia.  Since she was not a muslim, they took her water bottle away, released her, and told her not to do that in public again. 

Are you saying that we are that kind of repressive society? 

In answer to your question, yes I would.  Which is why I should probably never go to Saudi Arabia.

Comment #40: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  12:18 PM

“Are you saying that we are that kind of repressive society?”

Maybe not that extreme but certain areas of the country are in that general direction, sadly. I guess the difference is its not legalized, but socially its still there—as evidenced by the shooting.

Comment #41: Ben D.  on  07/28  at  12:20 PM

Knoxville is not Saudi Arabia. Heck, not even Cleveland or Mouse Creek are Saudi Arabia. They are part of the US, which is at least de jure a civilized country. Even if it wasn’t intended that way, “prudent” sounds a lot like “Those fool kids shouldn’t have been stirring up troubles by going out to reigster black voters—what did they expect?”

Comment #42: paul  on  07/28  at  12:23 PM

My money’s on hate crime against gay people, not hate crime against christians.

We find that people who suffer from a psychotic break and target a specific group of people are usually being informed by stuff that’s in the news and the messages they’re getting from the culture, they usually don’t just “go nuts in a vaccuum.” Apart from the constant GOP drum-beating and fear-mongering about gay recruitment and gay people taking over churches and goodly So.Baptist ministers being forced at gunpoint to marry off Adam and Steve, there is a lot of discussion about the rights of gays and lesbians in the church in the news at the moment. Considering how much is made about how “persecuted” Christians in this country are, this guy probably saw himself as defending his faith by going after the people who were threatening Christianity with their secularism and gay-positivism.

There is also the chance that he’s an atheist who hates religion and had a paranoid delusion about how the UU church was trying to recruit and brainwash people into it, and seeing a sign that welcomed gays and lesbians made him break in a similar fashion, where he felt that he was putting a stop to the brainwashing.

Either way, there’s going to be a snowball effect—there’s going to be more talk of shooting up churches, attacking churches, etc, in the news, and that’s going to increase the amount of “suggestion” being delivered to people who are about to have a psychotic break… we usually see these things happen together… school shootings, church shootings, “terrorist attacks” that aren’t (people calling in bomb threats, etc).

Comment #43: Mighty Ponygirl  on  07/28  at  12:25 PM

Maybe not that extreme but certain areas of the country are in that general direction, sadly. I guess the difference is its not legalized, but socially its still there—as evidenced by the shooting.

I don’t know you, Ben, so I’ll just ask- are you really saying that gay people and gay-affirming organizations in conservative parts of the country should sit down and be quiet because otherwise people might hurt them?  Because that’s what it sounds like, and that’s a pretty repugnant suggestion.

Comment #44: Dustin L  on  07/28  at  12:25 PM

Look, all I’m saying is that I wouldn’t put up the sign. But its their decision, they’re free to do it.

The shooting just makes me sick to my stomach.

Comment #45: Ben D.  on  07/28  at  12:27 PM

“I don’t know you, Ben, so I’ll just ask- are you really saying that gay people and gay-affirming organizations in conservative parts of the country should sit down and be quiet because otherwise people might hurt them?”

No, I’m saying use different strategies in different places. I’m not saying they should shut up. What should they do? I don’t know, I don’t have that answer honestly. But shutting up and sitting down is NOT what I meant, not even close.

Comment #46: Ben D.  on  07/28  at  12:29 PM

Just to make it very, very VERY clear, I don’t think that churches should hide their welcoming status at all, or that there is no place for welcoming congregations.  I think marching in the local pride parade is awesome.  Having events and groups for the LGBT community and allies (and acting as a gathering place for allies in general) is a fantastic idea.

I just think it’s important to think about what you are doing before you do it, and decide if it’s the right thing to do.  I don’t know if this sign was the right thing to do.  I don’t know what my opinion on it would have been, if I were a member of this congregation (as a queer woman).  I also know that there are million ways to convey to the surrounding community that you are a welcoming congregation.  (I’ll also confess that I haven’t seen the sign in question, I’m probably imagining the worst.)

