In this paper I would like to take a peek inside the connection between queer identity in the South and the Protestant Christian interpretation, contradiction, and actions in the Bible Belt south by the individuals and churches themselves. When I began looking into this connection, I knew that trying to talk about sin is something I did not want to go in to, and first and foremost want that out on the table. This paper is not about whether homosexuality is a sin or not, but rather the stance and actions Christians and the institutions take and create toward homosexuals. I also want to say that in no way do I hold the opinion that homosexuals are not the same as Christians in some instances or vice versa. I will look at specific incidents in the history of the Bible Belt as well as interviews and sources of individuals growing up in the Bible Belt as a homosexual.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Help! Help, ho! Help!
Here is the beginnings of my thesis. I know it needs a bunch of work, but I wanted to post and get some sort of feed back from outside sources other than my own thoughts. So here goes!
Friday, September 24, 2010
Enemy of the People
Studying and rehearsing for UA's upcoming Enemy of the People has made me think about what Doctor Stockman and his family go through. He believes something so strongly and out of his desire to save those around him and to put things right he stands behind his opinions and beliefs no matter what. All those around him, led by his sister (the mayor) and the local paper he is disgraced and almost chased out of town. It shows the faceless crowd (ourselves, the masses) as a force that can be used for or against any cause.
This got me thinking to what we have been talking about in class about the early protestant churches being made up of women and blacks, whereas were led by white males. It is as if it doesnt matter what is right and true and best for the majority but what the leaders want and that they do not want to seem weak or embarrassed.
Its not a direct metaphor and comparison to class, but is still an interesting look at society and people and their individual motives.
October 4-11th. Gallaway Theatre. For tickets visit theatre.ua.edu
This got me thinking to what we have been talking about in class about the early protestant churches being made up of women and blacks, whereas were led by white males. It is as if it doesnt matter what is right and true and best for the majority but what the leaders want and that they do not want to seem weak or embarrassed.
Its not a direct metaphor and comparison to class, but is still an interesting look at society and people and their individual motives.
October 4-11th. Gallaway Theatre. For tickets visit theatre.ua.edu
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Readings
Chapter 2
From what I read in this weeks reading I could not help but see a connection between what Christianity is and teaches and what it keeps in place for the times.
--Page 39: "Slaves and free blacks appropriated the Gospel message and reshaped it to Afro-Christianity, but white evangelicals eventually abanoned their early antislavery position because they aspired to respcetability among slaveholders."
In this example from the text, it makes it seem as though in early teachings of christianity and evangelical thoughts were that slavery was wrong and that it was not a very christian act, but the thought was pushed aside to get slaveholders (rich plantation owners) on the side of evangelicals, for power or money, and thus is an example of how the christian doctrine can be changed and reinterpreted according to the times and what the public and majority has in mind.
It seems as though in the pre-civil war era christian doctrine was used in the south to reinforce what slaves went through and that what was done was ok and christian. but i find it interesting that slaves took the same religion as their owners but did not take everything; they did not take up hate, but a sense of hope.
--Page 43: "The slaves embraced the faith of their masters, and, however creative and potentially subversive the result, most did not use their religion as an occcasion to rise up against their oppressors."
This shows that the slave, afro-christian interpretation of the christian doctrine was one of love and hope in a loving god, yet the white christian took it into another more active subversive light, yet it was all the same text.
Page 46: "The 'body' of the church might be black and female, but 'the mind of the church' was white and male."
For some reason this was a scary image to me. Like a puppet and puppeteer. The fact that women and slaves were the mass of the church and the doers and followers, whereas the men controlled and interpreted the texts of "god" (was it what god wanted or what they wanted to get out of it?) and preached to these minds. scary.
From what I read in this weeks reading I could not help but see a connection between what Christianity is and teaches and what it keeps in place for the times.
--Page 39: "Slaves and free blacks appropriated the Gospel message and reshaped it to Afro-Christianity, but white evangelicals eventually abanoned their early antislavery position because they aspired to respcetability among slaveholders."
In this example from the text, it makes it seem as though in early teachings of christianity and evangelical thoughts were that slavery was wrong and that it was not a very christian act, but the thought was pushed aside to get slaveholders (rich plantation owners) on the side of evangelicals, for power or money, and thus is an example of how the christian doctrine can be changed and reinterpreted according to the times and what the public and majority has in mind.
It seems as though in the pre-civil war era christian doctrine was used in the south to reinforce what slaves went through and that what was done was ok and christian. but i find it interesting that slaves took the same religion as their owners but did not take everything; they did not take up hate, but a sense of hope.
