f13.net

 Florida city votes to fire manager who wants sex change  (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070228.wfloridasexchange0228/BNStory/International/home)

Well, if a person in authority is wishy-washy about their own sex, they probably don't inspire a lot of confidence.

Besides, it's a gov'ment job - you can't expect stuff like that to be "ok". Hell, you can't even cheat on your wife let alone do anything "crazy".

Well, being wishy washy is one thing.  Making the change is another quite life altering decision.

You would be surprised what you can get away with in positions of power ;-)  Everyone loves a good scandal, most of the times you even get to keep your job.  But there are certain areas that are just too taboo to get away with even in the modern days of "depending on the what the definition of 'is' is..."  Drinking problem?  We'll keep electing you!  Cheating on your wife or having a problem with pills?  That's all right, everyone has their faults.  Gay lover?  All right, we'll forgive you in the right conditions if you have been doing a good job or have the right political connections.  Bending or breaking society's rules on gender?  Hey, we draw the line at stuff like that!

Meh, this will head to politics soon, so I'll just get my shot in now that I think it's pretty naive to expect people to be like "oh yeah sex change, sure why not?" Getting fired over it though? I'd say a good lawyer will have a nice little field day with this given our laws.

I have several friends in the TG community.  They are uniformly bright, experienced, and well educated people who have a lot of problems finding a job.

You'd think the fact that for 14 years he's been doing the job in, by most accounts, an exemplary fashion would inpsire some confidence though.

HOT TRANNY FIRE CHIEF

She'll put out the fire then light one in your pants.

I've got dibs on the video rights.

I like how they say "integrity" the issue.  Corwards.

They're doing it for the children.  Little Billy looks up to the brave fireman, and when he finds out the fire chief has a fancy new vagina, he's gonna want one too.  How's a parent supposed to respond to that?

"No, Billy, Santy Claus can't bring you a fancy new vagina this year!  Stop asking!"

Is that the kinda ordeal you liberals want to put families through?

:mob:
Wishy-washy is changing back later.  It takes a lot more dedication to see this process through than the average government worker will ever put forth.

Low-level government jobs are one of the safest places to be.  Unfortunately she is head of the department, and it's not up to just the mayor.  It is up to the damnable city council, who are concerned about the next election.

No, she's pretty much out of luck on the job.  At-will contract and no policy against discrimination for gender identity, which they voted down in 2003.  (Longer Article (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/22/Tampabay/Largo_official_plans_.shtml))

Welcome to the ugly daily reality for many transgenders.

I don't know enough people in this camp to have a really first-hand knowledge of this issue. It seems to be one of those lifestyles that gravitates towards the gay communities, so there's no shock I don't know many considering I only have a handful of gay friends. I do think it sucks that people get fired, but you are dropping a pretty huge bomb on people. I'm not tolerant enough to say it wouldn't freak my shit out, but that's just pure honesty.

As for the laws, it's a tough lobby to get things changed when you're that much of a minority. I mean gays got together, but from what I've heard that's 10% of the population. I can't imagine TG can pull that kind of power. Is it fair? I'd say it's pretty irrelevant that you changed genders and applied for a job. I'd say if you changed genders while AT a job, you've violated your at-will contract because you aren't the same person they hired.

Yeah, going back and changing all the paperwork on the insurance forms alone would be so expensive so as to make termination a valid option.  :evil:   Not to mention having to build a whole new set of restrooms (THIS HAPPENED AT THE LAST PLACE I WORKED!).

And frankly, trans-gendered is probably a good word, because most of these people look neither male or female.  I wish her good luck though, she's going to need it.  I am sure she thinks that this change will solve some of her problems but it's just going to introduce a whole new set of them.

Actually, most TGs I know don't identify as gay; they identify as the being sex they aren't.  Who they sleep with isn't the primary issue for them, the issue is who they are.  It can be a bit to get your head around if you worry about who other people sleep with, but I gave up caring about other people's sex lives after I shared a house with three women who were dating a heavy metal bar band.  Any other choice resulted in my being either disgusted or envious, or, most commonly, both.

