For The Bible Tells Me So

March 8, 2008 5:42 PM

For The Bible Tells Me So. (documentary, Google Video. Trailer.)
posted by Ira.metafilter (52 comments total)

awesome!


and:

.




[for the other lolxians fpp already deleted today!]
posted by [son] QUAALUDE at 5:56 PM on March 8, 2008

Thank you! I'm at home sick on the couch missing a party I was looking forward to, and now I have something I really want to watch!
posted by fiercecupcake at 5:59 PM on March 8, 2008

This is actually a very good doc.
It dissects all the poor scriptural translations and selective interpretations regarding homosexuality.
Coulda used a beefier post to bring it to the blue and it will probably get pulled, but before it does yall should check it out while you can still read this.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 6:04 PM on March 8, 2008

I saw it a few months ago - it was VERY good.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:06 PM on March 8, 2008

I've only seen the trailer so far, and can't wait to see the whole thing. (I wish I had previewed before posting the Jesus thing right after this, that's a whole lotta google vid for one night.)
posted by snsranch at 6:10 PM on March 8, 2008

I hope this doesn't get pulled. I don't know why it would. Interesting documentary. And it's hard to label something LOLXIANS when most (all?) of the people interviewed identify as Christian.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:23 PM on March 8, 2008

I hope this doesn't get pulled. I don't know why it would.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a pirated copy of the movie. So that could be a reason.
posted by Adam_S at 6:32 PM on March 8, 2008

It makes me sad to see and hear this irrational hatred of people that are perceived as different. I wish those who object to homosexuals would actually read Leviticus in its entirety, thus realizing how much cherry picking out of contest they are doing.

And I am a lolXian: I feel lucky that the church I frequent is an open and affirming one, welcoming anyone, no matter what their sexual inclinations.

Too bad about this being a pirated copy: it is an excellent document
posted by francesca too at 6:35 PM on March 8, 2008

I watched this last week or the week before and it was one of the most moving and interesting documentaries I've seen in some time. It's the story of five fundamentalist Christian families, and how they respond to learning that their child is gay. As you'd expect, they cover the whole spectrum of responses.

***spoiler***




The most interesting thing about it though, was the stuff about the Bishop of -- was it Rhode Island? He talks about his journey, about marrying despite knowing that he had a gay side, but believing that he could put that to one side. He also had very conservative religious parents. And over time, it becomes clear to him that he can't go on living a lie, so he and his wife agree to set their vows aside -- all very mutual and civilized.

Anyway, he's up for Bishop and there were a few things that I thought were particularly moving. One was the strength of support that he had amongst his parishioners (or the members of his diocese, or whatever they happen to call them.) The second thing was his sheer fucking bravery. This guy had a barriage of death threats from other so-called Christians. So much so, that when he was ordained, they had him wearing a bullet proof vest beneath his cassock, because the fear of assassination from the loony church rampant was so great.

I can't recommend this film highly enough. The theologians take a lot of time and effort to explain exactly why church teachings regarding homosexuality are wrong. But I am an atheist. So perhaps I'm glad to see a bunch of Xtians going to hell for cornholing each other? I don't think so though. It had a message of tolerance and acceptance that strikes an atheist like me as being exactly what religion *should* be about.

I give this movie two criscoed fists up.


posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:42 PM on March 8, 2008 [3 favorites]

Pirated ? I didn't saw any blood being spilled, and that's what really pirates did.

welcoming anyone, no matter what their sexual inclinations.

Uhm, yes possibly. Until the next priest come and subverts everything. After all who are you to comment on what the priest says ? He/She is the priest, you are what exactly ?

Similarly, too bad about it being pirated ? Maybe, but consider this : piracy was about killing sailors to take away the good they were carrying, when they didn't surrender. Copyright infringemente is not piracy, just not the same thing. But why did they use the word piracy ? To suggest it's the work of bloodthirsty criminals, while it's entirely different.
posted by elpapacito at 6:44 PM on March 8, 2008

This is good.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:49 PM on March 8, 2008

Alright, considering it's Saturday night, and I watched 20 minutes, great fpp.
posted by humannaire at 6:53 PM on March 8, 2008

Until the next priest come and subverts everything. After all who are you to comment on what the priest says ? He/She is the priest, you are what exactly ?