But I know that when I go home to the rural south, I usually don’t pack the Lesbian Terrorist Knitting Society t-shirt.  I don’t think that means that I’m pro-closet, or that I am in the closet when I go home to visit family.  Because I think it’s definitely possible to be out without romanticizing the idea of making yourself a target.  Which is the impression that I get from every account of this attack I’ve heard so far.

Comment #47: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  12:30 PM

(and acting as a gathering place for allies in general)

Should have also added “for allies and the gay community”, sorry….

Comment #48: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  12:32 PM

Wow, this is horrifying. Just this Saturday, I was carrying a banner for our UU church in the local Pride March. This is our 13th year in the march. People were so happy and excited to see our sign. I live in a pretty liberal area (east coast of Canada), but people still don’t all realize that there’s even such a thing as welcoming churches.

Or, really, that I question the congregation’s motives in doing so, and how much they really thought it through.

Considering that Unitarians are proud of their history helping to fight for Civil Rights, in which several UU civil rights workers were murdered, I think they probably had thought it through.

Sometimes people choose to take risks to fight against bigotry and push toward a society where individuals don’t have to worry about being “prudent” in revealing their sexual orientation. It’s important work, and it’s scary to do. They’re not doing it for your appreciation, but it’s pretty horrible to accuse them of self-aggrandizement because somebody killed them out of bigotry and hatred. Doesn’t this attack show the need for more work like this, not less?

Comment #49: dangerbread  on  07/28  at  12:33 PM

Because I think it’s definitely possible to be out without romanticizing the idea of making yourself a target.  Which is the impression that I get from every account of this attack I’ve heard so far.

Please stop talking because you are really pissing me off.

Comment #50: aw  on  07/28  at  12:35 PM

I also think the issue of activism and protesters is an interesting one to bring up, because I also don’t think well of my fellow activists who seem way more interested in the idea of getting beat up and/or arrested than actually accomplishing something.  It’s funny how the only people who tend to romanticize that sort of thing are straight white middle class dudes with nothing to worry about, who’ve never experienced harassment or violence before and don’t know shit about it.

Comment #51: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  12:35 PM

straight white middle class dudes with nothing to worry about, who’ve never experienced harassment or violence before and don’t know shit about it

Don’t assume ... 

I grew up with a severe stutter, so I’m somewhat familiar with those issues.

Comment #52: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  12:38 PM

Because I think it’s definitely possible to be out without romanticizing the idea of making yourself a target.  Which is the impression that I get from every account of this attack I’ve heard so far.

What’s given you that impression?

Comment #53: Dustin L  on  07/28  at  12:43 PM

But I know that when I go home to the rural south, I usually don’t pack the Lesbian Terrorist Knitting Society t-shirt.  I don’t think that means that I’m pro-closet, or that I am in the closet when I go home to visit family.  Because I think it’s definitely possible to be out without romanticizing the idea of making yourself a target.

But you got out. Staying in the closet for a few days or weeks on a visit isn’t an option for people who have decided to live there. (Oh, and once again, Knoxville just is not not not rural south. It’s a city with a decent university of 20K+ students and so forth.)

Comment #54: paul  on  07/28  at  12:48 PM

It is heartbreaking to think that people may have been killed and seriously wounded because they belong to a church that would welcome someone like me.  I wish I had some way to support this congregation in turn, and I’m going to be doing my best to come up with one.  They’re certainly in my thoughts, as are all UUs across the country today.

It would never occur to me to suggest that they should have been less vocal about their beliefs.  It certainly would never, ever occur to me to imply that their motive in being vocal was self-congratulatory in nature.  I find some of the comments here quite sickening.

Comment #55: Sportin' Life  on  07/28  at  01:02 PM

Staying in the closet for a few days or weeks on a visit isn’t an option for people who have decided to live there.

That’s my fucking point.

You can be out without wearing the lesbian terrorist t-shirt.  I am not closeted at home.  I am completely open about my sexuality down south (because if not, that would make for a mighty awkward situation whenever I finally have a girlfriend serious enough to introduce to the folks…)  It’s not a matter of me having the luxury of jumping into the closet every Christmas.  Not to mention, of course, that there are situations up north where I might choose to be discreet about my sexuality.  As a gay person, you have to gauge for yourself what is OK to say or do in any given situation.  No matter where on this planet you are (OK, maybe the Castro is an exception…?).