Edit:  I think I know how to phrase this, finally.  I know some guys who have/are undertaken to modify their body to female because that is the body that feels 'right' to them, but who continue to sleep with women, because they aren't entirely comfortable sleeping with men.  OTOH, I also know male to female TGs who have entirely transitioned to a purely female role.  (Mind you, my experience is based on a very small sample.  I'm sure there are issues I don't grasp. In fact, I know there are.)

They look neither male or female because you never know the people who blend in just fine.

With a growing awareness and acceptance, people are realizing who they are at younger ages, young enough that hormone treatments make them physically indisinguishable from their cis-gendered counterparts.  It's not like most are going to be in your face about who they are.  Why make oneself a target needlessly?

As I said in Dani's award thread, if she has come this far she needs to make the change.  What she faces will suck, but it's better than adding to some very unpleasant statistics, and in the end she will be happier.

I get a bit freaked out by transgenders that still look too mannish. I don't have a problem with the concept, if someone told me they were transgendered I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. But seeing a transgender that still looks quite like a man sets off the part in my brain that says "this is wrong!" when I see things that are not quite right about humans, like when seeing a really close but flawed animation of one.

Disregarding what the law actually says, but I'd think it shouldn't really violate your at-will contract unless your job requires a certain gender or a certain level of attractiveness (because often handsome men make ugly women). Changing your physical gender doesn't really change who you are IMO, nor should it affect your ability to perform your job.

Tough break for the fire manager, but I'd hope she was expecting this sort of thing (as wrong as I think it is), because if she doesn't pass for a woman she's in for a very tough life and that should have been explained to her by now.

Serious question about this. I don't hear much about the female to male transgenders. Is this common, or is the majority of TG male to female?

I didn't find any statistics on how numerous the two types of transgenders are, but I did find some interesting statistics here (http://www.heartcorps.com/subversive/sub007/statisics.htm) (NOTE: while it's SFW, it's a transgender support site, so don't visit it where you'd get interesting questions if seen).


That to me says that female-male transgenders probably have it a lot easier and are less likely to be heard about because of it. So I guess they could potentially be about the same in numbers but we're just not as aware of it. My gut tells me they'd be slightly less common though because females don't have as much pressure to "act like a woman" like men get "act like a man" (I myself have problems accepting girly-men and I'm pretty open to a lot of ideas).

I don't think it's got anything to do with a 'male dominated world' (which I am HOPING that it is said in jest).  More than anything, it's probably being viewed as a security risk.  Now before you freak about that statement, hear me out.  Lots of state and federal jobs are 'sensitive' to someones background; for example a credit check.  If you have lousy credit, you'd probably miss out on a call back for a second interview.  This is due to the fact that (as one example) besides the obvious (bad credit = irresponsible), someone with bad credit (high debt) could be vulnerable to bribery.

Well that answers my question sort of. I'd like to see some actual breakdowns on the numbers, but I can definitely see the social bias towards M-F rather than F-M because men have set standards of manhood since early times. Anthropologically those haven't changed much, and this falls outside those boundries.

I don't have an update on those numbers, unfortunately research is fairly sketchy and suffers greatly from patients telling their doctors what they think they want to hear for fear of not receiving treatment.

An old figure (APA I believe) was that 1 in 30,000 men were transsexual and 1 in 100,000 women.  More recently it is believed the numbers are actually very close and rates are as high as 1 in 10,000 were suspected.  (It's been a while since I've seen figures, though, so take that last number with a grain of salt.)

Women have a much easier time cross-dressing and acting or looking masculine.  They were also further behind in support and awareness, so it simply wasn't known about as an option.  There is also a big difference in how the lesbian community treats FTMs compared to gays (or straights) and MTFs.  Thankfully the activist organizations are starting to embrace the 'T' in the GLBT they have been promoting.  HRC and others came to realize they need to stand as firm on trans issues as they do gay issues or they lost credibility.