You really know a lot about this church you've probably never been to.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 6:55 PM on March 8, 2008 [1 favorite]

You really know a lot about this church you've probably never been to

I don't need to go, the principle is easy : if the priest says A , you may say NOT A (or B,C..whatever) ...but the authority figure is that of the priest, not you. Similarly, if the President of anything says "A" you are nowhere nearly as authoritative as he/she is in the same context..because, quite simply, you are not the priest.

And for no other reason than that. Now it may happen that he/she is right , but what if that's not the case ? Simply, you are an outkast.
posted by elpapacito at 7:01 PM on March 8, 2008

I hope this doesn't get pulled.

But if it does, there's a torrent of it on the elpapacito-says-we're-not-Pirates Bay.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:26 PM on March 8, 2008

Just watched the first 5 minutes, looks very well-made.
posted by zardoz at 7:33 PM on March 8, 2008

Previously -- Dick and Chrissy Gephardt talking about the documentary; an interview with director Daniel Karslake.
posted by ericb at 7:34 PM on March 8, 2008 [1 favorite]

The documentary's official website.
posted by ericb at 7:35 PM on March 8, 2008

I'm watching this now. It's good, but the cartoon in the middle irritated me, for several reasons...1) it's never helpful to caricature the opposition that way (the guy named "Christian" is a useless idiot, and naming him "Christian" is pretty inflammatory) 2) why did that feel the need to include a cartoon in the first place? because Michael Moore did it? and 3) the cartoon really framed the debate as gay rights vs. free will. The "scientists" argued that homosexual inclination is not a choice. "Christian" then argued that acting on this inclination is a choice and a matter of free will. In response, the "scientists" presented more evidence that homosexual inclination is not a choice...thus ignoring the objection. I think it's true that gay people are free not to act on their inclination. The point should be that there's no reason they shouldn't act on their inclination, not that they can't help but act on it. There's no reason to turn this debate into a question of science vs. free will -- in fact, that's just how conservative Christianity would like to frame the debate, so there's no reason to do them that favor.
posted by creasy boy at 7:44 PM on March 8, 2008 [6 favorites]

I'm only about a third of the way through so far. It's good. But, the fundamental idea just rubs me in the wrong way. And it's a common idea - "Yeah, the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, and yeah, the Bible is the word of the all powerful and all knowing creator of the universe, but it also says eating shellfish is an abomination. So you have to interpret what it means when it says you should murder homosexuals."

Strikes me very much as wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

The proper conclusion is not "interpret the word of the all powerful and all knowing creator of the universe in a way that is suitable to decency". The proper conclusion is "this is not the word of the all powerful and all knowing creator of the universe".
posted by Flunkie at 7:53 PM on March 8, 2008 [4 favorites]

I just want to say that I am deeply offended...



...that PeterMcDermott has confused our great state, New Hampshire, with Rhode Island.

Seriously, though, for all the flack NH takes for its libertarian streak, we've proven ourselves pretty tolerant on this account. We've got Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal Bishop (who PeterMcDermott is talking about) and we're the first state to institute same-sex civil unions without it being court ordered. And I think that's cool.

I did not know about this movie, and it's really fascinating. Thanks for posting.
posted by dseaton at 8:00 PM on March 8, 2008

Well, I'm only partway through the video, but it sounds to me like the problem is this "bible" thing they keep bringing up.
posted by odinsdream at 8:04 PM on March 8, 2008 [2 favorites]

A book that one of the "I accept my daughter but not her decision" types has on his desk: "Why You Should Speak in Tongues".

