Exodus Position Statement on Bullying and Violence

31 thoughts on “Exodus Position Statement on Bullying and Violence”

1. I posted a comment that didn’t appear. It might have been because it contained a personal tiff against Alan and Warren removed it, in which case I’m sorry, it was inappropriate. It might have also just been a computer glitch, in which case I’m still sorry cause it was still inappropriate.

   But the substance was what Timothy and Michael said.

2. I agree with Timothy. If the hateful statement comes from a public figure, or an organization that claims to serve the public, a private rebuke won’t do.

3. Alan,

   Thanks for that position.

   I think it might be a bit helpful if those who heard them make these hateful attacks were also to hear that they were criticized for it. If they won’t apologize for their bad behavior (which would be best) then perhaps future confrontation might be public. Otherwise the observer who sees you on the platforum with the violator has to assume that you support – or at least condone – such behavior. They have no reason to think otherwise.

4. Boo,

   Whenever someone uses inflamatory and/or hateful language I confront it. Sometimes that is public and sometimes it isn’t.

   Calling people sissies, fags, sodomites or the like is wrong. if someone uses that type of language after I have confronted them, no I won’t appear with them again.

   Alan

5. Here’s a pretty thorough argument against hate-crimes from the Family Policy Network, apparently they’ve uncovered some new research:

   http://familypolicy.net/papers/?p=378

6. In spite of all the cynicism expressed by some on this blog (and elsewhere) I choose to believe that Alan really means it — when he says that hatred, bullying and violence against gays must stop. Now, it’s time to operationalize it. Let’s put some real time, thought and effort into making this one of EXODUS’s clear objectives — with clear and practical steps. Wouldn’t it be cool if someday people recognized EXODUS, not so much for its attempts to change gays, but for its work to change those who would mistreat them? That would take some real work! Team work. Maybe a collaborative effort, Alan?

   I agree with Eddy, above. The time for “hype” (intentional or accidental) is past. It’s not so much that my “incessant plea” is to ”DEFINE the change”. It would be better just to DESCRIBE it. Tell the stories without the misleading buzz words. And take strong and decisive action whevever an EXODUS affiliate (or any associated group or individual) in violation of the new Policy Statement comes to light. For example, let’s start with complete distance from Cameron and any group that supports his dubious “research” or hateful attitudes.

7. One more question for Alan-

   Are you going to follow through on this stance against bullying through concrete action, for example by not appearing at any more events with Bishop Wellington “God has not called us to be sissies!” Boone?

8. Thanks Alan!

   Thanks for the Exodus statement on Bullying and Violence and also for stopping in for a few comments. I’m also glad to hear that my ‘guess’ was correct…that a local group re-edited the radio press release and shifted the emphasis. (It was on my agenda for this evening to ‘call you to task’ about the wording of the radio ad.)

   I know that, in the past, Exodus tended not to give strong directives to its member organizations (you must do this…you must say this…etc.) but I’m wondering if some compromise can’t be struck. Perhaps someone could present a thoughtful session for ministry leaders at this year’s conference addressing the problems of using ‘christianese’ when speaking to a secular market and the real value of Michael Bussee’s incessant plea…”define YOUR change”. (Not necessarily yours, Alan, but any Exodus or ministry spokesperson who uses the word in a public setting.)

   I believe that if Exodus keeps its original theme (making sure that gays had the same opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel as any one else), there should be no embarrassment in a leader saying where they’ve come from and where they’re at. For some reason (partly of Exodus’ making) people are getting a message of ‘no more homosexual temptations’ and of ‘living happily straight’ even though this is not the norm. I believe that the Bible’s promises of forgiveness, comfort, wisdom and the grace to endure temptations are, in themselves, enough of a selling point for the Gospel; we really don’t need to ‘hype it’. And the sharing of the individual experience of these promises would yield more fruit than ambiguous words like ‘change’.

   I’ve admitted in previous blogs that my first years worth of ‘teachings’ leaned towards the charismatic side…’change’, ‘healing’, ‘freedom’…without defining them. But, then, I began to make a concentrated effort to focus on finding grace and strength for each day, for each new obstacle, for each new phase of spiritual growth. I’ve maintained here that Exodus must believe in a “process” or they wouldn’t have had me back to teach “Roots” and “Lessons for the Battlefield”. (If everybody gets ‘instantly changed’ who needs lessons for daily struggles?) I believe that many who post here would be happier if only the current leaders would also ‘tell it like it is’.

   Thanks again for ‘chiming in’. I don’t envy your position in the least! May God grant you the wisdom and discernment to steer effectively.