There was a study a few months ago that put the attempted suicide rate of living transsexuals at 30%.  The "success" rate is likely rather dismal.

I realize Wikipedia is often frowned upon.  However, it has what I consider a very good, comprehensive coverage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexual) for anyone who is interested.  (I imagine the community polices this entry rather heavily.)

I have never understood why people frown on Wikipedia. I mean we're all just arguing on the internet. It can be a useful source even if it's not 100% reliable.

As for the topic at hand, the only exposure I had was a girl who was partway through changing over (had the hormones but not the surgery) in this errr...club I joined for about a month in my experimental days. (BDSM, I discovered it's an awesome fantasy but not for me if anyone cares.)

I also was at a work place where a guy was going through that change as well. He looked horrible. Imagine some comedy movie where a very manly looking man puts on a wig and some lipstick and you've got his image. Like Bubba Smith from those Police Academy movies doing it. (which I think he did in one.)

You know, I've often wondered if I met an awesome woman, we got along great, but I found out she was at one point a man, if I would continue the relationship. I know it's shallow but that would be in the back of my mind and I wonder if all my liberal social ideals would hold out in that situation. I suspect that is why some of those MTF statistics are so low.

Seems the thread to put this.  Taken from William Spaniel's recent article on Brainburst.com,  a Magic the Gathering website:

There are quite a few female to male transgenders out there.  Let's just say I never would have guessed by just looking at people walking down the street or when they were introduced to me when I was told later on. All of the ones I've known basically look like a slightly shorter man (of which almost everyone is shorter than me so no real difference ;-) ).

And like said before, the only reason people have the typical "looks like a manly woman" mental picture is because those are the ones that stand out.  The others?  Can't tell.  And if they can blend in so well, a good portion aren't going to be continuously waving the flag.  They are going to drift back into society and very few will ever find out or know.  Which is why the community doesn't have the lobbying power of any of the other "alternate" communities.

Because it is so amazingly vulnerable to revisionism. 50 years from now I can hold out a copy of any hard cover encyclopedia and say "well, this is what it said then". Not so with Wikipedia, and the more "authority" it has now, the scarier it is. When people start trusting something that is by definition designed to be changed over time as an authoritative source of information, it's Big Brother grand mal--and it's not even by a government (or is it?).

Well, there is the Revision History if you care to look, but that's a good bit of effort. And that history, of course, is vulnerable to malicious alteration if someone breaks into their server.

(Aside: Thanks for keeping it civil and out of Politics territory. Keep it up, folks. :) ) (We need a : happypanda : ...)

I was going to mention the MTG stuff. Some people went as far as to say that Alexis was somehow cheating by "pretending" to be female.

This is what really bothers me:


I see this logic all the time. Small-minded bigots are offended by something so the solution is to terminate the offender rather than tell the bigots to STFU. You can make the same argument about integrating black people into society - and people *did* make those exact same arguments at the time!

It is always the same. Having an uppity nigger in our midsts will cause chaos. Having fags in the foxhole will undermine our morale. Having a transgendered fire chief will 'cause stress.'

If you are stressed out because your boss is transgendered - tough shit asshole. Find a new job then.

One thing that always amuses me is we love to talk about how much discipline there is in the military, fire and police departments, etc. Yet the introduction of someone slightly different would apparently paralyze and distract these people so much they literally wouldn't be able to perform their jobs at all? Shouldn't places with more discipline deal better with that sort of thing?

Edit: I might have moved this to politics-level rhetoric but this sort of thing really irks me.

Yeah. I think blackmail and bribery and extortion are out, given the coverage.

Security Checks are about uncovering secrets, if it's not a secret...

Not necessarily true.

Background and security checks are also used to uncover potential future problems (hence the bribery thing).

