"It's gay awareness week."
That's what the killers said to Matthew Shepard before brutally beating and torturing him.
Eighteen hours after the prolonged beating a cyclist found Matthew, alive but unconscious, hanging on a fence (pictured right).
The cyclist initially mistook Matthew for a scarecrow.
Matthew was taken to Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado. He was in a coma. The autopsy later revealed that Matthew had been struck in the head 18 times with a pistol causing severe brain-stem damage. Matthew never regained consciousness. He died at 12:53 a.m. on October 12, 1998. He was twenty-two years old.
The Westboro Baptist Church attended Matthew's funeral.
They held up signs.
"No Tears for Queers"Many of us recall the news coverage of Matthew Shepard's death. The outcry was enormous, eventually leading to advocacy groups requesting that attacks made on the basis of sexual orientation be added to the federal definition of a hate crime. After numerous setbacks and a great deal of political posturing the legislation was finally passed in 2009 by the US Senate and House. President Obama signed the bill into law on October 28, 2009, eleven years after Matthew's death.
"Fag Matt in Hell"
...
People wonder from time to time why I write about the relationship between the gay community and the Christian church. It's not a comfortable topic where I live and work. But the answer is pretty simple.I'm haunted by the scarecrow hanging on the fence.
In James Cone's recent book The Cross and the Lynching Tree he makes the argument that the cross and the lynching tree need to form a dialectic. If the two are separated the cross becomes innocuous and meaningless. As Cone writes:Unfortunately, during the course of 2,000 years of Christian history, this symbol of salvation has been detached from any reference to the ongoing suffering and oppression of human beings...The cross has been transformed into harmless, non-offensive ornament that Christians wear around their neck.Cone argues that during the Civil Rights struggle the Christian symbol of salvation should have been, though it was not, connected with the lynching tree--an actual and ongoing location of human oppression and cruelty. For when the two become separated--when the cross hung around our neck or in our church fails to bring to mind current and ongoing locations of cruelty in our world--then the Christian faith has lost its way.
The cross, to be a truly Christian symbol, must bring to mind the lynching trees of the world.
Christ hangs from the cross as Blacks hung from trees. As Matthew Shepard hung from a fence.
Cursed scarecrows all.
As it says in the Good Book: "Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse." (Deut. 21.23)
Until we see Jesus standing with the cursed we will never understand the central symbol of our faith nor what it means to be a Christian.
Saul falls on his face on the road to Damascus. He looks into the blinding light and asks, "Who are you Lord?" And the reply comes: "I am the one you are persecuting."
Jesus hangs on the crosses of the world, from the trees and from the fences. It is as Elie Wiesel describes in his memoir Night. After watching a young boy hanged by the Nazis in the concentration camp:
Behind me, I heard a man asking:Though some might object to me drawing an equivalence between the history of African-Americans in the United States and that of the gay community, I don't want to put sorrows in the balance. Some may want to point out that gay persons are not being lynched and hung from the trees as Blacks were in the Jim Crow south. And because of this we might conclude that the fence of Matthew Shepard is an isolated incident, a crime committed by two hateful and deranged individuals. That the death of Matthew Shepard has nothing to do with me, has nothing to do with you, has nothing to do with the church.
"Where is God now?"
And I heard a voice within me answer him:
"Where is He? He is--He is hanging here on this gallows..."
And yet. And yet. I am haunted by the fence of Matthew Shepard.
As I reflect on my Christian walk I often ponder this question: If I had lived in Nazi Germany would I have stood up for the Jews?
Most Christians didn't. And as I psychologist I'm familiar with studies like the Stanford Prison study and the Milgram Obedience study. I'm aware that normal, god-fearing people can do horrible things when pressure is put upon them.
So what makes me so special? Statistically speaking, odds are I would have made a good Nazi.I also think a lot about the Civil Rights Movement in the US. I ask myself: If I had lived in the South would I have marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.? As Cone asks, would the cross in my church have made me think of the lynching trees in my nation? Would I have seen the connection?
Again, most Christians didn't.
And I keep wondering. Am I any different? What makes me think I'd be a courageous agent of light in those circumstances? Odds are I'd be just like everyone else.
And then I think about the fence of Matthew Shepard.
Let me tell you what keeps me up at night. My deepest fear in life is that I'm going to end up on the wrong side of God's history. Like so many Christians before me. My fear is that a moment will come when I am asked to stand up for those hanging on the trees, literally and symbolically, and I'll respond with "That has nothing to do with me. That has nothing to do with the church."
Where are the cursed scarecrows of this world? And does the sight of the cross bring them to mind?
I've read a lot of books and written a lot of words about Christian theology. But really, it's all pretty simple.
Jesus hangs from crosses, from trees and fences.
And to see that, like Saul on the Road to Damascus, is the day of your conversion.
The day you become a Christian.
All this talk of bravery and hanging on crosses... isn't Christianity supposed to be easy and comfortable? Isn't it supposed to give me access to social standing and a shot at political success? Isn't it supposed to allow me to feel like one of the righteous?
And here you are, asking me to admit the truth about myself... about us.
How rude.
(which is to say, thanks for the MLKJr Day reminders).
I have had these same thoughts; if I had lived in Nazi Germany, or during the Civil Rights Movement, would I have stood in solidarity with those who suffered and were persecuted? Lord have mercy on us, and strengthen us to *become* Christ-ones.
Thank you for writing this. This blog is such a blessing to me.
I try to keep the mood light here and there. Like posts about pink iPhones and pulling around bananas on a string... :-)
I'm often haunted by the thought that I don't have the courage to stand alone. When push comes to shove, I probably wouldn't stand up for others. But as a gay Christian, I thank you for this post.
Richard, I always appreciate your posts even when it seems you're wrestling with the issue and where you stand. You recognize the violence against LGBT persons, and you challenge yourself and fellow Christians to not stand for it.
However, I have some distaste for this post that I cannot quite put my finger on as to why. There is something about your comments about how you "don't want to put sorrows in the balance" that rubs me the wrong way. I think it's because as a gay person I hear lots of people, particularly Christians, minimize LGBT persons' experiences as a marginalized group and see the need to tell us that it's not as bad as the holocaust or slavery or other horrendous injustices committed against other marginalized groups. I realize that not all suffering is "equal" or on par, but the need to point that out somehow seems to miss the point and seems to be more of a defensive stance than anything else. I don't know. Just strikes me as slightly offensive.
Finally, on the one hand I appreciate the concern about being on the "wrong side of history" with this issue as with the past injustices you mentioned. That's a thoughtful way to examine your actions as a Christian. But on the other hand it seems so self-focused. Just be a person (Christian or otherwise) who does not tolerate, condone, or make excuses for homophobic comments and behaviors. Write a post that doesn't need to qualify to the reader that the gay experience is not like that of the African American in the U.S. or the Jew in Nazi Germany. Of course, these experiences are not the same, and I am glad that to a large extent the reactions to LGBT persons is not as depraved as the "Final Solution" or the institution of slavery.
I hesitate to post this comment for fear of being reactive and picky, but I do want to offer my response to your post as a gay person who grew up in the church and has some understanding of how it feels to be seen as sinful, "hellbound," and disgusting.