This is the very point I ams trying to make in this thread.  There is a difference between being out, being open, being a gay-welcoming congregation, etc and being overly aggressive about it to the point of inviting controversy (and the sign definitely invites controversy, which is not the same at all as inviting violent crime).  There is a point at which you don’t want people picketing outside the church every sunday, you don’t want ringers interrupting services with homophobic rants, you don’t want people pulling their kids out of your nursery school, and on and on.  I think it’s very easy for well-meaning folks who’ve never had to deal with this before (if that’s the case) to not really think things through very well.

Comment #56: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  01:03 PM

Op:

Sorry, but I think that as soon as you say “overly aggressive” you’re pointing toward the closet. And it’s not as if keeping a low profile will necessarily keep the murderous crazies away.

Comment #57: paul  on  07/28  at  01:07 PM

I really am trying to fight the good fight down here in NC (we can’t even get an anti-bullying bill passed yet, despite pockets of deep Blue), and when allies and LGBTs in Blue states come at me with this sort of “blame the victim” issue, it’s demoralizing. I guess folks down here are stupid for trying to make things better for LGBTs where it can be less-than-safe to be out, proud and active in the community.

Obtaining LGBT civil rights is more than sending in a check from time to time; it’s efforts out in the open like those by this church that have a big cultural effect. Out of the closet LGBTs and ally support are the strongest bits of activism we can do. If it turns out that anti-gay beliefs were a motive of the gunman, it only strengthens the case that more pro-gay forces should come out of the closet, not retreat in fear. I’m sure the people at the church knew there would be negative feedback, but a crazed, bigoted gunman is not anything any reasonable person expects, even in Knoxville, which isn’t a backwater town.

I can’t tell you how many times I’m asked whether Kate and I should just pack up our bags and move to NY (where our Canadian marriage is legal) or other Blue states to personally benefit from additional civil rights while working for the rights of those left behind in the South. Basically that’s a “screw you” it to all the LGBTs in the South who cannot afford to. Many simply like where they live and don’t want to cede it to the homophobes.

At least I don’t live in SC, MS or AL. Those folks have it ten times worse in terms of institutionalized bigotry, but there are good people there fighting to stop the bigoted madness.

Comment #58: Pam Spaulding  on  07/28  at  01:10 PM

Opoponax, please follow the advice of aw.  You have lost your mind, making that comment about “romanticizing the idea of making yourself a target.”  Your arrogance in attributing naivete and self-referential motive to other people—who are total strangers to you—is really breathtaking.

Comment #59: Sportin' Life  on  07/28  at  01:10 PM

I grew up with a severe stutter

Rereading that quote from me sounds totally off the wall, so I thought I’d expand on it a little and try to relate it back to the current discussion. 

On the playground who gets called a queer and beat up?  It may be the kid who is actually homosexual, but it’s often the kid who is just different.  The kid who speaks slowly and stutters is more likely to get called a queer and beat up than the closeted gay quarterback.  I know, because I was that kid.

I coped by being a joker.  But I have to say that violence against others because they are different is just fucking wrong.  And pretending NOT to be different is not the answer.  We fucking need to clean up our society.  Giving in to violence and threats of violence is not the correct approach.

Comment #60: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  01:16 PM

The Opoponax
“I get to have this opinion.  It is not a homophobic opinion.  My own personal experience as a gay person informs my opinion about this”

1. You do have the right to this opinion, but your position helps the victim blaming frame and perpetuates distracting attention from the actors/issues present and focuses on the victims.

2. There is a difference between individual precaution and corporate statements of belief. As an individual GBLTQ person, you may not want to wear a “I prefer girls” t-shirt to Liberty Sunday in Nashville (Republican celebration of hatred and prejudice) and the Nashville UU Church (with a number of other liberal Churches in the area, particularly Glendale Baptist Church—once a Southern Baptist congregation, now one of the most liberal Baptist Churches in the US).

You called this a “rural church” that is probably 100% Heterosexual? Fuck you, now I’m pissed. Knoxville, according to the 2000 Census, has a population of at least 687,000 people! That’s not rural. To assume, to state, that this church is 100% heterosexual is not only ridiculous, its downright Rovian. You are WRONG. Yet, you won’t state as such in any of your comments that you have made statements with errors and lies in them. You have the right to your opinion, but making up lies to support your own bullshit ideas about the victims of a violent crime and how this incident came about is fucking trolling.