--Page 43: "The slaves embraced the faith of their masters, and, however creative and potentially subversive the result, most did not use their religion as an occcasion to rise up against their oppressors."
This shows that the slave, afro-christian interpretation of the christian doctrine was one of love and hope in a loving god, yet the white christian took it into another more active subversive light, yet it was all the same text.
Page 46: "The 'body' of the church might be black and female, but 'the mind of the church' was white and male."
For some reason this was a scary image to me. Like a puppet and puppeteer. The fact that women and slaves were the mass of the church and the doers and followers, whereas the men controlled and interpreted the texts of "god" (was it what god wanted or what they wanted to get out of it?) and preached to these minds. scary.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Homosexual Hate?
I was taught ever since I can remember to love those around me and to treat everyone with respect and love. Now that I am older I realize that the people that taught me this fundamental lessons and life advice are not living by it themselves. WHy is it that people can teach you to see the best in people and to love them for who they are and yet take a completely different stance in their own life?
I mean even when they resort back to the bible for textual evidence about somethign, most of the time it is their interpretation of the text and many others can have a different interpretation and understanding than they have.
In regards to homosexuals my family and church put it down and say that the act of homosexuality is a sin and an abomination and yet i have been taught to love my neighbor and treat them with respect but how is it respectful to say that who they are is sinful and they are an abomination? I just dont udnerstand why people cant understand that god made us all (if that is what you believe) and that we are all his creation and we are all DIFFERENT. I think it has taken society a while to realize (and some still havent) that we are all different and maybe the homosexual gay pride movement is an expression of that even though it has been present for many centuries it is just now coming out into the light and saying this is who i am and being a homosexual doesnt define me, just like being straight doesnt define you.
I feel as though i am harping on this issue but i have decided that this will be my paper topic because it hits em so close to home. being a theatre major and having so many gay friends i know what it is like form a secondary standpoint and have felt the heat from my family just in associating with so many homosexuals and gays in my college career and what i want to do in the future. i want to look at the contradictions in biblical doctrine and christian practices of hate particularly toward homosexuals and also look at the examples and a bit of history of prejudice and discrimination of gays in the south while incorporating plays and literature and personal interviews into my research as well.
I mean even when they resort back to the bible for textual evidence about somethign, most of the time it is their interpretation of the text and many others can have a different interpretation and understanding than they have.
In regards to homosexuals my family and church put it down and say that the act of homosexuality is a sin and an abomination and yet i have been taught to love my neighbor and treat them with respect but how is it respectful to say that who they are is sinful and they are an abomination? I just dont udnerstand why people cant understand that god made us all (if that is what you believe) and that we are all his creation and we are all DIFFERENT. I think it has taken society a while to realize (and some still havent) that we are all different and maybe the homosexual gay pride movement is an expression of that even though it has been present for many centuries it is just now coming out into the light and saying this is who i am and being a homosexual doesnt define me, just like being straight doesnt define you.
I feel as though i am harping on this issue but i have decided that this will be my paper topic because it hits em so close to home. being a theatre major and having so many gay friends i know what it is like form a secondary standpoint and have felt the heat from my family just in associating with so many homosexuals and gays in my college career and what i want to do in the future. i want to look at the contradictions in biblical doctrine and christian practices of hate particularly toward homosexuals and also look at the examples and a bit of history of prejudice and discrimination of gays in the south while incorporating plays and literature and personal interviews into my research as well.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Paper
So I am currently struggling on what I would like to focus on for my paper in this class. On the first day and days since I have jotted down little ideas on paper of what interests me or little things that come into my head and I think it would be good to put them here to share, that way if anyone else has imput or help they can express it here.
Ok, here goes.
-Evangelists (Brother Micah) vs. "Mainstream" Bible Belt
---(This could also include TV Evangelists and why they are pushed to a side almost near those of cults and sects and looked down upon, but what are the real differences between that and other protestant denominations in the South?)
-Social aspect of church in South
---(Includes movies, TV, Stereotypes, Personal experience, Media)
-Food and Religion in the South
---(comfort vs. discomfort; look at other religions around the world and see what foods are focused on either negatively or positively and the role of food in those religions)
-Home Sweet Home, Yet so out of place
---(Wizard of Oz and Dorothy's extreme need to get away from her home, and yet when she does all she wants is to be back home; the feeling of not belonging in something where "everyone is accepted"; south as a place that keeps you here (kudzu) and overtakes without letting you get out and flourish)
-Good Bad Ugly History
---(contradictions of christians (ex. Love thy neighbor vs. homosexual phobia and discrimination); religious defense mechanisms (ex. god told us to do it, we did it for christ, etc.); Religion turning to hate (ex. KKK); differences between denominations)
So I feel as if all of these could be used as a topic idea, I am just unsure on where to go. Maybe I have too many ideas and I feel as though I am having trouble narrowing down and the idea of a 25 page paper is daunting to me.