9. Michael said It’s an important step in EXODUS history. Now they have to live up to it.

   Live up to what, Michael? I haven’t seen that they’ve committed to anything. How many Exodus resources are going to stop bullying and harrasement versus how many resrouces are going to oppose Hate Crimes Legislation.

   Even without the second paragraph it’s an empty statement.

10. I’m just glad that the statement seems to have gotten some dialog going and that Alan is taking active part in that dialog. I don’t think the second paragraph necessarily negates the first. I think Alan really believes in both — non-violence and equal treament under the law. We may disagree on how best to do that, but I think this is a great start…

11. Alan,

    I do applaud you for standing your ground and making it prominent on the website that compassion is of utmost importance. I understand the thinking that goes into not giving special status or protection to one person over another (especially when we have hate crimes against children going with a slap on the hand) but until we are a less violent society – this policy makes sense to me – for this generation. And I would like to see tougher laws for crimes committed against children, too. Granted – there are many laws on the books about penalization that were written with the intention to discourage crime – but somehow have just turned out to be “bad” law.

    The slippery slope idea comes from those cases being highlighted in the media from pastors from other countries. Do you have the sermons (word for word) that were given? I would love to read a copy. In addition, aren’t the hate crimes bills in other countries written differently than the ones here in ours? I’m not sure. Do you know where I can link to a copy of all these things?

12. Please do.

    I too am uncomfortable with enhanced sentencing – though I most definitely support tracking and federal assistance for local officers unaccustomed to dealing with hate crimes.

    However, and this is important, if we are going to have hate crimes laws then it makes no sense to oppose the inclusion of one of the most targeted groups.

    And your language in the past, Alan, has been antagonistic not towards all hate crimes but has been specifically targeted towards the inclusion of sexual orientation as a category. It would not be unfair to say that you have lent your voice in media that sought to demonize gay people and that you allowed yourself to be presented as part of a coallition whose opposition to hate crimes was restricted solely to gay people. I doubt I need to provide examples.

    BUT I WELCOME any movement away from that presentation and towards consistency.

13. All I can say about my opposition to hate crimes legislation is that it has been across the board from the beginning. I have in interview said that I am opposed to special status for anyone period. My conviction or opposition is not newly found. And, I will make sure that in the future I will undercore that clearly and ask that it be printed.

14. I imagine that any email from Exodus regarding Hate Crimes came from our Government Affairs staff. I don’t know what was written, so I cannot comment except to say, there are a number of reasons we are concerned with hate crimes legislation: the slippery slope of criminalizing free speech (as is happening in other parts of the world) under a hate crimes law, elevating one group above another–we are all equal–and the potential threat to religious liberties.

    I wasn’t asking you to apologize for what someone in your organization may or may not have said, I was asking you to acknowledge the reality that this bill does nothing to affect free speech. I can’t imagine what “potential threat to religious liberties” you see in this since an actual crime has to occur for this law to be triggered. Finally, as others have pointed out, this law does not elevate one group above another, since literally everyone is covered under it. Everyone has a sexual orientation, everyone has a race, and everyone has a religion (presumably attacking someone because they’re athiest would trigger the religion provision). The reason anti-gay speech is criminalized in Europe is the same reason racist, anti-semitic, and other offensive speech is criminalized in Europe. But you notice no one had a problem with those laws until anti-gay speech was added.

    I see groups like HRC pushing for speech once this is passed—you are naive to think or say otherwise.

    What some special interest group may or may not do in the future is irrelevant. Or is your campaign to legitimize ex-gay therapy really just the first step in your master plan to have all gay people thrown off cliffs? I can see you pushing for that in the future, when I take enough mushrooms.

    Finally, people like me were blamed by gay activists for creating a climate of hate that directly led to Matthew Shephard’s death. Now the hate crimes bill is being called the Matthew Shephard bill—hmmm. Seems logical to me that since the proponents of this bill think my and others speech led to his death that we might be held responsible for future deaths under a hate crimes law.

    Please do not tarnish Mathew Shepard’s memory in this disengenuous fashion. We all know perfectly well that it was the guys who crucified him who committed the hate crime, not you.

    And for the record, I’m against non-tracking hate crimes laws in general because I think they’re pointless at best, and because I’d want someone who kills me for my wallet to get the same penalty as someone who kills me for holding hands with a girl in public. But people who only get outraged about these laws when the subject is sexual orientation aren’t fooling anyone.

15. And the argument that hate crime legislation would elevate gay lives over straight lives isn’t true either.

    If you check the FBI’s latest statistics from 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm) there were 935 anti-WHITE hate crime incidents recorded, 58 anti-PROTESTANT hate crime incidents recorded, and 23 anti-HETERO incidents recorded.

    In other words, if I were to decide there were too many straight people cluttering up the Abbey and went in with an assault weapon to clear out anyone who even looked straight, I’d be rightly charged with a hate crime under the proposed legislation.

