Non believers who love Brokeback Mountain

[Vic]

My hopes are they will wake themselves up enough to change, but I do not hold my breath.

Fundamentalists never wake up, they will die first, as we see with the muslim fundamentalists. You cannot change their mind and they cannot change my mind.

And you are both right, that it is worrying that these groups, in Christianity as well as Islam, are gaining political power. That is bad news. But it isn't against homosexuals only, it's against abortion, single parents, hell, anyone who has sex before marriage, wearing skirts, etc. etc. ad nauseum. They always find ways to make themselves seem (morally) superior than everyone else while they're not. They're hypocrites of the worst sort because they refuse to embrace humanity in all its variety.

But Mr. Bush and his cronies are doing other things equally bad - passing a law (I think it was in 2003) that obliges public libraries to collect the names of those that take out books considered as anti-establishment is no small thing. That one really shocked me.

Vic

[Doug2017]

I also have a problem with any  extreme right group, be it religious or political or both.

I also have a problem with any extreme left group, religious or political, as well.  There is no difference in the out come from extreme right or extreme left, loss of individual freedom.

As I said before, I don't know where the current American government is going

It is changing into a taliban style government, with religion being the foundation of laws and corrupt religious leaders making the decisions.  The Religious Right is actively working towards the end times war, I fear they may suceed.  We will know if they are going to suceed by our Nov 2006 elections, if there are not sweeping changes in our representation you will know that this planet is not for long. 

but at least here in Europe, though I will never trust the Eurocrats in Brussels and Strasbourg, civil rights are being extended rather than curtailed. New EU laws will require ALL member nations to uphold the rights of homosexual men and women as equal rights. Countries like Poland and Slovakia have already filed protests because it is in conflict with their "Family Laws" but they face potential court action if they refuse to comply.

Add the US to Poland and Slovakia. 

Belgium has just accepted a law that homosexual men and women, as well as singles have the right to adopt. Even Spain, a traditionalist religious country by far, has accepted gay marriages as legal and is extending them the same adoption rights as hetero parents. So there is progress here rather than regression.

I wished I could report the same here, but we are sliding back 50 years over the last 5 or so.  Only pockets of enlightenment still exist, those of the major cities on the east and west coasts. 

Doug

[Vic]

Yes, it's very bad and very sad. My worry is that because the U.S. is so blindly followed by many other nations that you may be right in that it will get worse before it gets better.

When I was in Australia in 2004 I saw both happening. On the one hand many Australians made homosexuality a non-issue, becoming a modern nation and, on the other hand, led by the current administration in part, was a return to homophobia and extreme conservatism.

Vic

[Doug2017]

My hopes are they will wake themselves up enough to change, but I do not hold my breath.

Fundamentalists never wake up, they will die first, as we see with the muslim fundamentalists. You cannot change their mind and they cannot change my mind.

Absolutely right.  However, the ones who are not fundamentalists, but identify themselves as either, are the ones who allow these radicals have the power to do their damage.  They are the ones that have to wake up.  They are the vast majority, but as sheep they follow the radicals.

And you are both right, that it is worrying that these groups, in Christianity as well as Islam, are gaining political power. That is bad news. But it isn't against homosexuals only, it's against abortion, single parents, hell, anyone who has sex before marriage, wearing skirts, etc. etc. ad nauseum. They always find ways to make themselves seem (morally) superior than everyone else while they're not. They're hypocrites of the worst sort because they refuse to embrace humanity in all its variety.

Exactly! That is why it is so hard to understand people who also claim to be "christian" or "islam" do not stand up against these monsters and take back their dignity.  There would not be war in Iraq now if all the normal islam believers were to take actions to marginalize their monsters, we would not be in war now either if our normal christian believers were to actions to marginalize their monsters.  But no, both do things to support them, mainly because they do not want to be accused of being non-religious, non-patriot, etc. 

But Mr. Bush and his cronies are doing other things equally bad - passing a law (I think it was in 2003) that obliges public libraries to collect the names of those that take out books considered as anti-establishment is no small thing. That one really shocked me.

That was just the begining.  It has now be proven he has taken to listening in on private phone calls, capturing emails, etc, which is against the law, but he does not care. He claims war president special rights.  He thumbs his nose at needing court permission for such actions, he is above the law he thinks.  Yet, we impeached a man for having consentual sex with another over the age of 21, but a man that has broken the laws, has made up stories to get into a war, we give a pass.  The reason? The sex with Clinton upset the religious, and the rest did not with Bush, thus my contention that religion is the main problem.

Doug

[Vic]

I should take more time but, before I sit down for my dinner, I do want to answer first.