I have lived in North Central Texas all my life (1945). I did not stand with Dr. King.
I have a gay son who is 30. I made fun of gays, until I found out he was.
For these things, I am deeply ashamed.
I have spent my life since then correcting the situation.
I found this post incredibly moving and not offensive at all.
Peter denied Christ three times on the night before his crucifixion. Not many days later he preached the first gospel sermon on the day of pentecost. The Spirit moves in mysterious ways to perform his work in us, Our free will is many times resistant to God's will and sometimes we are just confused and trying to do God's will -- like Saul was before he became Paul -- but the Spirit has a way of taking our detours and using them to make us better than we would have been without the detour.
If we walk in the light as he is the light we have fellowship with him and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
Hi Michelle,
No need to apologize. Thanks for your response. Too much explaining on my part would appear defensive and I don't want to come across that way.
I just want to listen to you and learn.
Lost at where to go from here....how do I stand with the those hung?
If no where else - at the foot of the tree, fence, cross. Your presence makes the difference.
Isn't it good the good God gave you sight ? :) Be blessed.
Richard,
As a man who tries his best to be articulate, you have summed up the very cry of my heart. It scares me when I see the marginalized become mainstream simply because I'm afraid that those on the margins will forget what it was like......This also keeps me awake at night: That I will become numb or simply unaware of those mistreated in the world.
Grace and peace,
Derek
Pulling bananas around on a string ?
WOW - the mind boggles. You may not be gay - but you sure can talk like some of us. Humor is good. A lifesaver for us all a times. lol ;-)
Good observation, and applies in many arenas. Those who go from working on the floor to working in management invariably forget where they came from.
Derek,
I agree in that, it seems, whenever the marginalized become mainstream they seem to forget the affective force behind what made them the way they are, thus effectively becoming the majority that marginalizes. However, I've been thinking a lot about this lately and wondering if it's possible for a (sub-) culture (or society) to organize themselves around always making the "marginalized" a priority (much like Jesus did). Obviously this would be very difficult and necessarily be a continuously changing situation, but at the same time, the way I figure it there will always be those that are marginalized, right? Is such a thing even possible?
I'm just kinda thinking out loud (so to speak) a bit and am wondering if you (or anyone) have any thoughts. This somehow reminds me of Richard's post a few months back about the nature of institutions always protecting their own life (he used an example about working at ACU). In effect he was getting at the idea that an institution has its own culture that is bigger than the members, and when push comes to shove it will always protect the status quo. Since then I've wondered, "Is it possible for a culture to make intentionally orient its status quo around the idea of aligning itself with those marginalized within its own borders? Would such a thing be too self-defeating and impossible? What would it be like if an institution made the status quo a non-entity besides those who are the marginalized or at least live in solidarity with them?"
Anyone have any thoughts?
Once, I was close to a marriage where complaints of abuse so distorted the process of dialogue that the only way either spouse could be heard was by claiming to be abused.
I fear that orienting our status quo around the idea of aligning ourselves with the marginalized does not, alas, mean that we are peace-loving and other-serving. It merely means that we learn, pretty early, that people will not care about us, our needs, our ideas, even our personhood--unless we can pretend we are marginalized. Gays in gay-loving Hollywood make millions by pretending to be marginalized. Evangelicals in evangelical-loving Bible belt communities draw millions by pretending to be marginalized.
And meanwhile we can think we follow Jesus by picking which group to stand up for while choosing other groups to demonize (calling evangelicals Satanic, or married Christians failures)--because doggone it, we're on the side of the marginalized.
The odd language of hate crimes strongly implies that it will not be as bad of a thing if anyone ever hangs me on a fence post--because I am heterosexual. It will not be as bad a thing if my spouse injures me in a rage--because I am male. It will not be as bad a thing if I am beaten for racial reasons--because I am white.
Instead of being on the side of the marginalized, am I allowed to be on the side of people? I would have resisted the Nazis, because I would not have waited for my culture to declare that Jews were "marginalized" before standing up for them as people.
Once, I was close to a marriage where complaints of abuse so distorted the process of dialogue that the only way either spouse could be heard was by claiming to be abused.
I fear that orienting our status quo around the idea of aligning ourselves with the marginalized does not, alas, mean that we are peace-loving and other-serving. It merely means that we learn, pretty early, that people will not care about us, our needs, our ideas, even our personhood--unless we can pretend we are marginalized. Gays in gay-loving Hollywood make millions by pretending to be marginalized. Evangelicals in evangelical-loving Bible belt communities draw millions by pretending to be marginalized.
And meanwhile we can think we follow Jesus by picking which group to stand up for while choosing other groups to demonize (calling evangelicals Satanic, or married Christians failures)--because doggone it, we're on the side of the marginalized.
The odd language of hate crimes strongly implies that it will not be as bad of a thing if anyone ever hangs me on a fence post--because I am heterosexual. It will not be as bad a thing if my spouse injures me in a rage--because I am male. It will not be as bad a thing if I am beaten for racial reasons--because I am white.
Instead of being on the side of the marginalized, am I allowed to be on the side of people? I would have resisted the Nazis, because I would not have waited for my culture to declare that Jews were "marginalized" before standing up for them as people.
Hi Richard,
Discovered your blog about a month ago and have enjoyed it thus far. I especially enjoyed this post, particularly the imagery you've used to frame it. It's powerful and honest and I respect that. I hope you don't mind, I linked to this post on my latest blog as an example of Christians speaking out against injustice and why moderate Christians should be sharing their posts.
I hate to nitpick, but there's a point on which I would quibble a little bit. You mention that LGBT people are not being lynched and hung from trees. While this is technically true, it misses the larger picture. LGBT people are more often than not being bullied into suicide these days, especially children. 25-40% of homeless teenagers are queer, many of them kicked out after coming out, and roughly 40% of teen suicides attempts are related to the child's sexual orientation. Attempts to legislate against transgendered people are rampant, the most recent being a Tennessee bill that fines people for using dressing and restrooms that aren't for their sex rather than their gender. Similarly, there has been a rash of people getting set on fire, particularly at the end of last year, because of being perceived as LGBT.
This is not to try to weigh suffering either, but I think it's important to recognize that while you don't have the same form, the nature remains the same. We've spent two, going on three generations talking about how awful lynchings are, so they are no longer acceptable, therefore an appropriate substitute is found to satisfy the people for whom the very existence of others is unacceptable.
Again, really appreciate your work and hope that this bit of information can be folded in with the rest.
Hi Richard,
Discovered your blog about a month ago and have enjoyed it thus far. I especially enjoyed this post, particularly the imagery you've used to frame it. It's powerful and honest and I respect that. I hope you don't mind, I linked to this post on my latest blog as an example of Christians speaking out against injustice and why moderate Christians should be sharing their posts.
I hate to nitpick, but there's a point on which I would quibble a little bit. You mention that LGBT people are not being lynched and hung from trees. While this is technically true, it misses the larger picture. LGBT people are more often than not being bullied into suicide these days, especially children. 25-40% of homeless teenagers are queer, many of them kicked out after coming out, and roughly 40% of teen suicides attempts are related to the child's sexual orientation. Attempts to legislate against transgendered people are rampant, the most recent being a Tennessee bill that fines people for using dressing and restrooms that aren't for their sex rather than their gender. Similarly, there has been a rash of people getting set on fire, particularly at the end of last year, because of being perceived as LGBT.