16. Uh oh, did something happen to my “previous post?” Maybe it got caught in the moderation loop?

    Well, in case it got lost, I’ll try to reconstruct it.

    First, let me reiterate, I’m genuinely happy to see Exodus release this statement on bullying and violence. I share Alan’s hope that the statement will contribute towards a more widespread Christian response to the problem.

    On hate crime legislation:

    I think it is possible, and even honorable to hold a position against hate crimes that Alan articulated in this thread. A consistent position would hold that it shouldn’t exist for race and religion as well as sexual orientation, etc. It is perfectly honorable and correct to support it or oppose it based on the merits of the legislation.

    However, it is not honorable to lie about what the proposed legislation would do. I challenge Exodus and Focus on the Family to reprint the legislation on their web sites — as I have done on mine — and point out where in the proposed legislation it would in any way, shape or form, hinder their freedom of religion or speech. It does not. Anywhere.

    In fact, it cannot, because of the First Amendment. That’s why the Nazi’s were able to march in Skokie, and the Klan has been able to march in Texas and Ohio. Are their actions “hate crimes” on the basis of race or religion? Of course not. And guess what: they’ve had the backing of the courts and even the ACLU.

17. In my previous post however, I did neglect to mention my genuine appreciation for Exodus’ releasing their statement.

18. I can understand a consistent position on hate crime legislation that says that it shouldn’t exist for any protected class (i.e. race, religion, etc.). But to say that some people are singled out simply isn’t true, as I’ve pointed out time and again.

    According to the Hate Crime statistics posted by the FBI for 2005, (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm) there were 935 anti-WHITE hate crime incidents recorded, 58 anti-PROTESTANT hate crime incidents recorded, and 23 anti-HETERO incidents recorded.

    So you see, nobody’s being singled out for special protection.

    And the part about it limiting someones religious expression or speech, that’s simply not true. I challenge Alan Chambers to reprint the proposed legislation on his web site as I did on mine, and point out where in the text speech or religious expression is threatened. It simply isn’t.

    And not to compare Exodus or anyone else to Nazis or the Klan — because they’re not! — if anyone were to try to pin a hate crime allegation on anything Exodus prints or says, I’m sure they’d enjoy the same protection that the Klan and neo-Nazis enjoy in this nation, protections that are guaranteed by the First Amendment and consistently upheld by the coursts. Often with the full backing of the ACLU.

    If you really oppose hate crime legislation on its own merits, then do so. Don’t make stuff up.

19. Alan,

    I would applaud the first paragraph if it were not negated by the second.

    We all know what it means when someone says, “Yeah, I really have nothing against Susan, … but … “. It means that the first part is nothing but a save face for the trash talk that is coming.

    And to me it appears that this is what the first paragraph does. It says “I oppose bullying, … BUT… I oppose identifying targeted victims more”.

    And as for your opposition to ALL hate crime categories, all I can say is that this firm conviction about racial hate crimes was not present when you met with black pastors to denounce adding orientation to the classes covered. Not once was I able to find where you were reported as having told them that their rights should be diminished… but maybe that was a private conversation not available to the press. Nor have I heard you tell the Christian press that hate crimes should not cover those who are targeted because of their religion. But when orientation comes up, there you are.

    I could understand and support the notion of no hate crime inhancements entirely. But I find it more than a little convenient that your opposition was newfound upon including the third most targeted group to the list. It makes it hard for me to be convinced that your antipathy to hate crimes is shared equally across all subject classes.

    But back to your statement, Alan, why can’t the first paragraph just stand on its own? Why do you have to say “yeah, but”? What’s the need for the “special treatment” comment? Can’t a statement of compassion be just that – without a politial disclaimer?

20. Boo,

    I imagine that any email from Exodus regarding Hate Crimes came from our Government Affairs staff. I don’t know what was written, so I cannot comment except to say, there are a number of reasons we are concerned with hate crimes legislation: the slippery slope of criminalizing free speech (as is happening in other parts of the world) under a hate crimes law, elevating one group above another–we are all equal–and the potential threat to religious liberties.

    At this point there is no mention of speech, but the bill is all about motivation, which is a new concept. I see groups like HRC pushing for speech once this is passed—you are naive to think or say otherwise.

    Look, under this bill those who commit crimes against the protected groups will receive stiffer penalties than those that commit crimes against children.

    Finally, people like me were blamed by gay activists for creating a climate of hate that directly led to Matthew Shephard’s death. Now the hate crimes bill is being called the Matthew Shephard bill—hmmm. Seems logical to me that since the proponents of this bill think my and others speech led to his death that we might be held responsible for future deaths under a hate crimes law.