He could still be bribed with cash (or promise of medical 'treatment') for his / her / it's 'identity crisis' ( :roll: )

She makes made $140k a year, in a job she had been in for fourteen years.  She is better off than the vast majority of the community when it comes to financial status.

She might be vulnerable to bribes about treating her like a human being though...

People making more than that still get bribed, it's just that their prices go up.  See lobyists & politicians.

ARE YOU EXPECTING US TO LEARN FROM THE PAST FFS WHO DO YOU THINK WE ARE?  JESUS?

People, still stupid, still scared of anything different.  I bet the Tranny fire chief still supports the troops and the bombing of arab countries.  Can't we all stand on that common ground?  At least we're the head of the axis-of-justice.

Don't get me wrong I'm super bigoted towards ladyboys or w/e.  We even have a codeword for them "Thai" and crack there are no women in Thailand jokes all the time when the mood hits us.  But OTOH I would be bothered but support anyone in any job I've ever worked at doing this.  Because to not support someone making this kind of choice and act "better" then them and demand their termination makes me feel twice as sick as seeing any poorly disguised man trying to be a woman ever has and I have seen lots of nasty wannabe women in my 23 years in "teh gay mecca".

It's got nothing to do with treating him/her like a human being, and everything to do with treating him/her as a potential security/liability risk. 

Same bullshit as the lack of integrity claim. Only Institutionalized.

Interesting. I've only known a pair of transexuals (one was the roomate of the other), and the one I was closest to was a MtF, heavily involved in MtG and moved out to California and (as I recall) completed her transition about 5 to 10 years ago. I knew her as a pre-op who had transitioned to a female back in high school (that had to fucking suck, especially in Texas). I actually googled Alexis to see if it was the same chick. (It's not).

She probably had a very easy transition -- she started hormones early, and even pre-op passed flawlessly. If she hadn't told me, I'd have never guessed.

I got most of my views on transexuals from knowing her. They got dealt a shitty hand, and the ones with the strength to accept it and do something about it are to be admired.

Why are we talking security risks? This is a local fire chief, not a CIA spook. In addition the secret is already out.

"Give up some national secrets or I'll tell everyone you were born a man!"

Yeah...that'll work...everyone knows and a local fire chief doesn't have any useful info anyway. Those sorts of security checks are a requirement at the NSA, not at your local burb.

Your narrow view of a 'security risk' is awfully naive.

You don't think 'just' a fire chief couldn't be coerced in some manner?  Fire/building codes, cause of fire, etc?

But every poker expert will tell you that's a dumb move, you need to fold and get a new hand.

Which I guess sort of fits with going TG, too.

Hm.

That ruined my joke.

Uh..
Not as painful as having your sack lopped off!
Booyah, comeback!

Really, though, that's rough.

I work in business software used by major banks. What if I build a back door into our software? Oh noos...I'm a tranny fire me!

Again, there are agencies that are very sensitive to security threats and do comprehensive background checks. If you large debts or foreign ties you may be turned down. Those places are places like the NSA and the CIA where a coerced agent will threaten national secuiry. The local fire department does NOT do that sort of screening and it is silly to pretend otherwise.

Yes, someone could coerce a fire chief into ignoring arson. Nearly everyone has something to hide, nearly everyone can be bribed or coerced, and nearly everyone can do at least some damage on some level. Your local IT guy could probably steal CC info...you local mechanic could sabotage your brakes! Your local zoo keeper could "accidentally" leave the door to the lion exhibit unlocked! A local teacher could poison kids or teach them that 2+2 is eleventy-seven.

Furthermore, now that the secret is out how are you going to coerce him/her? "I know you were born a man!" No shit!

This is what we call "rationalization." Decide to fire someone, then invent a reason. The fact is that local fire departments don't do rigorous security checks. A compromised fire chief is not a national emergency.

If you don't like transgendered/transexuals just say so, don't gussy it up. Better a bigot than a dishonest bigot. I can respect an honest bigot.