“I think it’s very easy for well-meaning folks who’ve never had to deal with this before (if that’s the case) to not really think things through very well.”

You are not the only person who has had to deal with discrimination and oppression. We debated our own sign for 1 HOUR and its not up yet. Making a public stand as a church is A VERY THOUGHT-OUT PROCESS and carefully considered.

Comment #61: Thealogian  on  07/28  at  01:17 PM

Opoponax, I don’t understand why, no matter how much you say that you’re not victim-blaming or concern trolling (and I do believe you don’t mean to do these things), every post you make still includes your opinion that putting up the sign was a bad idea (and the implication that it was poorly thought out, even though you clearly weren’t present at the church meetings where they discussed it).

Comment #62: Dustin L  on  07/28  at  01:18 PM

....“It’s rural eastern Tennessee.  The kind of place you get the fuck out of if you’re gay and have any choice in the matter whatsoever.  There are likely not a whole hell of a lot of gay people around there, many will be closeted or at least keep a very low profile, and it’s likely that within the local gay community such as it is…”

I’m gay, I live in Knoxville by choice and I love love love East Tennessee and I have to correct you on that point, though I agree with your overall points.  I’m sure everything outside of Manhattan is considered “rural”, but Knoxville-proper is as urban as any other mid-sized southern city.  Drive outside of Knoxville-proper and sure, it’s rural, but Knoxville is big-small town with a large state university in it, so it’s more or less a liberal island surrounded by conservatives, much like the rest of everything-else-outside-of-manhattan.

Dustin L - sorry, i typed before I read your post.  Well stated.

Comment #63: Jeff B  on  07/28  at  01:26 PM

You called this a “rural church” that is probably 100% Heterosexual? Fuck you, now I’m pissed. Knoxville, according to the 2000 Census, has a population of at least 687,000 people! That’s not rural. To assume, to state, that this church is 100% heterosexual is not only ridiculous, its downright Rovian. You are WRONG. Yet, you won’t state as such in any of your comments that you have made statements with errors and lies in them. You have the right to your opinion, but making up lies to support your own bullshit ideas about the victims of a violent crime and how this incident came about is fucking trolling.

Hear, hear.

Comment #64: Grammar RWA  on  07/28  at  01:27 PM

OK, seriously?

I’m sorry I don’t know very much about Knoxville.

This is kind of weird, because I’m both genuinely sorry that I amade so many assumptions about Knoxville and the kind of community that exists there, and also because holy fucking shit give a girl a break.  Making an assuption is not “Rovian”.  It’s making an assumption.

Though I have to say that the assumptions I made about Knoxville being the rural south are the same assumptions I would make about any midsized city in the deep south, based on my knowledge of the midsized southern city I grew up relatively near.  If I was driving around New Orleans and saw a church with a sign that said, “Gay People Welcome Here”, I would probably roll my eyes.  I If I saw a local news article discussing controversy due to such a sign (NONVIOLENT controversy, to be VERY VERY SPECIFIC), I would definitely roll my eyes.  You put up a deliberately controversial sign, you’re gonna face controversy.  Which is generally the gist of my opinion on the matter.  The fact that this was terrorism and not just a few picketers doesn’t change my overall opinion—why would it?  Oh, people were killed, that makes it ok? 

I think the attack was fucking horrendous.  And yes, terrorist in nature.  And to be blamed purely on the shoter himself.  But the sign?  In that one hour meeting (one hour?  you think that’s a long and heartfelt deliberation?  i think i’ve spent more time in political meetings trying to figure out what color paper to print the flyers on…), I’m not sure I would have been down with it.  That’s it.  That’s the extent of my opinion on the matter.

I apologize for the assumptions I’ve made about Knoxville.

Comment #65: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  01:37 PM

Opopanax, you’re still a fucking troll

Comment #66: Thealogian  on  07/28  at  01:39 PM

Thealogian, do you know what a troll is?

A troll is someone who posts deliberately inflammatory material to a blog or forum with views the explicitly disagree with in order to start shit and rile people up.