    The truth is, I am not for this law even if everyone named Alan Chambers were included. It’s bad policy.

21. I’m tyring not to be cynical about the statement, really. And, I honestly don’t know what sorts of statements or actions Exodus has made in the past concerning bullying. Maybe this statement IS a huge, radical thing. I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m just trying to get a “feel” for it. But, if this statement IS a big deal what in the world had they been saying before? It just doesn’t seem to say all that much to me that hasn’t been said. Jesus loves everyone. Bullying is wrong. Okay??? And??? I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. And what WOULD be the problem with Exodus coming out (no pun intended) and being more bold in their approach to supporting anti-bullying efforts more specifically toward gays? What would be so horrible about that?

22. Warren said it well: “Alan, I said it in the post and I will say again, I applaud your move in this direction and I really appreciated your blog post on the subject.” Maybe I am a being overly optimistic here. But I am with Warren on this (especially the spirit and intent of the first paragraph and the concept of equal treatment under law expressed in the second).

    Regarding the criticisms: I don’t like “gay identified” and, yeah, I picked up that the second paragraph was an implicit reaffirmation of EXODUS’s stand against Hate Crime Laws — and that troubled me a bit. Alan knows very well that I disagree with him on that subject. But, as brothers in Christ, we have agreed to disagree. The statement may not be perfect, but I have decided to think of it as a “glass half full” — and I personally thank Alan for it.

23. There is no logical reason to piggy-back a statement against hate crimes laws onto a statement against bullying. They are two separate issues. Even if such was not the intent, it has the appearance of some kind of crass political stunt.

    Also, Alan, did you see the comment from Mary regarding what she claimed your organization wrote to her regarding the hate crimes law? Are you willing to state your acknowledgement that the bill does not in fact contain any kind of provision for criminalizing speech, excepting of course direct incitement to violence which is already criminal, and that the bill does not penalize ex-gays?

24. Yeah, I am scratching my head on opposition or cynicism regarding this statement.

    Alan, I said it in the post and I will say again, I applaud your move in this direction and I really appreciated your blog post on the subject.

    I can barely put into words (and won’t here on this comment) my feelings about school based bullying. So anything we can do or say to combat typical social conservative reaction to bullying initiatives (there really isn’t a problem, its just a gay ploy), is a plus and welcomed by me.

25. Timothy,

    Obviously I am not as smart as you. Tell me how you concluded that I don’t support tracking hate crimes? #1) I actually DO support tracking hate crimes. #2) Tracking hate crimes didn’t even enter my mind when we finalized the statement.

    As for hate crimes legislation in general, I don’t support it. I don’t support it under any circumstances. Everyone: red, yellow, black and white, gay, straight, ex-gay, ex-straight, Jew, Christian, old, young, able, disable, you name it is protected already. Enforcing the law is all that is needed not an added penalty based upon who the crime is committed against.

    Quit trying to speak for me—you are very bad at it.

26. Sounds like Chambers is planning a run for congress as your basic Republican. But with the gerrymandering of Florida Districts [http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps/congress/congress.htm] I cannot tell if he’s in Florida’s 3rd, 7th, 8th, or 24th.

27. I am not so cynical. Alan and I have talked a lot about bullying and violence over the past 12 months — and I think he really means it — regardless of his position on Hate Crime laws. I have not discussed his feelings about tracking such crimes so I cannot speak to that.

    In any event, I want to thank him for speaking out against hatred, bullying and violence. As a survivor of all three (and as one of the founders of EXODUS) the statement means a lot to me personally. It’s an important step in EXODUS history. Now they have to live up to it.

28. I would like to see Exodus re-print the whole and in it’s entirety – any of the Hate Crime Bills being considered.

29. I wrote to Exodus about this stance and the response was that they do not support special rights for individuals, that this would take away free speech, and that it penalizes people who are no longer gay.

    Hmmm. A man or woman can be ex gay and still look gay and be attacked for being gay. The hate crimes bill does specifically allow freedom of speech so long as it is not inciteful (ie – beat up gay people because they are an abomination0 I hated saying that – and our laws are designed specifically with the amount and direction of intent when a crime is committed. Not all murders are tried the same, penalized the same, fall into the same category ( ie: 1st degree, 2nd degree, premeditated, manslughter, etc….) We can and do have room for special circumstances of violent acts against individuals. A person’s whose sole intent is to cause someone harm base on his/her percieved sexuality ought to be brought before the court and have that crime defined for what it is – hate crime. And then be penalized for such.

30. paraphrase:

    My position on bullying: I oppose tracking hate crimes.

    gee thanks, Alan

31. That was solidly unequivocal. Good for them.

Comments are closed.