To say that they are a security risk now, AFTER the secret is out, makes no sense and talking about security risks at that level is rather absurd to begin with. Everyone in the world is a low-level security risk.

What about the risk of being replaced by someone who does a worse job?

Not too long ago -- in Britain, I think -- being gay meant you couldn't have a high security clearance. Even if you were openly gay. Because you weren't allowed a security clearance if you were gay, so someone might blackmail you by threatening to ring up your boss and have your security clearance revoked.....Oh, they claimed it was to prevent closeted gays from getting security clearances, until they worked out that the only people who would admit to being gay on the application were, in fact, not blackmailable.

So they gave if it up -- I suspect it wasn't all that enforced.

Being TS is only a security risk if, in fact, being fired for being a TS is a possiblity. How about we just make it illegal to fire you based on your notion of gender -- like we do for your skin color and a host of other reasons.

Now that is a funny situation. It's a security risk to be a transexual because you could be fired for being a transexual because it's a security risk to be a transexual because....

Alright, I can't pass a straight line, even though I think this derail is irrelevant crap.

Since the majority of major security breaches have involved white male heterosexuals, shouldn't we deny security clearances to white male heterosexuals, on the grounds that they are a proven security risk?

Why does anyone reply to SC anyway ?  He's a total nutbag.


As to the thread, who cares.  Oh right, the Transgendered minority.  Fuck them.  They're only a minority.  Let's trample the shit out of their rights.  Yeah.  Make seperate dining rooms and toilets for them.  Get those confused fuckbags to the back of the bus and stand up for the fucking majority while they're at it.

Evil confused bastards.

Awwwwww.  I'll be sure to lose sleep tonight over that, sheepfucker.


You people are completely missing the point.  "National secrets" (harharhar) have nothing to with it.  Everytime I *think* about hiring someone I run a check their background, their driving record, and credit. And it has NOTHING to do with the extremes you're taking it to.  Background check is obvious (they have to be able to pass a background check by the Port Authorities to gain access to port facilities).  Driving record is because I provide my employees with company vehicles  and I pay their auto insurance.  The credit check is a barometer of their personal responsibility, as well as other things.  If they can't be depended on to pay their own bills, how can I depend on them to file time sensitive notices with the US government?  If they have shit credit, how apt are they to do something illegal for short term benefit (drug running)?  Will they take the 250,000.00 USD they are supposed to deliver to the ship and skip town?  Will they arrange for a 'fake' 200,000.00 USD CTM (Cash To Master) and vanish?  <--That happened 8 years ago to a competing agency, and they JUST found the guy a year ago.  Yeah, the money is covered under my bond and insurance, but it's still not something I want to happen. 

If I am going to hand someone the keys to the proverbial castle (MY business, MY livelyhood, MY reputation within the Port and worldwide maritime community, something I've worked my ass off building), I am going to make damn sure I can trust them and there are no surprises.  Backgroud and credit checks can give an insight as to whether I can or not.

You're talking about a liability in many, many ways.  It doesn't matter if his/her/its secret is out.  Everyone can be bought, you just have to find their 'price'. 

You're comparing your apples to her lack of oranges.  You DO realize that, right?

WTF?

You seem to be saying it doesn't matter that she's admitted to being a transexual because anyone can be compromised. Thus because anyone at all can be a security risk it's acceptable to fire them. Why the fuck is anyone ever employed?

This wasn't about a security issue, you can't fucking blackmail someone over something if it's not a secret. Ok so maybe he used rentboys or something. There's no evidence (as far as I know) but he may have cause, y'know, he's now a woman. I'm sure all Transgender people use rentboys or practice disgusting sexual acts and so could be open to bribery/blackmail.

Of course that completely ignores the fact that there's no evidence and anyone could be guilty of these same things. Even on grounds of the minor corruption that could she could possibly be open to, you have nowhere explained why she is more likely to be guilty of it than anyone else. Thus on your reasoning you can fire whoever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want because "Everyone can be bought."