Here in Europe they are approaching mass control from a slightly different angle -- they tax you to death. So much so that all your time and thought is spent on making ends meet (as in the average worker and family). Meanwhile the fat cats devise ever more ways to enrich themselves, taking control of huge corporations that can make or break a nation, for example. So they let us have sex with who we want and probably will legalise a variety of drugs in the long term, it still comes down to controlling the masses in favour of the few.

Most people will do nothing.

Vic

[Doug2017]

I should take more time but, before I sit down for my dinner, I do want to answer first.

Here in Europe they are approaching mass control from a slightly different angle -- they tax you to death. So much so that all your time and thought is spent on making ends meet (as in the average worker and family). Meanwhile the fat cats devise ever more ways to enrich themselves, taking control of huge corporations that can make or break a nation, for example. So they let us have sex with who we want and probably will legalise a variety of drugs in the long term, it still comes down to controlling the masses in favour of the few.

Most people will do nothing.

Vic

Yep, there you go.  The problem with extreme leftism as well, it will always lead to enslavement of the individual, just like extreme rightism does, it just uses a different mechanism, but has the same outcome.  Extreme left takes away the individuals freedom in favor of "the society" and state, while the extreme right takes away the individuals freedom in favor of big business.  The place where the individual has the most freedom is absolute center, where state and society obligation is small, state's only job is boarder control, and military for the protection of the people and business is only tied to the individual, has no rights only the owner has rights, and religion is kept to between the man and his god.  Laws are few and objective.

See you bring up the big lie, that left and right politics are opposites, they are not, they are the same place, just different routes to get there.  Instead of a line like they always draw, it should be a circle.  One side of the circle individual freedom, the opposite individual enslavement. Taking the left direction from individual freedom, you will find sacrifice for the society, for the state; taking the right direction from individual freedom, you will find sacrifice for business.  Both throw in sacrifice for religion, for protection of the stupid, and protection for good measure.  The commonality is sacrifice of the individual.

Doug

[Vic]

Well put! And how true. Caught between the ship and the quayside.

The way it looks, we've got all three on our backs at the moment:

- those in government, mostly busy with their own power games and mutual back rubbing,
- religions, struggling to hold on through power by manipulation of people's beliefs,
- the corporations, catering to both for personal profit and power.

Where to begin?

It seems the west is heading for a corporate future, the middle east is struggling for a religious renaissance, or at least some form of secularity, and the far east is going for what they always go for, property, wealth and expansion. None respect personal liberties, privacy or choice. All utilize the power of technology.

"The more things change the more they stay the same."

Don't know if you have seen "V for Vendetta" but it's a clear warning. The British haven't had fascism but I'm sure there are some there that would love to have a go at it. But I suppose for homosexuals and other groups the religious right is the greatest danger. As long as we obey the law and spend our money we're "safe" from the other two for now.

As far as religion and Brokeback Mountain is concerned (to stick to this thread ), it's obvious the American Mid-West was not conducive to tolerant socialism back then, and hasn't changed much since. How is it where you are?

Vic

[Doug2017]

Well put! And how true. Caught between the ship and the quayside.

The way it looks, we've got all three on our backs at the moment:

- those in government, mostly busy with their own power games and mutual back rubbing,
- religions, struggling to hold on through power by manipulation of people's beliefs,
- the corporations, catering to both for personal profit and power.

Seems so. 

Where to begin?

It seems the west is heading for a corporate future, the middle east is struggling for a religious renaissance, or at least some form of secularity, and the far east is going for what they always go for, property, wealth and expansion. None respect personal liberties, privacy or choice. All utilize the power of technology.

Absolutely right.  Once we accepted corporations as human beings, that gave them powers that no business should have.  The rights of individuals should always trump business, but not anymore when the corporation IS a human being according to law.  Not just any human being mind you, but a rich one with access to super law representation. Of course, religious intolerance has always been a disaster.

"The more things change the more they stay the same."

In a way, but it looks to me like they are making great headway and the average Joe can not get a concept of it.

Don't know if you have seen "V for Vendetta" but it's a clear warning. The British haven't had fascism but I'm sure there are some there that would love to have a go at it. But I suppose for homosexuals and other groups the religious right is the greatest danger. As long as we obey the law and spend our money we're "safe" from the other two for now.

The religious right is by far the greatest danger, but the others are not something to let out of our attention.  No, I have not seen "V for Vendetta".

As far as religion and Brokeback Mountain is concerned (to stick to this thread ), it's obvious the American Mid-West was not conducive to tolerant socialism back then, and hasn't changed much since. How is it where you are?

Remember that young guy in Wyoming was strung up on a fence and murdered just after BBM was shot.  If what I hear said here is any indication, they are not above killing a gay person if they are found out.  Ennis had it right, it is dangerous for anyone who is not perceived as being one of them.