I am not a troll.  I’m just someone who doesn’t agree with you, or doesn’t think that every single member of your religion is the most blameless and perfect human being ever to walk the earth.  There is, in fact, a difference.

Comment #67: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  01:48 PM

You are a fucking troll because you have deliberately moved the dialogue away from the real issues—the terrorist act of violent crime—to your frame, “blame the victim.” You put forward lies and misinformation and you still insist that you aren’t blaming the victim. You are a troll, you fit.

Comment #68: Thealogian  on  07/28  at  01:54 PM

The Oppoponax is making a valid point – I’d take odds if you are gay, you get it. This is not about blaming the victims at all. This is about a completely different topic - public relations, I guess.

If you’re an anti-war demonstrator, you are actively seeking out a venue to voice your opinion. When the peace group in my town stands along the highway with their signs, they know they are going to be flipped off and spit at. They also know they will receive thumbs-up and honks and smiles. They are choosing to be on the forefront, and their identity with that group is pretty obvious.

When you just want to go to church, because you want to be part of a group who shares similar beliefs, you don’t necessarily go there with the understanding that there may be opposition and danger because of who you are.

When I was first coming out, I attended a PFLAG meeting, and I can still feel the terror in my throat to this day, remembering when I drove by the unmarked building. I parked away from the site, and watched the woods for fundie snipers. If there had been a sign or a large rainbow flag outside the building, I would not have gone in. That horrible man is the real-life boogey man I feared at that PFLAG meeting.

My UCC church is open and accepting. They have a small rainbow stripe outside the building, and they advertise at all places where LGBT folks gather. Those efforts brought me to the church, not the rainbow stripe. If you’re out there, loud and proud, it may mean nothing to walk into an “identified” church. If you’re closeted and fearful, or just don’t want to be hassled, a huge sign might make you think twice. Sure, put up a big sign, but realize it may not perform the job you intended.

The Oppoponax isn’t addressing the incident; she’s talking about the church’s method of advertising their stance.

Comment #69: ckelly181  on  07/28  at  01:58 PM

So, to summarize, ‘It’s a gay thing, you wouldn’t understand’.  That’s it? 

Weak, IMO.

Comment #70: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  02:09 PM

No, sorry you’re not getting what I’m saying, Mark. Have you gone to any self-help groups? I don’t know many alcoholics who would walk into a building with a huge “Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting Here” sign outside. They don’t even advertise their sites in the local papers. Does that make it an “alcoholic” thing?

Comment #71: ckelly181  on  07/28  at  02:12 PM

From the MSNBC article that Mark B posted upthread:

“Police say they found a letter in Adkisson’s car which said that he planned the attack, that he couldn’t find a job, and “stated his hatred for the liberal movement.” The church has been active in seeking equal rights for women, minorities and gays, and founded a local chapter of the ACLU.”

Also, I’m deeply saddened to live in a supposedly free country where churches have to fear violent reprisal for espousing the basic tenets of their faith—namely, tolerance.

Comment #72: Blitzgal  on  07/28  at  02:20 PM

So Greg McKendry died so that he could preserve the lives of others.  By Catholic thinking, that should make him a saint, and he should be beatified pretty quickly.  Anyone want to put money on the likelihood of that actually happening?

Comment #73: jTuba  on  07/28  at  02:21 PM

Ummm…. just because you would blame the victim if they only got picketers or strongly worded letters as well as unhinged gunmen doesn’t mean you aren’t blaming the victim. It actually reinforces it.

I’m curious, why would you roll your eyes passing a church with a welcoming sign? How is that not, well, not only blaming the victim, but presupposing what you plan to blame them for?

And why is this not exactly the same as advocating burkhas?

People do things knowing that they are doing something controversial because it is the right thing to do. Should they have foreseen this? No. Should they have foreseen some kind of negative consequences? Of course - and they probably did, which is why whether or not to post that kind of sign is usually part of a deliberative process in the first place.

Perhaps - and ONLY perhaps - some sort of eye rolling might be appropriate if some dewey-eyed spokesperson (of any gender) got in front of a camera and announced that, gosh, it had never occurred to them that posting the full-color, triple-life sized billboard for the drag show and orgy after Bingo might cause negative comments, who knew? But even in a case like that, they would be only guilty of naivete.