As an aside, the pronoun use here is weirding me out a bit, it's all over the shop in this post as I keep changing my mind on which one to use. Damn Transgenders are messing up the language.

You have yet to explain why she is a bigger security risk than random_person_01.  With holding that job for fourteen years, I'm betting she has good credit.  Driving I don't know, but being a tranny doesn't suddenly make her any shittier a driver.  (Unless you mean all women are sucky drivers, which at this point wouldn't really be surprising to learn.)

You've already said ANYONE can be bribed, so what exactly is different between bribing her and bribing anyone else?  Does treating her like a second-class citizen suddenly make her more prone to taking any offer that comes along?  Maybe if she was treated as an equal by her employer it wouldn't be any more of an issue than it is with the rest of the employees.

Your problem is that she is transgendered and you're assuming that means all kinds of other horrible things in her background.  Maybe you should worry more about what the background check actually says than what you assume it says.

Or just man up and admit you think being transgender is even more wierd, freaky, and wrong than being a faggot and stop giving us lame rationalizations.

I use 'she', because it is who she feels she is and the direction she is headed.  At the moment, 'he' is probably also appropriate since she still goes by Steve.  It is incredibly validating to have people refer to them the way they perceive themselves though, so I favor using that pronoun.  Given the media often has trouble figuring out what pronoun to use, it makes it even more difficult since we cannot ask the person what they prefer.

Most transfolk understand the confusion though, and there is a period where they're likely to get both used, so the best we can do is to try and use the one they indicate preference for, or how they present if we don't know.  Not that she's likely reading this, but as long as you're trying to be respectful and not willfully ignorant, she would probably be okay with whatever you use.

I think issue is much simpler - majority of people she gets to work would not be comfortable to work with trans-gender boss.

In other words, just play it off like in an MMO.  If they're presenting themselves as a She, they're a She.   :-D

What if you assume everyone is male regardless of what they say until you have proof to the contrary?

See ?  Complete Nutbag...

Change "trans-gender" to "gay" "black" "Jew" or "woman" and what do you have?  Something just as acceptable to fire the person over?

I prefer honest bigots myself ;-)

The person is a city manager, not a fire chief. I work in a town hall. Town/City managers are basically bureaucrats that do the things a mayor would do, except for the official public political parts of the job. Elected officials set the direction, the manager actually does the work. It's a way to make sure that town/city business gets done even if the elected officials aren't competent to do the job. (There are still some towns here with elected town accountants and treasurers Goddess help their taxpayers.)

And give me a break on the security thing. That's ludicrous. There's no security issues with a city manager. The only secrets are contract negotiations until the contract is signed. Most everything else in local government is subject to freedom of information anyway. FFS my email is a public record and you can walk in and ask for it.

What are they gonna do? Blackmail them for being trans. I think everyone knows.

I think the problem here is that nobody really knows what causes this abnormal behavior in humans, but if we did actually pinpoint it as part of scientific causality you'd see much more support for the condition. I personally don't see transgender people as having a choice over their identity crisis because the consequences of that as a "decision" are pretty ugly. I do think that everyone does have a choice over their actions based on your mental dispositions, however, and as intelligent beings we do have to accept that our choices may offend the status quo around us. This is the situation as it stands today.

I think it's something that deserves more research, but I'm not sure there would be a simple "cure" which would help negate the gender crisis. I don't think that most men will EVER be accepting of a man wanting to become a woman, nor would the vast majority feel comfortable knowing the woman they are dating used to be a man. You've got thousands of years of male bravado/sociology going against that fact.

Same Diff.  However, you do lose out on the angsty "I'm a GUY" retorts from the insecure manginas.

Anyone willing to mutilate their genitals to be like the opposite sex has clear mental problems.  Although, I wouldn't rate that problem as high as gambling or alcoholism in the work place.