This of course refers to Jesus supposedly having said:

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I wonder if there would be a market for "Why You Should Drink Poison" or "Why You Should Pick Up Snakes".
posted by Flunkie at 8:14 PM on March 8, 2008

I still can't watch this shit without wanting to hurt the homophobes.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:19 PM on March 8, 2008

It's painful watching the wheels turn so slowly in some of these peoples' heads. Though I guess it really does get classified as a success, it's still really frustrating.
posted by odinsdream at 8:28 PM on March 8, 2008

I still can't watch this shit without wanting to hurt the homophobes.

Yea, me too and every time this comes up I can't help thinking about the Greek, Roman and other cultures that paved the way for modern civilization that were very accepting homosexuality.

I'm not a big scholar on the subject, but it seems to me that many of the greatest humans in history were gay or bi.
posted by snsranch at 8:35 PM on March 8, 2008

Thank you for posting this, it broke my heart watching it but I'll live. Really powerful.
posted by nola at 8:57 PM on March 8, 2008

Saw this in the theatre and while the stories were really moving, the presentation and editing were so off-the-shelf that they kept pulling me out of listening to the people interviewed. The cartoon is definitely a bad inclusion.

That said, Jake Reitan is pretty hilarious. Mr. Sixswitch was convinced he was the young kid from Trekkies, the one who kept mispronouncing words he'd obviously only ever read. Heh. Debacle.

On preview: Two fists up — agree strongly!
posted by sixswitch at 9:17 PM on March 8, 2008

Excellent documentary. Thanks for posting.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:01 PM on March 8, 2008

Strikes me very much as wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Given that people have tended to believe in some big voodoo sky God for just about the whole of human history and are unlikely to stop doing so now, regardless what you or I think, it struck *me* as an intelligent, pragmatic response to a problem that hurts people, even kills people, in countless numbers every year.

Sorry about confusing New Hampshire and Rhode Island though, dseaton. I couldn't remember where it was, and my reasoning went like this:

'OK, it was a tiny state in the North West that has two words in its name: Rhode Island?'

That said, those Episcopalians tended to be just about as moderate, intelligent and reasonable as our own Church of England people often are. Remember, we recently had a Bishop of York who didn't believe in the literal truth of Miracles, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, which he dismissed as a 'conjuring trick with bones'. David Jenkins, the late Bishop of York, was all about social justice, speaking loudly in support of our striking miners whose union was in the process of being crushed by Thatcher at that time. An academic theologian, he espoused a Christianity that had effectively no supernatural beliefs whatsoever, and not only was there a place for him within the Anglican Communion, but it was a broad enough church that the guy could be a Bishop of one of the most historically important dioceses in the world.

Mind you, when the roof of York Minster was hit by lightning during his tenure, the sky god brigade all said it was a sign of His displeasure, but even so, there's something consoling about knowing that our national state religion is sufficiently broad to accept someone like me who sees no evidence whatsoever to believe in the divinity of Christ -- at least, not a divinity that's any greater than the one that we all enjoy.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:16 PM on March 8, 2008

he espoused a Christianity that had effectively no supernatural beliefs whatsoever

So did Thomas Jefferson.
posted by Flunkie at 10:21 PM on March 8, 2008

How do you get away with calling yourself a Christian without believing Jesus was crucified, died, and was resurrected to redeem humanity for its sins?

I mean, it's great that there's an open-minded guy in the clergy that supports about implementing Christ's calls for social justice, but it seems like a cop-out to claim to be a follower of a religion but only take to heart its most superficial tenets while disregarding the others.
posted by anifinder at 10:48 PM on March 8, 2008

This was pretty good right up until it was plowed into by a South Park episode at 39 minutes in. Introducing a reductionist nature vs. nurture argument - especially in such a patronizing, puppet-theatre idiom - undermines the human focus of the whole thing. The key point isn't deciphering how much choice people have in being gay, bisexual, etc - rather, the point is how we tight-fist our expired cultural norms, and react so superstitiously, so cruelly, to little deviations from them. And that the resulting estrangement harms everyone: there's unmistakable suffering among the Christian parents in this piece, not just blowhard indignation. We can laugh down our noses at snapshots of jeering, stupefied "God hates fags" rage, but they don't convey the total bankruptcy of that mantra as well as does dialogue with these families.