Breathe, breathe, breathe.
:)
Ok, here goes.
-Evangelists (Brother Micah) vs. "Mainstream" Bible Belt
---(This could also include TV Evangelists and why they are pushed to a side almost near those of cults and sects and looked down upon, but what are the real differences between that and other protestant denominations in the South?)
-Social aspect of church in South
---(Includes movies, TV, Stereotypes, Personal experience, Media)
-Food and Religion in the South
---(comfort vs. discomfort; look at other religions around the world and see what foods are focused on either negatively or positively and the role of food in those religions)
-Home Sweet Home, Yet so out of place
---(Wizard of Oz and Dorothy's extreme need to get away from her home, and yet when she does all she wants is to be back home; the feeling of not belonging in something where "everyone is accepted"; south as a place that keeps you here (kudzu) and overtakes without letting you get out and flourish)
-Good Bad Ugly History
---(contradictions of christians (ex. Love thy neighbor vs. homosexual phobia and discrimination); religious defense mechanisms (ex. god told us to do it, we did it for christ, etc.); Religion turning to hate (ex. KKK); differences between denominations)
So I feel as if all of these could be used as a topic idea, I am just unsure on where to go. Maybe I have too many ideas and I feel as though I am having trouble narrowing down and the idea of a 25 page paper is daunting to me.
Breathe, breathe, breathe.
:)
Readings
The first reading was not as interesting to me as the second but there were some great parts and thought provoking quotations that i took down.
On page 6 the notion that " the stamp of evangelicalism was imprinted on the south" and that the south was "christ-haunted" was a revealing image for me. the image that this sentance was "imprinted" as though it was irreversable and was a permanent marker on the south and the people that were "sucked" into this belief. As for "christ-haunted" i thought that was interesting because many times you hear people talking about how wonderful it was that christ rose again to save all the people and how he died for the sins of all the people, but when you really think about it from an outside perspective you hear a story of a man that died and then rose again, like a ghost or zombie. Would that justify the evangelistic movement in the south as a haunting? interesting comparison.
The idea of protestant beliefs in a patriarchal society and taht worship was a feminine function is also interesting. Maybe i am misreading this part of the passage, but it seems to me that being spiritual and approaching what is thougth to be morality and holiness is something the women were expected to do and bring into the household. well where were the men in this journey to morality? were they exempt or did it not apply to them becasue they were out being the workers and making the money for the family to live on? it just seems like this teachings are for everyone to be better people and approach morality while at the same time contradicting itself by saying it is a feminine practice. hmmm....
I really found the second reading interesting about the Jewish woman that converted to Christianity late in her life.
The reason i found this interesting was the fact that in most faiths the mere word of "faith" is to believe strongly with your whole self in something that cannot inherrently be proved. For this woman to go back on her faith that she had had for her entire life, rubs me strangely.
what is faith and religion if it can just be flipped so easily? why do people believe so strongly that one is better than another when they themselves are moments from becoming a turncoat to the times?
On page 6 the notion that " the stamp of evangelicalism was imprinted on the south" and that the south was "christ-haunted" was a revealing image for me. the image that this sentance was "imprinted" as though it was irreversable and was a permanent marker on the south and the people that were "sucked" into this belief. As for "christ-haunted" i thought that was interesting because many times you hear people talking about how wonderful it was that christ rose again to save all the people and how he died for the sins of all the people, but when you really think about it from an outside perspective you hear a story of a man that died and then rose again, like a ghost or zombie. Would that justify the evangelistic movement in the south as a haunting? interesting comparison.
The idea of protestant beliefs in a patriarchal society and taht worship was a feminine function is also interesting. Maybe i am misreading this part of the passage, but it seems to me that being spiritual and approaching what is thougth to be morality and holiness is something the women were expected to do and bring into the household. well where were the men in this journey to morality? were they exempt or did it not apply to them becasue they were out being the workers and making the money for the family to live on? it just seems like this teachings are for everyone to be better people and approach morality while at the same time contradicting itself by saying it is a feminine practice. hmmm....
I really found the second reading interesting about the Jewish woman that converted to Christianity late in her life.
The reason i found this interesting was the fact that in most faiths the mere word of "faith" is to believe strongly with your whole self in something that cannot inherrently be proved. For this woman to go back on her faith that she had had for her entire life, rubs me strangely.
what is faith and religion if it can just be flipped so easily? why do people believe so strongly that one is better than another when they themselves are moments from becoming a turncoat to the times?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)