But if he starts trying to make a Matrix sequel, I say burn the motherfucker at the stake.

Snamecharmer has never made a coherent argument on these boards - not once! It's funny.

"We can't trust dem damn trannies!" That's that argument! Really, I that is the *exact* argument.

I'm still waiting to here how someone being openly transexual is a security risk.


That's their problem. You get paid to do a job. Suck it up or find a new job if it bothers you so much. As I pointed out earlier (as did others) this bankrupt line of reasoning is always trotted out to blame discrimination on the victim.

It's like those clown balloon punching bags, with sand in the bottom.  You know they are just going to pop right back up, still grinning, but you just gotta take a swing anyway.


My, you are grouchy this morning.

I'd point out that, since the overwhelming majority of major security breaches have involved white male heterosexuals, we have clear evidence that white male heterosexuals are an unacceptable security risk, and should not be allowed to serve in sensitive positions, like CIA operatives, or Dogcatcher.

I do belive Ironwood was using extreme sarcasm.  Poe's Law is in effect I suppose, so it should have been green.

Oh, I assumed it was sarcasm.  That doesn't mean there weren't blood vessels bulging on his forehead when he wrote it.

I'm thinking that we shouldn't be concerned with whether something offends someone else or not. I'm getting tired of all the bullshit rules put in place so that people don't have to hear the words nigger or fuck, or have to put up with working in the same building as *gasp* a transexual, or have marriage tainted by gays doing it. Unless someone in genuinely harming you in some way then you need to just deal with it.

My tone was not directed at you btw Paelos, which should hopefully not relegate this to politics on my post alone. :P

As Hamish said in another thread, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of speech.  You can say any number of nasty words of all sorts anywhere you like, and people can ask you to leave their living room, workplace, etc.  In fact, as pointed out earlier in this thread, the person changing sex probably doesn't have any legal protection against dismissal, since that protection is not commonly mandated by law. 

There are rules against creating a hostile workplace environment via explicit sexual and/or racial harassment, but I don't see those as any different than rules about not throwing a co-worker's files in the recycling bin.  Work isn't a place people can avoid, it is a mandatory shared space, and causing your co-workers emotional distress isn't your freedom.  They are a captive audience, and have to be there.  You want to say whatever you want, go stand on a streetcorner, or talk in your living room, or post on the interrnet.

Here is an interview with the City Manager regarding the experience so far. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17420981/site/newsweek/)

Oh for fuck's sake.

Here is a secret: when I was young I was an altar boy. (No, not Catholic, thanks for asking) Hard to imagine mean angry Margalis as an altar boy maybe but it's the truth. The people I met in Church were all very nice. Some of them were what you might call conservative but all were kind and understanding. They weren't the type to spread hatred.

Now I grew up in a very liberal community, but I *know* there are good Christians out there. It's funny, we see people asking "why aren't there any moderate Muslims denouncing terrorism." Well, why aren't there any moderate Christians denouncing the spreading of hate in the name of Jesus?

Unlike many people here I never think "God Christians are fucking psycho." Some are, some aren't. But I can understand why people do think that because our exposure to these psychos is constant.

It is just amazing that people that profess to follow Jesus are some of the worst purveyors of everything he preached against. Like they never heard a fucking word - in one ear and out the other.


How is it possible to say you believe one thing and literally practice the exact opposite?

So was I.  I mentioned it a while ago in another thread.  Thus, I have no problem imagining it...

Really?

I can't.

So anyway. Most of the world is filled with insecure, hate-filled bigots. News at eleven?

I can respect them more than someone who attempts to make you believe they're not a bigot. Or worse, their doing it 'for your own good'.

Those types need strung up.

Thanks for posting the interview, Evangolis.

They literally don't believe in the same God that liberal Christians do. There's a lot of God available in the Bible and everybody gets to choose the parts they like. They are absolutely practicing what they preach... they're just not preaching what you're used to.