Correction:  I has been brought to my attention that I was wrong about the timing of the murder in Wyoming, that event happened just about a year after BBM was in the New Yorker, not shot as a movie.  Sorry, I did not check before posting on that one. - Doug
Doug

[Jer009]

Doug2017--
The recent comments on this thread mentioned Buddhism, and the fact that the Buddha never claimed to be a god. This didn't prevent his followers from building a religion out of his teachings, however, complete with prayer wheels and prayer flags and other assorted trappings of religion.
Still, Buddhism is the closest to my beliefs, as I am an agnostic rather than an atheist.
The follwing is from the flyleaf of "Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide To Awaking" by Stephen Batchelor:

"In Buddhism Without Beliefs", author Stephen Batchelor reminds us that the Buddha was not a mystic...What the Buddha taught, says Batchelor, is not something to BELIEVE IN but something to DO..."

Buddhism is not so much a religion but what amounts to a psychology of the spirit, together with techniques to quiet the mind so that the practitioner can get beyond the chatter of the mind and strive toward spirit. The Buddha specifically taught that anything he said was not to be taken on faith, but to test it and see if it works. If it doesn't, throw it out. That's a refreshing attitude for someone presumed to be a god to take, wouldn't you say?

Alas, with the years even Buddhism has strayed from its agnostic roots, especially in sexual matters, and here's the quasi-Brokeback connection. In the November 1, 1996 issue of Tricycle, The Buddhist Review we read the follwing: (I would have to subscribe to the magazine to get any more, but this will give you the gist.)

"So far we have received some fifty responces to the anti-gay letters published in the previous issue. To provide a brief synopsis: In issue #20, we published an interview with Tibetan scholar Jeffrey Hopkins with experts from his revision of a famous text, "The Tibetan Arts of Love" into a manual for gay practitioners. In issue # 21, we published a sampling of the anti-gay letters  that we have received in which the Hopkins material..."


That's all they provided free, but the very idea that American Buddhists would rouse themselves from their meditation cushions and be motivated enough to write a letter--I don't know the state of email in 1996, probably nonexistant, or they would've recieved those, too-- a HATE letter to a Buddhist journal is extraordinary to me. It truly reminds me of a pack of snarling Baptist Bible-thumpers, or of  "Reverend" Phelps' minions holding horrific signs outside of AIDS funerals. Even with the stroke I had in August 2001, I still remember reading those letters of hate, it was that ugly a memory.

Of course, many things have changed since 1996, and Brokeback Mountain was a part of  the gradual return to sanity in this area (still very much a work in progress). But the religious extremists are frightened by gays' advances, and you know what they say about a  animal when it's cornered: it's more dangerous than ever.

Just goes to show that homophobia exists were you would least expect it...as well as the usual suspects.

[Doug2017]

Doug2017--
The recent comments on this thread mentioned Buddhism, and the fact that the Buddha never claimed to be a god. This didn't prevent his followers from building a religion out of his teachings, however, complete with prayer wheels and prayer flags and other assorted trappings of religion.

Sadly, I know very little about Buddhism. So I will take your word on that.

Still, Buddhism is the closest to my beliefs, as I am an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Understand, not a problem. Acknowledging the possibility of a god is not the same as saying there is a god.  Actually, most people labeled atheist will probably fall in this category.  In reality no one can say "there is no god" based on science, because science can not prove a negative.  Science can only test and prove a positive statement, therefore science has to assume the negative when there is not evidence to prove the positive. 
 

The follwing is from the flyleaf of "Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide To Awaking" by Stephen Batchelor:

"In Buddhism Without Beliefs", author Stephen Batchelor reminds us that the Buddha was not a mystic...What the Buddha taught, says Batchelor, is not something to BELIEVE IN but something to DO..."

Buddhism is not so much a religion but what amounts to a psychology of the spirit, together with techniques to quiet the mind so that the practitioner can get beyond the chatter of the mind and strive toward spirit. The Buddha specifically taught that anything he said was not to be taken on faith, but to test it and see if it works. If it doesn't, throw it out. That's a refreshing attitude for someone presumed to be a god to take, wouldn't you say?

Very refreshing indeed!  That is perfect advice for anyone "not to be taken on faith, but to test it and see if it works, if it doen't, throw it out".  That is exactly how I came to the place I am at now in my understanding.

Alas, with the years even Buddhism has strayed from its agnostic roots, especially in sexual matters, and here's the quasi-Brokeback connection. In the November 1, 1996 issue of Tricycle, The Buddhist Review we read the follwing: (I would have to subscribe to the magazine to get any more, but this will give you the gist.)