Also, the laugh-fodder Sodom and Gemorrah clips? And the corpse shots at 1:04? Tacky and spectacularly bad taste, respectively - why not respect the intelligence of the audience a little more than your average YTMND Scientology riff?

Overall, great interview subjects, but I could do without the direction. Why can't all documentaries be formatted like Frontline?
posted by kid ichorous at 11:06 PM on March 8, 2008 [1 favorite]

I think it's true that gay people are free not to act on their inclination.

I'm curious as to how long you've been voluntarily celibate before...?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:49 PM on March 8, 2008 [1 favorite]

How do you get away with calling yourself a Christian without believing Jesus was crucified, died, and was resurrected to redeem humanity for its sins?

Apparently, there's a growing theological tradition that believes such things -- I think Don Cupitt's Sea of Faith is one of the key texts.

Don't hold me to this, as I haven't actually read anything substantial on this stuff, but I think that their position is similar to that of many of the clergy in this film. That the Bible is a historical document, written by men, and consequently subject to the various blindspots and prejudices of their time. The more that we get to understand science, the more that we get to realize that the supernatural stuff is really a product of the limited world view of the people who wrote it, the more essential it becomes to focus on Christ's teachings rather than on his divinity.

I understand that lots of people take your view though. There's a very vocal segment of the church that thinks you can't be an Anglican if you don't believe the basic stuff laid out in the Anglican catechism. Though clearly the heirarchy didn't believe these views -- which he'd written and spoken about long before he was actually made a Bishop -- were any particular obstacle to his ordination as Bishop of York
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:19 AM on March 9, 2008

Ah. He was Bishop of Durham, not Bishop of York. My bad.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:20 AM on March 9, 2008

Apparently, Jenkins views aren't particularly outlandish in the C of E.

22/12/2002 Telegraph:

Quarter of clergy do not believe in the Virgin Birth
By Chris Hastings and Fiona Govan

More than a quarter of Church of England clergy do not believe in the
virgin birth of Christ, according to a survey carried out by The Telegraph.

A poll of 500 clerics found that 27 per cent privately reject the
traditional story of Jesus's birth, which forms a vital part of the Nativity.

The view of a Hampshire vicar was typical. "There was nothing special about
his birth or childhood - it was his adult life that was extraordinary," he
said.

He declined to be named, saying: "I have a very traditional bishop and this
is one of those topics I do not go public on. I need to keep the job I have
got."

The survey will dismay traditionalists inside and outside the Church of
England.

Many of the sceptics who took part in the survey, one of the biggest ever
conducted by a newspaper, said that the story of the virgin birth was a
product of poor biblical translations and literary tradition rather than
divine intervention.

More here
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:27 AM on March 9, 2008

This was pretty good right up until it was plowed into by a South Park episode at 39 minutes in. Introducing a reductionist nature vs. nurture argument - especially in such a patronizing, puppet-theatre idiom - undermines the human focus of the whole thing.

The cartoon was somewhat irritating, but I'm pretty sure that this was the first film of a young director who is also gay and a Christian, so I don't find the occasional mis-step as irritating as others might. I found it much less irritating and less manipulative than many of Michael Moore's films. The characters weren't single dimensional, but complex and contradictory and torn and all the more human for that.

BBC3 screened Tony Kaye's Lake of Fire last week, and I'm looking forward to watching that as soon as I can find the three hour time slot to do so.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:50 AM on March 9, 2008

I need to keep the job I have got.


And there you have it. Some people are willing to deeply hurt others for their job. It helps if their company manual has instructions for that tucked in somewhere.

It would help very much if this group of people started having ethics and morals. The people who are truly deluded into believing the gay are evil will slowly follow after that.
posted by DreamerFi at 1:57 AM on March 9, 2008

It would help very much if this group of people started having ethics and morals.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, DreamerFi. David Jenkins (the most prominent and outspoken member of this group) has been speaking out for gay rights and for gay clergy for just about longer than anybody else in the UK.