But, having decided that is was explicitly church policy that GLBT people were actively welcomed, putting it on the sign was courageous, not misguided. I’m deeply sorry this happened, and the GLBT people in the congregation must feel just that much more horrified because of it, but it is precisely because the world is a place where this stuff happens that the church felt they needed to do it in the first place. Did they expect it to hit home this hard, this way? Of course not. Will they keep the sign up? I hope so, but won’t blame them if they don’t. But I’ll be particularly impressed if they do, or if any other local churches put one up.

Comment #74: Lymis  on  07/28  at  02:22 PM

Have you gone to any self-help groups?

Not enough of them, apparently.  I don’t think the analogy to alcoholics is perfect, because alcoholics you can’t really be proudly alcoholic (although Ann Richards did a good job of being a proud person in recovery), where as there’s no reason not to be proud to be gay, except for society’s prejudices against it.

I can understand the fear.  I just don’t see why people insist that it was a bad thing that this church made a public statement that they didn’t give into it.

I can see the utility for forms of outreach that are more subtle than what they did, exactly for the reasons you state in your post.  But that was not the approach that that UU church chose to take.  I, for one, applaud their courage. 

And sorry about the glib and flippant nature of my previous post.  Heh, I get stuck on my own cleverness sometimes.  Sometimes when it isn’t really that clever.

Comment #75: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  02:23 PM

“Sure, put up a big sign, but realize it may not perform the job you intended.”

I haven’t seen any pictures of the sign. Was it really a big sign? How big is too big? Big enough to be legible?

And for the record, I’m gay, and I do absolutely get what you and Oppoponax are saying, and announcing that only gay people could understand, especially on a board like this is weak beyond measure. I do get what you’re saying - and it is wrong. It is the defense of the closet, and it is blaming the victim. No amount of saying “You don’t get it, I’m really really sorry that the victim got the results they caused” changes that.

And yes, your story about being terrified to go into places where you might be outed is something I can relate to. I spent 10 years in the military as a gay man. I understand the terror of being seen, and being outed.

And that is absolutely the reason that places like churches that hold amatuer theatricals full of kids and parents and grandparents and single straights and the whole diversity of people are exactly the kinds of places that NEED to put up signs like this, because it sends the signal to terrified people that they are welcome somewhere where it won’t be automatically assumed that they are gay.

There are all sorts of reasons why the closet makes sense to someone trapped in it. They are all true, and they are all deeply wrong.  And yes, those of us who come out, whereever we do it, and whether we stay in a small town or not, and so on, make a huge, huge contribution. And in many ways, the straight people who go out of their way to make it clear that they are welcoming do far more, if in a completely different way.

Comment #76: Lymis  on  07/28  at  02:33 PM

why would you roll your eyes passing a church with a welcoming sign?

Because my first assumption would be that it was meant more as a self-congratulatory gesture than as a sincere way of appealing to the gay community.  Which is exactly what I said above.

Comment #77: The Opoponax  on  07/28  at  02:42 PM

Because my first assumption

You know what they say about assume.  You seem to be really eager to impugn bad motives to good actions.  I would say that I wonder why that is the case, but I really don’t want to know the answer.  You probably have nearly half of the posts in this thread, and haven’t said anything new since about the second one.

Comment #78: Mark B. from Austin TX  on  07/28  at  02:53 PM

Opoponax: the sign is not just a message to the gays they are seeking to welcome.  You might, in fact, be right that a more discreet signal would be better in the short term in attracting gays to the church.  But that’s not the only point of the sign.  The sign is also a message to the straight community, both the bigoted and welcoming portions.  The message there is that discrimination is wrong, that churches can and should welcome gays, that there is no necessary opposition between religion and human rights.

Think of it as the church “being out”.  Does it have dangers?  Yes, of course.  Is it the right thing to do?  Well, guess what: you don’t get decide that—they do.  And they did.  Saying “well, they clearly didn’t think through what they did” certainly is victim blaming.

Comment #79: Aaron  on  07/28  at  03:34 PM

Amen to what Aaron said.

Essentially, you are advocating secretly letting the gay people know that they are welcome, without making it clear to the community at large.