This is not to try to weigh suffering either, but I think it's important to recognize that while you don't have the same form, the nature remains the same. We've spent two, going on three generations talking about how awful lynchings are, so they are no longer acceptable, therefore an appropriate substitute is found to satisfy the people for whom the very existence of others is unacceptable.
Again, really appreciate your work and hope that this bit of information can be folded in with the rest.
Thanks for this. I hope you know I'm in entire agreement with you.
To frame this a bit, regarding the comments in question I was trying to be sensitive to the Black experience and anticipate some criticism that could have been leveled from that community. In the post I'm a White man using the most painful symbol of their history in the US--the lynching tree--and comparing it to the fence of Matthew Shepard. That's a pretty risky thing I'm doing. Some in the Black community, particularly if they are conservative and non-affirming Christians, might object to that equivalence. My point in the post is that I don't want to get into "weighing sorrows" and to demonstrate that, yes, I can see a critique coming from that angle from the Black community. And yet, as I go on to argue in the post, there is an equivalence, even if one wants to debate me on the issue "which community suffered the most" point.
In short, by trying to anticipate and bracket criticism from that particular direction it appears that I've come across as doing what I didn't want to do in the first place (i.e., weighing sorrows). I hope people know my heart is in the right place.
I hesitate to comment because I don’t know you, Richard, and I hate to stir up any dissension here in your domain, but I feel compelled to reply and hope you will be patient with me.
Where are the cursed scarecrows of this world and who are we to take a stand for? I think the answer to that is pretty clear to Christians. We are to defend the weak and the fatherless, the poor and the oppressed, the downtrodden and outcast, anyone who cannot defend themselves. This includes defending Jews against the Nazis, African-Americans against the lynching tree, homosexuals against tyrants, ethnic groups against genocide, kids against bullies and even that “really strange” person in our school, office, or church against the laughter and comments made behind their back or even to their face. Injustice must be confronted.
However, defending the cursed scarecrows does not imply agreement with them. I’m sure elsewhere on this page I can find other writings of yours that would shed more light on this and possibly rebut everything that follows. To me it is a bit disconcerting equating homosexuality with being Jewish or being African-American. Though you say you don’t want to be seen as drawing a strict equivalence between those, anyone reading this would have to reach that conclusion to some degree. Being Jewish or African-American is not a sin. Homosexuality, along with many other behaviors, thoughts and attitudes, is. I realize that is not a popular statement and that the wrath of the general public would condemn it and call me homophobic. The truth is, however, I don’t fear sameness, and I don’t fear the general public’s condemnation. What I fear is a slow, gradual slide by those who represent Christ into condoning sin of all kinds. I am by no means a “hell-fire and damnation” Christian. I think there needs to be a middle ground somewhere that says to all of us who are enslaved to some sort of sin, “I love you but you’re destroying yourself by this.” If we believe in right and wrong, in sin, we must take this stand. By the way, this sin includes condoning the violence and hatred you describe, even if it is by our silence.
I can defend those who are persecuted, but still believe they need, like all of us, to submit to Christ and His plan for their lives, not their own. It’s what we’re called to do, the terrible dichotomy of Christianity.
Grace and peace.
"Instead of being on the side of the marginalized, am I allowed to be on the side of people?"
Indeed.
I can only describe how I see it. And here's how I see it. People who, say, spend too much money on themselves in a world where people starve to death (the sin of materialism that Jesus spoke a great deal about) aren't, generally speaking, targeted and beaten in the head 18 times with a pistol and hung on a fence to die. The point being, while I understand that many conservative Christians would say that, when it comes to the gay community, the category "sin" is more accurate than "persecuted group" it seems pretty clear that gays are targeted as people in ways most sin categories aren't. For example, effeminate boys are routinely bullied on school playgrounds. That has nothing to do with sin. These kids are being targeted as persons, as human beings. This continues into adulthood.
So while I can see your point that, in the eyes of many Christians, the category "gay" is different from the category "African-American," I hope you can see how, on my end, the category "gay" isn't a great fit for the category "sin" (at least in the way gay persons are targeted).
So in light of that difference, which model best describes what happened to Matthew Shepard or the kid bullied on the playground? Gay as sin? Or gay as persecuted minority?
Which best explains the scarecrow on the fence?
Thanks again Richard. I am grateful you are brave enough to speak on hard issues.
This reminds me of the debate that has been simmering in the Uniting Church in Australia (of which I am a minister), over sexuality. One of the cries of those on the 'homosexuality is sin' side of the debate, is that if the church supports non-heterosexuality then we are simply acquiescing to the dominant trend of contemporary society. My sense is that apart from in the arts (including if not especially film and television) non-heterosexuality is not mainstream, not acceptable, not welcomed, and definitely not loved. This argument is a red herring that obfuscates the truth of the world in which we live. The world you have so aptly exposed.
There are different ways to interpret what the Bible says about Homosexuality, but one thing isn't questionable. Jesus equated the way we treat others to the way we treat Him. Its bad enough we condemn Gays while ignoring our own offenses against God, but we compound the error by standing with those who commit the evil acts of violence.
As some here may know, I avoid these polarising debates on ET. For me, they are evidence that we're asking the wrong questions. I'm never going to argue someone into my way of thinking. For myself, I am convinced that God is intensely interested in the QUALITY of our relationships. I pray for you on your journey, Evarxn.
I frame things this way: when a person suffers, their suffering is the most real thing in the universe to them, and they don't need anyone's permission to mourn over their suffering. You can say that suffering as a group is different, that suffering over generations is different, but that difference doesn't really matter to Matt when he's beaten nearly to death, or to his parents when they get the call. At the foot of the cross or the lynching tree, you can achieve a kind of mental clarity that puts the pissing contest far away and grants every sufferer room to grieve.
Absolutely, I know you're in agreement. Again, I linked to this article as an example of what moderate Christians can do in support of equality, along with similar ones from John Shore, Rachel Held Evans, and Fred Clark. The thrust of my piece is that being "Christ-like" should mean being a rabble-rouser who speaks loudly and bravely against corrupt and unjust establishments. At least, that's the Jesus I read about. This sort of speaking out fits far more into my idea of "support" than "not actively being mean" as so many others seem to think.
I see where you're arguing that the equivalence is there. I think I missed it the first time around, but it's clear now. It is a very risky thing to suggest as we do see a whole lot of resentment coming out of black churches against the LGBT community. Just on Monday many of them partnered with anti-equality groups to protest the SPLC labeling those (the anti-equality groups) as "hate groups," and no small part of their arguments revolved around the idea that the SPLC was built on the black civil rights movement and the leaders of these churches feel like it's been appropriated by the gay community. I find this to be an incredibly depressing thing, as if these leaders are as offended by the idea that other people can be oppressed as they are about the conflict with their faith that they seem to see. Further, it's not even offense at the victimizers for oppressing people, but at the victims for taking away from the uniqueness of the black civil rights movement. I can't even be angry about that since it seems so very...I can only think of "sad" to be appropriate here.