Ya bud, that whole 'Judge not lest ye be judged' was an optional feature, don'tchaknow.

And I really hope you don't like shellfish or blended fabrics.

This has been my biggest experience with most churches in the south and midwest where I grew up.  They were NICE as can be... until you turned on their idea of what the faith should be.  Then they tried to persuade you.  If that didn't work they turned their back on you and officially denounced you were lost (as if they could make such a decision).  People who were supposedly your friends stopped calling you, stopped dealing with you, everything.  And this was only over an argument I had with one of the church leaders over tithing\money donation!  I can only imagine how bad it would have been if I had come out as gay or something equally "evil" in their eyes.  Years later a few of the people involved said they hoped my one bad experience would not turn me against church and God, I told them God and I were fine, his followers in the church need to do a little more practicing instead of preaching.  I checked out and never went back again regarding organized religion.

It's easy to preach about faith and love and accepting of everyone, but it's really hard to actually act on it, especially when not everyone is a squeaky clean WASP with a good job, a stay at home mom, a nice house, and 2.4 kids.  Those people obviously have done something to offend God and therefore you shouldn't have anything to do with them.  Nevermind that Jesus never went and spent considerable time with the church elders but with the tax collectors, harlots, and down and out.  People society had deemed had less worth than others.

No church is going to be perfect. I know this cause I've been to about 10 over my 25 years of living, and all of them have had some issues that inevitably I couldn't put up with anymore. I'm currently churchless, but I do want to find one that I can be a part of in the near future.

As to answer the question of how some Christians can get so far off-base, a lot of people grow up with this idea that God is some kind of judge in a gameshow. He tells us the rules before we start the game, and then whoever decides to play tries to go the longest without breaking them. You also get bonus points for making sure that you enforce the rules on other players, and if you catch them first, you get to beat them down with the rulebook. Also, the more people you get to play the game, the points you can accrue. If you beat the point goal at the end, you get an everlasting reward.

They don't say this out loud of course, and they would call it horribly trite to refer to it that way, but the truth is that they don't really have any kind of connection with God other than as a referee. They don't see his love, they don't understand his mercy, and they didn't read into the messages. They just saw the rules and thought that following the rules = love, which = win. They are what we call legalists, and they are some of the scariest Christians you will ever meet in your life. A Christian that has any love in their heart could never abuse another human being for their sins. They could try to talk to them, convince them, even minister to them, but never threaten, harm, intimidate, or coerce them into the flock. That's Satan's way of getting to them, and it's something a LOT of people in Christian power positions struggle with.

You are told you speak for God, you are told that you are the defender of God's church, you are told that you must lead the flock. Suddenly, after time, you just assume that your opinions are God's opinions because you thought them. Then, you start to take up causes in God's name because the Bible says they are wrong. Then you find that you and your followers are screaming fire and brimstone at a scared 16-year-old girl, bawling her eyes out as she walks into an abortion clinic, because she's commiting murder.

Then at some point in your life you step back and think, not once did I speak to this girl, not once did I ask her name, and not once did I look beyond her condition to find out why she was actually walking through that door in the first place. Then you realize you failed because you let your pride take you down a long path that had nothing to do with God. You took him out of the equation when you started making decisions FOR God, not because of God. And on top of that you caused about 1,000 other people, like the people on this very board, to read your story and realize that God's people don't love anyone, so why should they believe in your God?

I've seen it, I know it, and it's a daily tragedy. However, there are good Christians out there who don't want that kind of church. And if I can't find one soon, I'm going to have to create it.

I think the failure is very likely in such a girl feeling she had to make the decision to start with.  But yeah, that sort of thing happens too much, in too many different ways.

There are a lot of failures in a situation like that.  Sadly, the only forgiving and non-judgemental party is the one that provides the worst choice in an ideal world.

That is a very good essay, Paelos.  Much of it is the reason I am not religious.