My two sessions yesterday afternoon were “Religious Rights vs. LGBT Civil Rights” and “We know what we’re ‘Against’, but what are we ‘For’?” The first was a total bust. The only information the presenter had prepared were several sheets of a paperboard detailing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. She prefaced the whole discussion by saying “If I get too bogged down in legal words, just stop me and ask for clarification.” She wasn’t kidding. I totally recognize that the fight for equality has to be waged on several levels, including the legal arena. However, discussing the de minimis clause of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn’t what I thought a discussion of Religious Rights would be. Instead it was a delineation of how these two laws can be used to allow religious zealots to be free to express their rights. No actual discussion of LGBT rights was included. Total bust.

The second session, “What are we ‘For’?”, was amazing. I got to the session a bit early and immediately began judging the presenters. My first impulse was “How are two club-kids from Manhattan going to help define a progressive vision for the future? This is probably their first excursion into ‘fly-over country’ and they’re probably ready to get the hell out. Do I really have anything in common with guys like this, other than shared enemies like Pat Robertson or Rev. Sheldon?”

Then someone behind me mentioned Transgendered Midgets, and I giggled.

The two guys are from a DC-based organization called the Center for Community Change that helps out low-income grassroots organizations to further their vision. Lots of people they work with feel stuck, not sure of how to take the next step, or even what the next step should be. They started a project to help these groups define a cohesive mission. The session I attended was an extension of that previous project onto a national scale to help all of us figure out what the hell we really want.

All in all it was an amazing session. We were given ballots with a list of values on them, values like Religion, Hard Work, Profits, or Education. We were to choose our top 3 values and share that with the group. After we tallied our top values, our group came up with Community, Fairness and Equality. They said that of the 160 grass-roots groups they’ve surveyed so far, community is always one of the top vote-getters.

Then we divided into three groups, all with one umbrella issue. My group had “Family Recognition”, while the others had “Immigration” and “Alleviating Poverty”. We were to list our own perspectives or policies on these umbrella issues. Then we attached the values we assign to these policy decisions, and discussed why we thought those values didn’t apply to the other policy decisions. I know, it’s convoluted, and it was even harder in practice. Trying to argue that Equal Opportunity is an Inherent Right and not a reason for Marriage is very difficult. My group was largely young people from colleges. I was seriously inspired by their enthusiasm, especially since i’m only 10 years older than them. As a result, our discussion centered around the marriage/civil union debate. I tried to push towards other topics like Adoption, Surrogate Parenting, Equal Opportunity for Education, but these always seemed to be pushed aside for the larger idea of Inherent Rights. In the end, we didn’t decide anything. It really highlighted for me the incredibly hard task of deciding what we’re For. What am I for? What change am I trying to create?

The other groups had equal amounts of trouble. The immigration group decided that the best, most progressive vision was completely Open Borders. No nations, no walls, we’re all citizens of the world. They even listed Security as one of the values that led them to this choice. To the other groups, we obviously questioned how Open Borders would improve Security. They stated that they were mainly thinking about security on a local level, secure in their schools, secure in their homes, etc. I thought, “Yeah, locally, people in Iraq aren’t feeling very secure right now. Might want to re-think that.”

The Poverty Alleviation group had an even tougher time. Their discussion always came back to the value of Hard Work, which didn’t even make our Top 3 at the beginning of the session. They realized that even though things like Hard Work and Individual Responsibility are the defining values of alleviating poverty, the main solutions they would come up with centered around Collective Responsibility, a much more Socialist construct. I think embracing Socialist ideas is becoming more popular amongst activists, since the stigma of a Red Soviet Amerika isn’t quite a danger anymore.

They left us with two questions to ask ourselves.
1) Is it easy to think about values?

2) How easy is it to fall into other people’s frames of reference?

It wasn’t easy to think about values, and even harder to try to prioritize them. And it was very easy to fall into other people’s frames of reference. We were constantly refusing certain policy ideas or goals because of their taboo nature, or because they didn’t fit with current cultural “norms”. Not a good way to define a vision.

Just got out of the plenary with the Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, and while I’m not sure he fired up the crowd nearly as much as Julian Bond or Matt Foreman (who showed up to the BTL Media reception last night!! To say that we’re his favorite gay paper!! And that he *cough*throwsanothergaypaperawaywhenitshowsuptotheoffice*cough*!!) but he definitely made an impact with the religious types that were around me. As an atheist, to me a lot of it fell flat, though he did have salient points about engaging the religious community.

But when he called for ‘not being afraid of people quoting scripture to me’? Really, I don’t even bother engaging that since it means to me that they’re just abandoning reason from the outset. Why would I even bother talking a fairytale? I know it means a lot to a lot of people, so I’ll do my best, but you’ll see my eyes glaze over and attempt to change the subject to something more productive.

Anyway, some of the stories he related were poignant - about during his ordaining to bishop, having to wear bulletproof vests because of a bomb threat. Another story related how when he started a youth group in Concord, almost none of the kids that came to it came from a particularly religious background, but all of them knew about the passage in Leviticus and the meaning of ‘abomination’. Or, I should say, the prevalent meaning of ‘abomination’.