I absolutely know your heart is in the right place. I adore your blog, it's on my Google Reader and I love what I learn from it. Thank you for your posts.
Nice Josh....
As for the weighing of sorrows concern, such concern can work and create dialog.
When I weigh the image of Matthew's fence above with the lynching tree used by Southern Christian Whites I see equation because of how I have come to see Jesus's crucifixion: people would rather lynch the threat of real love than risk entering into it.
As long as lynching is in play, I don't know that dialog can be had........
BTW, for those who have read Rene Girard (or his interpreters like Mark Heim or James Alison), this post is, at root, a Girardian take on salvation, a practical meditation on how the cross of Jesus saves us.
I'm sure a lot of you picked that up. Right?
I would think the purpose of posts like this is to show that you don't have to stand alone. There are people who will stand with you.
IN GOD WE TRUST?
Dr Beck (or Richard?), I wonder if public atheists fall under the cursed scarecrows category. I attended an atheist society lecture on Jesus as myth, and was a little surprised at the number of Christians who also attended, only to ask pedantic questions that tried to lead to prepared apologetic arguments. I was more surprised to find out about the amount of hate mail and threats that the atheist clubs on campus had received, largely from Christian groups on campus. These club are often unable to find faculty sponsors as well. It doesn't seem to be a very friendly environment for atheists on large college campuses here in the South - Dr Beck, I'm sure you can relate.
Even with Dawkins, Harris and the new atheists proclaiming loudly, atheists are still a marginalized group in America. Pat Tillman's beliefs definitely didn't make him any more likable before he was killed, and the backlash against any public atheists in general (esp here in the south) is frightening. There are significantly fewer atheists or even non-religious people in office, and publicly atheist symbols seem to get people in trouble (http://xpalmer.podbean.com/2011/11/14/our-adopt-a-street-sign-has-been-vandalized/, with other circulating stories of vandalism on cars with atheist bumper stickers). If Jesus stood up for the cursed scarecrows - those marginalized in society - I think he probably would have stood up for such atheists on campus as well. And even if they aren't the most marginalized group in society, defending them (or at least their rights) is something I've heard very few churches talk about. And maybe, just maybe, this is a way for us to really practice loving our "enemies".
Thank you for this thoughtful and perhaps, to some, provocative post. I know some will quibble about the post because of the conviction that homosexuality is a sin. Be that as it may, what comes to my mind are the words of the Apostle Paul that "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5.8). Christians and churches do not need to condone or concede a particular behavior to stand up for those who are suffering. How we respond, how I respond, is a good measure of just how much the grace of God is really understood. Again, thank you for this post.
Ta-Nehisi Coates's idea of a "muscular empathy" might be helpful here:
This basic extension of empathy is one of the great barriers in understanding race in this country. I do not mean a soft, flattering, hand-holding empathy. I mean a muscular empathy rooted in curiosity. If you really want to understand slaves, slave masters, poor black kids, poor white kids, rich people of colors, whoever, it is essential that you first come to grips with the disturbing facts of your own mediocrity. The first rule is this--You are not extraordinary. It's all fine and good to declare that you would have freed your slaves. But it's much more interesting to assume that you wouldn't and then ask "Why?"
from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/a-muscular-empathy/249984/
This is one of the most moving and meaningful blog posts I have ever read, and I am not trying to be hyperbolic. I have been reading your blog for several years now, and often post links to it on other social media sites, but I have never commented before. Thank you for this. I deeply appreciate what you have to say.
I read this yesterday, but couldn't comment. There are just times when you can't, because you would short out your keyboard with your tears. So today I've put the ugly neoprene keyboard shield on my laptop in order to say two words:
Thank you.
It's incredibly hard to change your mind. Especially about something that big.
Thank you. You're inspirational.
it will not be as bad of a thing if anyone ever hangs me on a fence post--because I am heterosexual.
The thing is, while it would indeed be a very, very terrible thing if someone hung you on a fence-post, no, it would not be as bad-- because it would only be hurting you and people who know you personally. A lynching does two things: it tortures and kills one individual-- but it also sends a message to everyone else in that group: "We hate you and we will do this to you, too, if you don't know your place. Or maybe just because we feel like it." A lynching is an act of terrorism-- it's meant to scare everyone else who is like the person who was lynched, make sure they know they're vulnerable and the authorities will not protect them.
Odds are pretty good that even if someone did do such a terrible thing to you, they would be aiming it at you personally, not straight white guys. If they were aiming at straight white guys, it's likely that politicians and the police (most of whom are straight white guys) would work very hard to stop them. That wasn't the case for African-Americans during Jim Crow, nor for GLBTQ people even ten years ago. So it's different.
That said, you standing up for us as people is awesome, and I as a queer person very much welcome your support, whatever your reasons. Thank you!
Actually Jonathan if you were beaten for racial reasons it wouldn't matter that you were white. The law does not say blacks, women, or LGBT (in fact it leaves out the T altogether, a fact which concerns many people). It instead refers to crimes motivated by the victims race, gender, or sexual orientation. This is because crimes like that have an additional aspect of violence against the community rather than just the person.
Matthew Shepherd wasn't hung on the fence just because HE was gay. It was done to remind anyone else in the community who was gay that this level of violence could be waiting for them as well. It was a terrorist act and as such had an entire class of victims in addition to Matthew. That is what hate crime laws recognize and seek to find redress for the community impacted as well as the individual.
When Christ defended the harlot from being stoned, he didn't add a caveat "not that I approve of her actions or anything; I mean I would want you guys to think she's not guilty, but..." He defended her without reservation, calling upon "he who is without sin [to] cast the first stone." Christ also calls us to attend the beam in out own eye before calling attention to the mote in our neighbour's. I think we need to stop talking about the sin of our gay neighbours (they've heard it before! They know!) and start really loving them. Christ didn't call you to judge them, but to love them.
Umm. . . . read the story more carefully. He defended her in a context that assumed she had been sinning ("he who is without sin cast the first stone" would sound stupid and irrelevant if they were just going to stone her for being black). He then told her to "go and sin no more." I'm all about defending, to the hilt, with my life, anyone (gay or otherwise) who is being bullied. But that doesn't mean I have to be afraid of the truth.
Wonderful response. I think the category of "gay as sin" is irrelevant to many discussions, including a discussion of Matthew Shepard. Bullies don't beat him up because he's a sinner.
I actually have no idea why they did beat him up, and therefore am not sure whether anything that is said about "gays" per se would help here (if we persuaded them to love gays, would they just find someone else to beat up?). I'm struck by the fact that many kids bullied on playgrounds, even many who are called "fag," are not in fact gay--it seems to be a very thin excuse to bully, rather than a reason for bullying.
But I don't know the research, and I do know that whether (or not) Matthew should have changed his behavior has little to do with this story.
Well (and kindly) put. I appreciate this.
Perhaps I am simply rejecting the intended message of the "lynching." I actually don't believe that what was done to Matthew only "terrorizes" gay people--that I should only feel sympathy (for a marginalized group that isn't me), but not terror. I believe that every time violence is done to human, it is done to me and to my group--it scares/ terrifies me, because I know that I am vulnerable (any time a group of bullies doesn't like what they see in me) and the authorities cannot protect me, either.