How welcome would you feel under those circumstances? You’re welcome to be here, just don’t let anyone know we told you so. And use the side door. And, if you can, could you and your partner come in separate cars? Or to separate services?

So ideally, the gay people know they are welcome, but the straight people don’t know that they are being welcoming, I guess. Then everybody wins.

Comment #80: Lymis  on  07/28  at  04:06 PM

By the way, and admittedly, this is in the Chicago area, not Knoxville, but there is a local Lutheran Church that has a gay pride flag on its main sign out front, and periodically posts things like “Pride Sunday services at such and such time.”

My reaction has always been “Oh, cool.” It has never occurred to me to think, “What smug, self-congratulatory bastards they are.”

Comment #81: Lymis  on  07/28  at  04:10 PM

Thank you Lymis for articulating what I couldn’t.

Comment #82: Thealogian  on  07/28  at  05:05 PM

That’s the impression I’m getting. We welcome ya but don’t advertise it. Let’s just keep them queer folk in the shadows because we don’t want to get shot at.

Putting a damn sign in a church window doesn’t qualify as something one should never do. If the surrounding populace is that fricking sensitive to the message, they need to be challenged and called out. And I don’t give a damn who is doing the calling out.

I think you occasionally forget that this really isn’t only a GBLT issue, it’s a human rights issue, and we all have to speak out.

If you don’t want to speak out, that’s fine, but leave the folks who are willing to speak out alone.

Comment #83: Shayne  on  07/28  at  05:15 PM

I live in NC and I feel like I am living in the closet because I’m an atheist.  If asked directly I tell the truth but I don’t bring it up because it will be seen as inflammatory.  I have attended a UU congregation and also had kids dance classes there that are unrelated to any service.  This feels like a terrorist act to me because it makes me reconsider that peaceful and natural place as dangerous because of the hate it might attract.

Comment #84: Kit  on  07/28  at  06:22 PM

The Opoponax, the reason people are saying you are troll-like is because your first comment on the matter partially blames the church. What would you say about a person whose first comment about a victim blamed them? And then you compounded this by saying the church probably did not have gay members, despite the fact that Pam noted that a gay men’s group met there weekly and they have had a program for teens who are in the LGBT community for eight years. Given that information, why exactly do you assume there are no gays in the church—it doesn’t make sense.
Your comment about the sign in general furthers this. Churches (as well as any establishment) put up signs for a few reasons: for information about that week’s sermon (short term info); information about a series of sermons which would probably have a bigger sign; to give their views on some issue (for example here in MA a few churches put out ads and signs saying they were welcoming in response to the push by the Catholic church against the new right for gays to marry). No info is given about the sign, so why jump to your conclusion?
Finally you contradict yourself a bit: you say most people know the UU is supportive of gays and then you say that the sign might have drawn attention to the fact that they supported gays. Umm, if it’s generally known, why would a sign make much of a difference?
It turns out that they think the reason he chose this church was because his ex-wife used to go frequently and the reverend had written supportive editorials in the local paper. Are you also against people writing editorials supporting gays?

Comment #85: JohnL  on  07/28  at  07:30 PM

How welcome would you feel under those circumstances? You’re welcome to be here, just don’t let anyone know we told you so. And use the side door. And, if you can, could you and your partner come in separate cars? Or to separate services?

I’m sorry, but this suddenly reminded me of Blazing Saddles when the little old lady who called Bart a n*gger comes to the back door with a pie to apologize ... but she wants to make sure he doesn’t tell anyone about the apology.

Except in the movie you’re supposed to realize how ridiculous it is, not nod and say, “Yeah, that’s what he should do to avoid trouble!”

Comment #86: Mnemosyne  on  07/28  at  07:59 PM

Opoponax - I’m Trans. Or rather, Intersexed with a Trans history.

How do people like me “be discreet”? Live under effective house arrest?

I guess I’m asking - is it GLBTQ, or is it GLB + others only if it’s convenient and safe?

Comment #87: Zoe Brain  on  07/28  at  08:38 PM

Knoxville, from west to the giant sprawl out to the east, takes over forty min. to drive through on I-40, even if you don’t get stuck in traffic in the constant construction / west hills bullshit.

I also did my real-time fluorescent PCR work at UT’s center for environmental biotechnology, downtownish- man, lemme tell ya.