A couple of things that did stick with me, though, was when he talked about recognizing the fact that 90% of the vitriol and oppression that came from religions came from Abrahamic religions specifically, and they had a lot to overcome if that were ever to affect change. And that, similarly, Desmond Tutu in his foreword of Robinson’s upcoming book specifically, and without reservation, begs for forgiveness for all of that, from lgbt* people because of all the oppression they’d suffered from the religious.

Today was my first Academy session. I attended the GLAAD-run session hosted by Rashad Robinson, senior Director for Media Programs. It was really insightful. It centered around building a communications strategy for your particular organization’s goals. We discussed what the media is, how they operate, and how we can use them to forward our agenda. A large focus was put on knowing to whom you’re talking and what you’re trying to say. For any given audience, you need to know how to tailor your comments in ways that resonate best. The general populace was divided into three main camps: your Base, the Movable Middle, and your Opposition. Clearly, each of these groups will be offended by certain statements, from calling them “Crazy Fundamentalists” to using “Gay and Lesbian” instead of LGBTQQINGSPOC. Therefore knowing to whom you’re talking and what you’re trying to say helps you maximize your talking points’ effectiveness.

This culminated in all the participants actually crafting our own talking points based either on personal goals or those of the organization we’re affiliated with. Some topics discussed were marriage initiatives in Arizona, mentoring for queer youth, and being disowned by your family.

From my perspective, the topic of greatest concern was bridging the gap between people of religious groups. One woman in the session crafted her talking points around St. Paul being quoted out of context, saying that the Greek he used for “abomination” actually referred to “not commonly held as fruitful”. Since the Jewish people in Palestine at the time were seeing a low birth rate, homosexuality was merely not as beneficial to the community, not an abomination. The facilitator was quick to point out that not only was the talking point excessively specific, but also on a topic that’s not going to change anyone’s mind in a 15-second sound bite. GLAAD apparently has recognized this on a national level and now has an office for faith-in-media relations.

It’s a touchy subject that isn’t going to change anyone’s mind on Crossfire or The Daily Show. It’s a more appropriate discussion in an op-ed piece or a small facilitated discussion group. Unfortunately, most of the Movable Middle doesn’t read op-ed pieces nor do they attend diversity training at the local LGBTQQINGSPOC community center. So where can we have this discussion? Not sure yet. I’m sure someone will tell me before the weekend is over.

Kate Clinton ranged from funny to banal… here are some of the funnier lines

“I’d like, now to have a moment of silence for someone we’ve just lost… Mitt Romney just pulled out of the Republican race.  Omit! Remit! Mitt Mitt you’re full of shit, goodbye!”

“For those with mad vow disease, the freedom to marry coalition will meet…”

“In a stroke of genius, they put the gay family institute, next to the sexual freedom institute, in the hope that gay mothers and fathers sometime might have sex again…”

To young lesbians in the audience, on her turning 60 this year: “”Come on up here and get gummed!”
“There will come a day when your thanksgiving turkey will be wetter than your vagina!”
“You’ll reach for the KY and get the Ben Gay”

After a video introduction from the governor: “Unfortunately we didn’t get a video message from the mayor, just a text message”

Ok, so why aren’t there politicians as eloquent and well spoken as the NAACP chairman? If there’s anything to make you aware your president isn’t much more than an ape who is barely sapient, it’s listening to someone speak who has an excellent grasp of the English language, uses actually relevant cultural references, and makes real points.

At least he’s gone soon enough…

We’re all registered - we came down early because The Arimathean wanted to hit one of the early day-long institutes on religion - and I wanted to check out to see where there were wireless signals ;o) There’s some great sessions coming up in the next few days, and I find myself looking forward the most to a bloggers pow-wow going on tomorrow afternoon. It’ll be interesting to see if there are any bloggers that I know covering the conference.

So far, a very wide diversity of people, and it’s surprisingly busy for as early as it is. I’ve seen only a few people I recognize, so it seems like the Detroit people are holding off until the weekend.

I forgot how much I like the Ren Cen … My first date with Gary was down here ;o)

Welcome to Creating Change!

I’ve been inundated so far with tons of pamphlets, schedules, newsletters, welcomes, flourescent-paper, etc. Therefore it’s now my turn to inundate you with my own personal welcome and intro.

I’m Joseph, a blogger from Chicago. I was born and raised in Birmingham, AL. My family is traditionally Southern Baptist, so you already know where I’m coming from. Most of my posts will be religious/theological in nature, as I’ve spent most of my life studying and researching the many faiths the world has to offer. I’m an opera singer, a linguist, a writer, and a music geek.

I chose St. Joseph of Arimathea as my avatar for two main reasons. First, we share a name. Second, Joseph was the man who volunteered to take care of Jesus’s body after he passed. This care extended in Christian lore to his care of his family and friends afterwards. I like to think that my take on Christianity takes care of most people’s worries about it, from Atheist to Hindu to Platonist. I like to open dialogue and challenge people’s entrenched assumptions about faith in order to foster growth between communities. I hope to learn a great deal about bridging those gaps while I’m here this weekend. Enjoy the ride!

On this page, you will have unprecedented access to the Between the Lines staff, and their daily thoughts and opinions. This February 6th through 10th, you’ll see us blogging about our experiences at the Creating Change conference taking place here in Detroit at the Renaissance Center.

So welcome, bookmark us, and come back frequently!