I do not identify with a community called "all straight white guys." I identify with a community called "people." The terrifying abuse of Matthew was aimed directly at my community, and terrorizes me. I happen to believe that politicians and police TODAY (not decades ago) are working slightly harder to help identify/ protect politicized voting blocks (whether "gay" or "conservative" or "black") than they are at working to protect people.
I am glad you welcome my support--but I do not offer it as a separate, non-oppressed, non-terrorized, "Other." I offer it as a member of your community. I, too, am human.
I believe that every time violence is done to human, it is done to me
and to my group--it scares/ terrifies me, because I know that I am
vulnerable
Yeah, violence in general is scary, I agree. People hurt each other for lots of reasons, and the cops can't be everywhere, and it's upsetting.
But you don't have to be afraid of the people like the ones who went after Matthew Shephard, because they won't come after you (the way they would come after me). That's because they didn't want to kill a human-- they specifically wanted to kill a gay human. So don't worry-- they won't hurt you at all. You don't have to be scared of them.
You could be angry at them, for hurting people in your community of humanity. That would make sense. But gay-bashers are no real threat to you if you're not gay.
(Or don't, you know, look gay.)
As a general message to the Christians claiming that they can/will/support
protecting Queer people from harm, while still claiming homosexuality is
a sin: Don't. Please. Stop it.
When you say homosexuality is a sin,
you are saying I am a sin. That all of us that are queer are sins. I
exist. I am queer. Those two statements can't be separated. There is no
straight 'I' to exist. There is me, queer and existing, or me, not queer
and not existing. There is no third option.
You can't excise the gayness out of me, like cutting a tumor. It's not
something I only turn on when I see a pretty girl or hold hands with her
in public. It's who I am, everything I am and ever will be. It's my
mind, shaped by a lifetime of caution and slow-burning anger, of fear
and love and hope and fury. It's my heart, bruised and but still
beating, guarded against further wounds. I'm queer from my soul outward.
It's not something easily shaken.
So when you say you would defend us, even though you think we shouldn't exist? It doesn't work. The guard can't wear the enemies' colors. You are the threat we need to be defended from.
Say it. Say it out loud. 'I want gay people not to exist.' Claim the poison that you brew.
This, I think, is the challenge for Christians who want to be maximally loving toward gays while maintaining the church's witness that homosexuality (like most forms of heterosexuality) is not ultimately constitutive of what humans are called to be. This is what makes homosexuality different.
I would be willing to stipulate that my heterosexual sins are far worse than your homosexual activity. I would be willing to stipulate that I am far too busy hating my own sins to even want to bother hating yours. Yet I can't get over one hurdle: I can accept love from someone who does not approve of my behavior, and you cannot.
Love is far more important than opposing sin--in fact, opposing sin need not come up. But what do I do when you refuse to accept my love unless I accept that your particular way of being is "everything you are and ever will be"; that even the WISH (even if I don't express it) that you be transformed is tantamount to "not wanting you to exist"?
Again, I run into this in marriages where "abuse" is labeled not accepting what I want you to accept about me, i.e., disagreeing with me. I would love to talk about Matthew Sheppard and the church's response to violence without bringing up the extremely minor doctrine that homosexuality is a sin. But I can't. Because at least some gays basically tell me that until I change my faith and agree with them, I might as well be hanging them on a fence. It's a deeply troubling dilemma.
O.K. Sorry for sounding like I am arguing, or trying to minimize your own particular terror, as I try to express solidarity. I'm guessing that you are telling me that those who identify as homosexual are far less safe than I, just as blacks were in the 60s or Jews in Nazi Germany. You're probably right, and I need to respect that.
I would like to see your point backed up by actual evidence (e.g. statistics) rather than simply a label ("gay-bashers"). I don't know anyone who hates/ dehumanizes gay people who doesn't also hate/ dehumanize a lot of other "types" of people. Children are bullied when they are unpopular or different for many reasons; and as you point out, anyone can be mistaken for homosexual (I have been). The KKK attacked plenty of groups besides blacks, and Nazis didn't just kill Jews. I'm sure I'm safer than you--in some places, at some times. But I think that if Hollywood ever succeeds in convincing this society that gays are normal, wonderful, human, cuddly, wise, witty, popular, cool, and every other positive thing--the people who beat up Matthew Shepard will simply start in on the next group that is NOT so popular. Which is why I still feel scared, and why I still want to stand up for people rather than shuffle oppressed groups around.
Thanks, by the way, for explaining this a bit better for me. I really appreciate your taking the time to help me understand.
Janet, just for curiosity's sake, who is the object of your accusatory "we"? Who, in other words, actual stands with those who commit these evil acts of violence? And if you are not one of them, why do you refer to these weird people as "we"?
Thank you for this post, it has challenged me to my core as an individual and as a minister in Christ's church.
Jonathan,
I've been meaning to get back with you. Overall I think you make some great points, both in reply to my original comment and throughout this discussion following.
However, while I think the idea of "standing up for people" sounds great in theory, to me, the reality of the situation always comes down to the question, "Which people?" When cultures come into conflict, choices must be made, and these choices will inevitably lead people to support one group over another. I cannot be somehow disconnected from a situation trying to be "on the side of people" when people are dying. I choose to either actively be on the side of the marginalized, working to help those who are being persecuted, or I stand by and let those with power do what they wish to those without.
Of course, you raise another great point by saying that often Christians choose to stand up for one group meanwhile demonizing the others. But this doesn't necessarily have to happen. It is unfortunate, yes, but not necessary. I do not believe every Nazi was a demon, but I do believe that, collectively, they're actions were demonic, and it is a offense to the reality Jesus instituted that millions were allowed to die like that.
Overall, like I said, I think you make a lot of great points. Unfortunately (to be honest and NOT trying to be offensive), I'm not sure how tenable it is for your objections to play out in reality. I agree that we need to stand up for all people instead of shuffling groups to support, but over a long enough period of time, with the Church Universal collectively standing up and speaking out against injustice in its myriad forms, "people", that is, ALL people, will be supported. But in specific situations, when push comes to shove and cultures clash, following Christ, I think, means standing up for those who don't have power, those who are being targeted, persecuted, eradicated.
I think foremost, though, for straight, white guys in late western suburban society, is admitting an overall lack of knowledge in these areas. It's not like many of them really have much first-hand knowledge of real injustice done to them. While you may not identify yourself with some general grouping of "straight white guys", that doesn't change the fact that you are and that you will be treated differently than those who are not like you, and you do not have to consider the same things as part of your daily life as does a black, gay, or (insert other descriptor) person does. However, both through your language in this most recent comment and in your first reply to me, it seems that you think you need to fear some forces of Hollywood or law-making authorities who are trying to impose a reality on you that you don't agree with.
Like I said, overall, "standing up for people" is, indeed, what Christians should be doing, but Christ made a point to emphasize standing up for those who can't do it for themselves. Would I have resisted the Nazi's? I'd like to think so, but if we're being honest about it (as Richard is in this post), statistics say that's unlikely, and perhaps 20 years from now I will look back on my actions now and wonder why I wasn't doing something more. I do not wish to feel some kind of certitude about my own magnanimity about standing up for people. I think it is wise to be suspicious, like you are, about what our secular culture is telling us about who is marginalized, but, at the same time, if we're on the side of all people, then I suppose that means reaching out in solidarity for even the people who perceive being oppressed, whether that's true or not.