Redneck central. Spittoon next to the negative pressure hood. Lab full of barefoot, slackjawed, hookworm-infested post-docs, who claimed to be working on making bioluminescent reporter molecules for predicting red-tide events. Due to syphalitic dementia, they were just randomly squirting tap water out of their pipettes at the Skynard posters on the walls. Constant banjo clanging. We lynched a black dude after lunch, but before that nip gave his lecture on the chaos mathematics of chemical reactions.

//I snark, but The Opoponax has simply fallen into the trap of being a hardcore internet addict (she’s on here more than me, sweet jesus) with opinions.

///misguided, abhorrent, deeply wrong opinions. Someone Is WRONG on The Internet.

*go get some sleep*

Comment #88: Indy  on  07/29  at  12:57 AM

Because I think it’s definitely possible to be out without romanticizing the idea of making yourself a target.  Which is the impression that I get from every account of this attack I’ve heard so far.


Gee, I’m sorry Opoponax.  You’re right.  We should’ve thought twice before putting that three-story billboard in front of our church with that scene from “Swallow with Pride” on it. 

Jesus fucking Christ in a chicken basket.

You know, I was pretty sympathetic to you throughout the discussion.  It was clear to me that you’d inadvertently written yourself into a corner, and that you honestly didn’t see yourself as blaming the victim, but as being pragmatic.  But as someone who was shot at yesterday, whose father-in-law was in the hospital because he had a fucking shotgun pellet behind his eye, who, as he dashed across the sanctuary to where his daughter was, saw on the way a friend covered in fucking blood which he later learned was her own, please allow me to tell you to take a minute and think about what you’re saying.

You drive down from goddamn Chelsea to Knoxville Tennessee and help me comfort a child back in one of the classrooms an hour after the shooting, a child exactly my son’s age, who’s sitting there with his mother’s blood on his fucking shirt.  You say that you’re horrified by the shooting.  You’re not.  You have no fucking idea. 

I’m sorry we weren’t pragmatic enough for you.  Perhaps we’ll learn our lesson and do better next time. 

I’m sorry.  I’ve got to go cool off.  I’ll be back to say more in a bit.

Comment #89: Salvador Dalai Llama  on  07/29  at  02:02 AM

No apology necessary, SDL.  None at all.

Comment #90: ummeli  on  07/29  at  11:30 AM

Salvador Dalai Llama, I’m so sorry that this discussion has added to your pain. I’m a UU (eastern Canada), and my heart goes out to you and your congregation.

It’s always so hard to find something meaningful to offer. My church is having a quiet vigil today at lunch, which I’ll be attending. I’ll be thinking of you and your fellow congregants with love.

Spirit of Life, come unto me.

Sing in my heart all the stirrings of compassion.

Blow in the wind, rise in the sea;

Move in the hand, giving life the shape of justice.

Roots hold me close; wings set me free;

Spirit of Life, come to me, come to me.

Comment #91: dangerbread  on  07/29  at  11:44 AM

At this very moment I am trying to visualize an age when every UU congregation can declare itself a “Welcoming Congregation” without the fear of becoming a target.

Comment #92: Philip David Morgan  on  07/29  at  02:14 PM

Thanks for the kind thoughts.  I’m sorry I was so angry above, but the relatively impersonal nature of the tubes makes it possible.  I was a bit unfair to O. in my comments, but it really did seem to me that the suggestion that “we should have thought it through more” made by someone who didn’t have any part of the deliberations was off-base. 

The service we had last night stirred up a lot of feelings in me—today’s actually been harder than Monday was, in part because I’m now actually processing the events rather than just going through “the next step that has to happen” and getting through the day. 

We sang “spirit of life” at the service last night, and closed with the cast of the play singing “Tomorrow.”

Comment #93: Salvador Dalai Llama  on  07/29  at  05:59 PM

Why am I not surprised that Opoponax’ position is once again “just shut your pieholes, you’re bothering the Normals”? At least now this atheist doesn’t feel like he’s being targetted. She (or he) is just an ass to everyone.

I’d like to give my sympathies and express my solidarity with the people who have been touched by this tragedy.

Comment #94: BlackBloc  on  07/29  at  08:47 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.