****Guys/Gals- This is my thread, there does NOT need to be a connection to BBM to post.  The only connection needed is you have come to this thread, that is enough.  Just something I wanted to clear up.  Sorry to have interrupted the flow here. ****

"So far we have received some fifty responces to the anti-gay letters published in the previous issue. To provide a brief synopsis: In issue #20, we published an interview with Tibetan scholar Jeffrey Hopkins with experts from his revision of a famous text, "The Tibetan Arts of Love" into a manual for gay practitioners. In issue # 21, we published a sampling of the anti-gay letters  that we have received in which the Hopkins material..."

Sounds like they accept gay practitioners, even made them a manual, that is great! Of course, I would have to read that manual, if the first line was they had to give up any sexual relations then I would know they are same as the others. There will always be those who oppose any happy relations for gay people, I guess. 

That's all they provided free, but the very idea that American Buddhists would rouse themselves from their meditation cushions and be motivated enough to write a letter--I don't know the state of email in 1996, probably nonexistant, or they would've recieved those, too-- a HATE letter to a Buddhist journal is extraordinary to me. It truly reminds me of a pack of snarling Baptist Bible-thumpers, or of  "Reverend" Phelps' minions holding horrific signs outside of AIDS funerals. Even with the stroke I had in August 2001, I still remember reading those letters of hate, it was that ugly a memory.

I am sorry you read those.  I have many really ugly memories of having my life threatened, and of name calling, of nasty deeds done.  For some reason those vicious things really stick in one's mind.  They color the whole world afterwards, that wonderful innocence, trust, never returns again.

Of course, many things have changed since 1996, and Brokeback Mountain was a part of  the gradual return to sanity in this area (still very much a work in progress). But the religious extremists are frightened by gays' advances, and you know what they say about a  animal when it's cornered: it's more dangerous than ever.

The problem with those people is they are afraid all the time, they even fear their own god.  They fear that someone, somewhere, doing something, will anger their mentally unstable god, and they will get punished unjustly, otherwise they would not care what other people thought or did as long as their rights were respected.  They mouth a god of love, but practice a god of equal stance to a drunken, wife beater, where she proclaims her love loudly at every chance she gets, but keeps the kids quiet, herself suppressed, never doing anything different, always walking on egg shells for fear of triggering his irrational anger.  To me that is worshipping a monster.

Just goes to show that homophobia exists were you would least expect it...as well as the usual suspects.

Yes, you are absolutely right.  You can see it even within the gay community.

When I get some time one of these days, I will have to look into Buddha a little more.

Thanks,
Doug

[Vic]

Hi Jer009,

Yes, like every other organised religion, buddhism developed many branches, each of which developed its own interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. "It's all in the interpretation" is a convenient excuse Christians, Muslims and Buddhists alike have used over the centuries and still use today, to take only what they want from the teachings, turn and twist it to their own advantage, and disregard everything else. It's a human thing to do. And faulty.

The Buddha never differentiated between hetero and homosexual love. It's not the act, it's the intention with which it is done, is what he says, therefore who you do it with (excepting children, betrothed, and prisoners) is not important, as long as it is a mutual consensual and emotional act borne out of affection for each other.

In this article covering (homo)sexuality Theravada Buddhism explains in more detail how the Buddha viewed (homo)sexuality:

http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

A quote from the article:
"All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one's sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved."
(unskillful meaning negative)

Of course, all buddhist monks are people, and as such carry with them the attitudes of their upbringing and culture, including bigotry and ignorance. In this respect they are no different than believers of any other faith. But at least Buddhism in itself doesn't condemn homosexuality as do Christianity and Islam.

Vic

[Vic]

****Guys/Gals- This is my thread, there does NOT need to be a connection to BBM to post.  The only connection needed is you have come to this thread, that is enough.  Just something I wanted to clear up.  Sorry to have interrupted the flow here. ****

Thanks for that, Doug.
Wouldn't want to be reprimanded or anything for being off topic.

Not that I mind some playful spanking, of course...
 

Vic

[Doug2017]

Not that I mind some playful spanking, of course...
 

Vic

Oh be still my heart... 

Just kidding, I have never spanked anyone in my life, but with the right person... <wink>

Doug

[Doug2017]

I just got to see Fahrenheit 911.  While I think I have seen every single bit of it in pieces, it was really powerful to see it all put together.  Scary, to say the least.  Thanks Vic.

I also received another one of Ang Lee's movies.... The Wedding Banquet.  It was a nice change, cute and a fairly positive ending for the gay characters. 

Well, lunch time.

See ya all later,
Doug

[Vic]

No problem.
Slap me hard !


Vic