AJ, this is to you--if anyone is still reading here.
I appreciate your perspective. You may well be right.Still, I object to the "bait and switch" in which people sound like they are calling Christians to have compassion and fight gross oppression, identifying Jesus' sufferings in the violence toward people like Matthew Shepard--a call which any Christian, anywhere, resonates with (or ought to).But then the "switch" comes--somehow, answering this call, having compassion, fighting oppression, protecting Matthew Shepard, and so forth simply DOESN'T COUNT if I don't agree with your theoretical lens (I call it conflict-theory sociology) in which "the reality of the situation" requires that I "actively be on the side of" a politicized identity-group. (As an aside, in most of these discussions "justice" and "anti-violence" also means I have to approve of violence and injustice on behalf of the marginalized.)I'm not here to argue sociological theory. If I were, presumably you would be expected to supply actual evidence that "standing up for" gays/ blacks/ Jews is more "tenable" than "standing up for" peaceable neighborliness, or that groups who have extra legislative protection and media attention are really being "overlooked," or that those who DID oppose the Nazis thought more like you (choosing to identify and fight for the "marginalized") rather than like me (choosing to be decent to everyone). If we ever had the discussion, fairly, with evidence, you might persuade me that my (functionalist) sociology is worse or less biblical than your (conflict theory) sociology.Yet I've never had the discussion fairly. All I've been told, so often it makes me want to scream, is that disagreeing with a particular theory/ strategy means I do not "get the gospel" or "love Matthew Shepard" or "stand up against oppression."
Another wonderful post Richard. Girard would argue that lynching and scapegoating are not just one among many possible sins, but something like the epitome of sin, since it is precisely as one lynched and scapegoated that the structure and dynamic of original sin is exposed and the dominion of death is undone. It seems to me that this highlights the triviality of the response that homosexuality might be sinful
Jonathan,
Thanks for your response. I, at least, am still reading. I agree to what you have to say here, especially with the last couple of sentences because I can relate to it pretty well. The only caveat that jumps out to me is quite simply this: I think it's a false dichotomy to somehow assume that fighting for the marginalized is somehow at the expense of being decent to everyone. While fighting for one side tends to usually go hand-in-hand with NOT being decent to the other, I don't think that it's necessary nor the true way of Christ. A more practical example, I think, would be the various "passive resistance" movements, of which MLK Jr and Ghandi come to mind among others.
I'm certainly with you on the point of always hearing about what I "don't get" from the marginalized groups simply because I am a middle-class white guy in America. While I guess I do have a bit of my own "white guilt" to deal with, I also have decided that me "getting it" is not as important as their side of the story, and I'm willing to simply defer any views I may have on their particular situation to the honest reflection and beliefs that they have about it. I may not see it that way, but, perspective is everything.
As far as debating things of this nature and possible solutions to these kinds of problems, I have no idea what it would mean to have a "fair discussion with evidence". I don't know what kind of "objective" evidence could possibly be brought to the table to actually prove "decisive" to any degree. As Nietzsche said, there are no facts - only interpretations. It is, in part, because of this that I believe in Christ, because everyone will have their interpretation, and most will clamour to prove theirs as the right way to understand the situation (thus is the course of history), but instead He calls us to die. Instead of arrogantly asserting our own identity as necessary, He negates all by insisting that willingly dying to such things is all that can set anything back to right. And that is supernatural.
Thank you Evarxn for not being afraid to write and for writing such a well written response. I agree with you fully. It was deeply encouraging to read what you wrote.
Thanks. We're not disagreeing much. I never meant to say that "being decent to everyone" had to be sacrificed if I tried to view the whole world through the "who is marginalized?" lens. I agree that I have to listen to lots of people's stories, and not worry about "not getting" some things.
Perhaps all I disagree about is the importance of evidence. Call me an academic rationalist if you like, but I want to closely examine whether the "story" and "conclusions" match.
Story: Matthew Shepard. Conclusions: we should apply the cross of Christ to identity-groups and define gays as marginalized
Story: many Germans did not stand up to the Nazis
Conclusions: whites who love their neighbors but don't engage in my style of social protest are probably harboring some demonic hateful blind spot) match
Story: Jesus saved an adulterous woman from stoning on the grounds that other people sin too, then called her to stop sinning. Conclusions: Jesus cares about compassion, not judging people's sins.
And so forth. These stories may match their conclusions; they may not. The attempt to actually ask whether they do, rather than merely asserting that they do, is what I call "fairness."
Any statement you make about what is "tenable," or what is "Jesus' way," requires that I simply take your word for it--that you (and not I) know how the world works, that you (and not I) really know Jesus. And you've accomplished these rather startling claims, not by actually giving me any reasons for thinking they are true, but merely by subtly threatening that if I don't agree with you, you'll equate me with those who killed Matthew Shepard or colluded with the Holocaust.
Yes. Until you change, you are aligned with those who killed Mathew Sheppard. Because this is homosexual behavior: I breathe. My heart beats. I grieve my father. I love my mother, I worry for a friend. I play with my cat. I write. I read this post. And I hurt, down to the bone, from living every day in a world that makes me feel unsafe and unwanted. Your love says, do not be yourself. Your love says, let me change everything you are. Your love says, you are not okay. Your love is poison, sapping my strength.
Every day, the world is filled with people trying to destroy me. I need to be careful, about who I open myself to. Because the world is a dangerous place for a queer little girl to grow up in, and a dangerous place for a queer women to live. There are wounds that go too deep to heal, and all I can do is protect myself from further damage.
And I have had enough of that poisonous, destroying love. The world is full to the top with that sort of hateful love, and I don't need any more of it. I hurt, and I hurt, and I hurt. I hurt, and I do not have the luxury of trust, because any deeper, and these wounds will become the sort that kill. You are too dangerous a threat to trust. Ever. I will never trust you, I will never accept your love, because I want to live, and your love will kill me.
Amoris Divini,....Divine Love. Is is true that although God is love,..love is not God? Is love something that can only be good or can we love something that is morally bankrupt? - https://theologiae.com
In light of your post above and since I speak and write on this very topic, I thought you'd find this blog of particular interest (link below). Feel free to surf the "Archives" page as well. If you like, tell me what you think.
-Alex Haikenhttp://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Last one from me here--the conversation's moving on.
Yes, I think that there are two simultaneous conversations--one recommending a particular sociology, and one claiming that this sociology is THE way to be compassionate and follow Jesus and not murder Matthew Shepard. So yes, I think that the conversation about which sociology to follow is tainted by rhetorical threat--if not from you, then certainly elsewhere on this blog post and its comments. (See most recently, above, where my love is flatly rejected because it is centered in her humanity rather than in her gaynesss--and she explicitly says that all who disagree with her align with Matthew's killers.)
I'm a fan of Pirsig too, but when I say "evidence" or "fairly examined" I don't mean to imply that there is only one way of connecting story to conclusion, or that people don't have blind spots, or that I am objective. I just think that there are some ways of carrying on a conversation that ask everyone to at least try to articulate why a particular story leads them to the conclusions they draw, and to consider other possible conclusions, and not to assume ahead of time who has the blind spots or where they lie. I don't see that sort of fairness at work on this topic, but maybe I am unfairly conflating you with other (smart, wise) people, on this thread and in my academic life, who seem to use words like "on the side of the marginalized" or "listening to people's stories" to shut down fair discussion, i.e., discussion that doesn't beg the very questions being asked.
Thanks for your time.
There are times in life, though, where you have to make a choice about stepping forward, alone, or at least without a crowd. I don't think I've done a very good job at them in my life. It's certainly much easier to stand with others. But deep down I'm not really convinced I wouldn't say "That has nothing to do with me" when I really had to walk the walk. Ironically, this is mostly about other things than being a gay Christian.
Thanks for posting. I almost didn't read this because of the length, but I'm glad I did.
I'm not from the south, so I don't know what it's like there, but as a college student in California, I can tell you that Atheist groups are far from discouraged or persecuted here. In fact, quite the opposite. Christian groups are refused school funds constantly around here that any other type of group has access to. The reasoning given is usually that the school doesn't want to offend anyone by allowing the Christian groups to put on events. Meanwhile the Atheist, Muslim, etc. groups use the same funds to host events publicly ridiculing Christianity. So if the Atheists are persecuted in the south, know at least that it is not the case throughout the country. As a Christian student at a University in California, I'd claim the same persecutions the Atheists claim in the south. We're basically not allowed to say anything about our faith in public settings in order to "safeguard religious freedom."
Taking up solidarity with the sins of humanity, perhaps. I like to use we because it reminds me that we're all corrupt and I'm not any better, and who knows where I'd be if I was raised like they were. It's not an us vs them, but a collective effort, and a collective responsibility.
This is definitely something I encountered when I was on the "Homosexuality is sin" side of the debate. No matter how I twisted and turned with it I couldn't accept it. It conflicted too much with the reality. In the end, I couldn't run with it anymore. It was either drop Christianity entirely, or retract my view that homosexuality was sin. Things like that were a big stumbling block to my faith - why something as progressive as Christianity condone this clearly human vice of homophobia (in addition to misogyny and slavery)?
Of course, I think in a completely different way now, and the Bible is a different book to me now, but I could never sacrifice humans to the book, or even to God.
Why Metthew Shepard was killed, only he & his killers know. But here's l the the truth about who Matthew Shepard was in the last year of his life before October 1998 which gets minor talk. MW Shepard was described by acquaintances, even some friends as 'obnoxious, moody and arrogant.' He chose University of Wyo of all the universities he was accepted into, but he then put down the University and town of Laramie. Yes, it was his free speech right to say that but the point is that he had no appreciation of the college who tried to educated him. But there are 2 things he did which are worse.
Matthew (Methew Wayne) Shepard frequently feared he had AIDS, but continued to be promiscuous including getting drunk and using Ecstasy encounters in bars. He was a reckless person who did not care. He had PTSD and depression, but he worsened this by being a drunkard and junky. This information comes from friends and acquaintances who knew him & the information about Matthew Shepard's Meth use was revealed by friends on 20/20 in Nov. 2004, but this was known for years. Most media avoided discussing this because they didn't want to insult a dead person.
In August 1998, a drunk Metthew W. Shepard harassed a bartender in Cody Wyoming. He asked the bartender for a walk around lake, after which the bartender said no. But rather than end it, he kept asking him repeatedly, grabbed the bartender's arm & jacket, threatened him with comments such as 'you're afraid of what I can do to you' after which the bartender decked him, k/o him. The next day, Shepard made up story to Cody cops about being homosexually gang raped by 3, but the medical tests disproved him as no sex happened. Cops interviewed bartender, waitress who saw what happened & concluding the bartender self-defended against a drunk Shepard, no charge was filed. The excuse Judy Shepard has made for this is that her son had PTSD, was drunk and that once the tests disproved him, he 'dropped' the charge-when it's the cops who do so. Maybe Mw Shepard believed his story-only he knows his intent. But he chose to worsen his PTSD with drugs & alochol. Once the Cody cops concluded the bartender's story was true, they should have arresed Shepard for assault and battery and falsely reporting crime, but why the did not is unknown. Yes, his October 1998 killing is another topic, but him being a crime victim in October 1998, did not make him a good person. He mistreated people poorly before his death who mixed alcohol and drugs with anti-depressants who in the end was killed by 2 men.
My post earlier was to discuss who Methew Wayne Shepard was in the last year of his life-his killing by 2 men is to me incidental. I see something wrong with homosexual/lesbian activities & believe it's comparable to drug junkyism by 2 adults. I would make it a crime to do sex changes. With homosexuality/lesbianism, they should try to find a cure for this. Yes, the laws of U.S. allow this. But my point about Methew Wayne Shepard is that him being a crime victim in October 1998 didn't change the fact that he mistreated others in the last year of life.
Do people who mourn Methew W. Shepard see anything wrong with him committing assault&battery on the Cody bartender 2 months before his death & then the next day falsely accusing him? If a straight man with a history of sexually harassing women was killed the same way Shepard was in an unrelated crime, there are people who wouldn't sympathise with the straight man by saying that because he mistreated women by sexually harassing them, they can't mourn him being killed in an unrelated crime. Methew Wayne Shepard mistreated others & I see something wrong with him falsely accusing some1 of a crime the man didn't do. If the Cody cops in August 1998 had arrested Methew Wayne Shepard for assault&battery + Falsely reporting crime when they had proof, his October 1998 death may have been avoided. He shouldn't have been in Laramie, he should've been in a Cody jail as they had enough proof for jury to have convicted him of assault&battery. Methew Wayne Shepard mistreated others but most media didn't mention this because often because of media bias, not wanting their advertisers boycotted by gay/lesbian groups. Both Harvey B. Milk who committed homosexual statutory rape on 16 year old boy in 1964 & Methew Wayne Shepard have become famous martrys. But both people mistreated others & being killed in unrelated crimes doesn't change who they were before their deaths.
Richard, something about gay bashings. Those topics must be decided by juries whether it's assault&battery & in murder cases juries decide if it's 1st, 2nd or Manslaughter after hearing both prosecutor & defense. But gay bashings are almost always he says he says cases. The gay will say that he was victim of unprovoked violence while the man who bashed or killed the gay said he did so after the gay committed a criminal act. Richard, if a gay is going to be anti-social such as let's say a gay pinches a man's butt or groin against his will, the gay is committing a crime which is assauLT&battery if intent isn't sexual to something more serious such as sex abuse if intent is. If the man reacts by punching the gay once or twice, then it's self-defense as it's just force. If he kills the gay, it's often excess force but jury decides & perhaps go for manslaughter rather than murder 2. But the man did react or overreact to a crime the gay did which was @least assault&battery. IF I were to go around grabbing women's butts & boobs against her will, i'd be in jail. if the woman or her husband beat me up some wouLD SAY I deserved it. So if a gay is going to commit assault&battery by pinching the man's butt after which the man bashes or kills the gay, the man committed his gay bashing in reaction to a crime the gay did. Gay bashing cases are not always so easy.
Richard Beck, why MW Shepard was killed only he & his killers know. But being a crime victim in October 1998 didn't make him good. MW Shepard before that October 1998 day was regarded by many incl. friends as moody, obnoxious & self-centered. If you want a source on MW Shepard’s history before October 1998, well 1 place where I got information about him being moody, obnoxious & self-centered was this 2002 link http://boards.straightdope.com.....04142.html where a homosexual who tells unpleasant truth about MW Shepard. I’ve quoted what the homosexual W. Panic Stopes wrote here on March 15, 2002 & the link again is here htttp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-104142.html“03-15-2002, 06:43 PM W. Panic Snopes Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Let me first register my stats: I’m a 35-year-old agnostic openly gay male teacher in some order and I feel justified in saying that I don’t have self-loathing baggage, religious or otherwise. That declared, I have to admit that, maddening as the martyrdom of Matthew Shepard by ignorant bar trash was, his martyrdom by the gay community is just as sickening.
BIG DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE THE KILLING OF MATTHEW SHEPARD OR IN ANY WAY STATE THAT HE DESERVED TO DIE
Matthew Shepard was, by all accounts, a miserable human being in all senses of the term. In addition to suffering from chronic depression he was described by many, including friends, as moody, arrogant, obnoxious, and self-centered. When a straight bartender he liked spurned his advances and cursed him, Matthew responded by charging him with attempted rape (not a rumor, but public record; in his “defense”, he later dropped the charges). He chose the University of Wyoming out of all schools he could get into yet is said to have continually denigrated both town and gown (you all know the type), and his past seems to have leant towards the promiscuous………Matthew Shepard is the totem pole for everything from pro-hate crime legislation factions to all manner of tolerance organizations, the kid that few liked becoming overnight just short of “a god in Colchester”. ”
As you see, the person who wrote that about MW Shepard was a gay teacher, it’s not just us straights like who tell the ugly truths about MW Shepard’s anti-social conduct. The reporter @ Big Island Chronicle www.bigislandchronicle.com got mad when I raised these facts. But as a reporter, the news she covers including MW SHepard is open to critique by the readers. IMO she is held to higher standard because she is a reporter & she has no right to complain when posters come up with truths she hates because she either leaves them out or gives minor talk to. MW Shepard treated people poorly & in the end he was treated poorly by being killed by 2 men.
Truth about who Methew Wayne Shepard was in the last year of his life before October 1998. MW Shepard was described by acquaintances, even some friends as 'obnoxious, moody and arrogant.' He chose University of Wyo of all the universities he was accepted into, but he then put down the University and town of Laramie. Yes, it was his free speech right to say that but there are 2 things he did which are worse.
1. Matthew Shepard frequently feared he had AIDS, but continued to be promiscuous including getting drunk and using Ecstasy encounters in bars. He was a reckless person who did not care. He had PTSD and depression, but he worsened this by being a drunkard and junky. This information comes from friends and acquaintances who knew him & the information about Matthew Shepard's Meth use was revealed by friends on 20/20 in Nov. 2004, but this was known for years.
2. In August 1998, a drunk Metthew W. Shepard harassed a bartender in Cody Wyoming. He asked the bartender for a walk around lake, after which the bartender said no. But rather than end it, he kept asking him repeatedly, grabbed the bartender's arm & jacket, threatened him with comments such as 'you're afraid of what I can do to you' after which the bartender decked him, k/o him. The next day, Shepard made up story to Cody cops about being homosexually gang raped by 3, but the medical tests disproved him as no sex happened. Cops interviewed bartender, waitress who saw what happened & concluding the bartender self-defended against a drunk Shepard, no charge was filed.
The excuse Judy Shepard has made for this is that her son had PTSD, was drunk and that once the tests disproved him, he 'dropped' the charge-when it's the cops who do so. Maybe Mw Shepard believed his story-only he knows his intent. But he chose to worsen his PTSD with drugs & alochol. Once the Cody cops concluded the bartender's story was true, they should have arresed Shepard for assault and battery and falsely reporting crime, but why the did not is unknown. Yes, his October 1998 killing is another topic, but him being a crime victim in October 1998, did not make him a good person. He treated people poorly before his death who mixed alcohol and drugs with anti-depressants. Even if you distrust his 2 killers stories, those are facts about Shepard told by his own friends & family which are fact, including the excuse his mom makes for the Cody incident.
METHEW Wayne Shepard was who he was.
1 thing to add, why Shepard was killed only he and his killers know and only he knew what was in his mind. It's possible
that circumstances could be different. If his killers story is true about Shepard 1st grabbing his killer's groin against will after which
his killer reacted violently by hitting him with gun 18 times and then tying him to fence, then he did react to crime-assault and battery
But here's something to consider some1 said-MW Shepard had depression and not long before his death he learned he had AIDS.
MW Shepard had mixed Extasy with antidepressants and had contemplated suicide. It's possible that on that day, he had
suicide wish where he grabbed his killer's groin with hope that the killer would react violently. Yes, it's speculation and only he
and his killer's know, but it's possible that MW Shepard with his depression, AIDS & suicide contemplation could've done this
and people have done suicides this way such as suicide by cops where a person run at police with a knife or points a gun at police
with hope the cops will shoot them dead. Only Shepard knew what was in his mind that day.
METHEW Wayne Shepard was a drug junky who used Meth Ecstasy so Methew Wayne Shepard is who he was.
METHEW Wayne Shepard was a drug junky who used Meth Ecstasy so Methew Wayne Shepard is who he was.
METHEW Wayne Shepard's who he was.
Hey Dr. Beck, your post reminded me of a project I recently conducted. We shot a video to see if we could retell people the story of the cross in a way that they might not expect and get a candid response to the crucifixion. The results didn't disappoint. If you're interested you can find it here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151588462859896&set=vb.671554895&type=3&theater
I have to say Evarxn Richard pointed out everything you said in his post he talks about how we can say anything post event but if we are challenged in the present, would we truly rise to a christ like occasion, you have answered no by what you posted being we are living in the infancy of the homosexual civil rights movement. . .in the times of the african american civil rights movement Mormonism (The Church of Christ of latterday saints) depicted the african race as direct descendants of lucifer's fallen angel's after the struggle for heaven, a Godless people and I am sure they shared your belief you can champion for the weak without condoning their existance or acknowledging the divine rights given to us all you fail to see the bigger picture which is Matthew Shepard died for being gay, African Americans died for being black, and Jesus died for being the son of God. . .now think what do these three have in common?. . .the answer is they all died as a result of being born that way into worlds lacking social evolve and moralistic absolution. . .so have confidence that you as a Christian and being Christ-like are absolute in saying Homosexuality is a sin because the Jews were just as absolute when they affirmed among themselves the same label for the Lord of Miracles you lay prayer to. . .and to regards of Jews who suffered the nazi Holocaust you will find there in lies another piece of homosexual history where prisoners of the concentration camps who were deemed perverts and homosexual were given a patch on their uniforms of an "inverted pink triangle" that would later be a symbol for gay pride in the 1970's and the jews were only the beginning of the nazi movement had they won every race except the Arians would be purged from the face of existance. . .my dear there are plenty other good reads in the world than the "greatest story ever told"
-Always Love