See here, for example. (Second half of the piece)

That sure sounds like a man with ethics and morals to me.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:12 AM on March 9, 2008

creasy boy writes "I think it's true that gay people are free not to act on their inclination. The point should be that there's no reason they shouldn't act on their inclination, not that they can't help but act on it. There's no reason to turn this debate into a question of science vs. free will -- in fact, that's just how conservative Christianity would like to frame the debate, so there's no reason to do them that favor."

lupus_yonderboy writes "I'm curious as to how long you've been voluntarily celibate before...?"

Now that's a good point! Slicing and sizing up the homosexual category is pretty easy, but when time comes to do the same on the category to which one belongs suddendly all the attention is on asking homosexuals why they "keep on chosing" being so.

If they answer "because I am so inclined, I can't help it" the assertion is skipped and they are further asked "but your genitals betray your gender, you are just willingly indulging your desires" and from there to frame homosexuals as perverts there is one small step : suggesting that they are slaves to their desires , because they don't act upon them. Indeed the point of why should they control them is skipped completely.

Similarly , an heterosexual indulgence in his/her desires is condemned tout court ; rarely, if ever, the idea of temperance and self-control are presented as instruments, but more often are sold wholesale as goals to be pursued acritically : you should restrain because you should, period. If you don't then you are dangerous because you don't see how reasonable we are being, therefore you should be repressed back to the flock of "reason".

In doing so they do a great disservice to the idea of reasoned self-restrain , because it may appear to some people that learning to control our own actions, listening to our emotions and attempting to understand how we"work" is a christian/mongolian/rastafarian tradition . Or worse, yet another idea of some batshit insane Xians , hence the knee jerk reaction of dismissing the idea of self-understanding as yet another useless aggravation by a bunch of priests so much scared by the other sex they are obsessed by the idea of figuring them out , but subconsciously because they want to take control of the menace.
posted by elpapacito at 3:46 AM on March 9, 2008

"I'm curious as to how long you've been voluntarily celibate before...?"

Excuse the analogy, but: it might well be the case that pedophiles can't help the way they are, and yet we would ask pedophiles to be voluntarily celibate and we would see it as a failure of personal responsibility if they were not. At least I would.

This is why the argument should be that there's nothing wrong with homosexual love, not that it's biologically ingrained or natural. Plenty of things are natural or biologically ingrained without being morally right, and vice versa. There simply is no argument from biology to moral value, and to make that argument is to implicitly dismiss personal responsibility. Imagine saying "I can't help (stealing/lying/killing), it's in my genes." Conservative Christians think that homosexual sex belongs in that list of bad things, and if that premise were true they would be absolutely right to say: you do have a choice and you must stop. So framing the issue as a matter of biological compulsion plays right to the pious rhetoric of loving the sinner, hating the sin.

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I study moral philosophy and I don't like the popularity of these arguments that personal actions are justified by genetics. Arguments from "nature" to morality are bad form and can just as easily be used to oppress as to liberate. The argument against homophobia is simply that consensual love between two adults is generally a good thing and at the very least it doesn't break your leg or pick your pocket.
posted by creasy boy at 3:38 AM on March 9, 2008 [7 favorites]

i know for certain that God loves homosexuals, because without his ongoing intervention Darwinian natural selection would have exterminated them ruthlessly eons ago.
posted by quonsar at 4:14 AM on March 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

creasy boy- Your point

This is why the argument should be that there's nothing wrong with homosexual love, not that it's biologically ingrained or natural. Plenty of things are natural or biologically ingrained without being morally right, and vice versa. There simply is no argument from biology to moral value, and to make that argument is to implicitly dismiss personal responsibility. Imagine saying "I can't help (stealing/lying/killing), it's in my genes." Conservative Christians think that homosexual sex belongs in that list of bad things, and if that premise were true they would be absolutely right to say: you do have a choice and you must stop. So framing the issue as a matter of biological compulsion plays right to the pious rhetoric of loving the sinner, hating the sin.

is very valid but I think that calling homosexuality a natural part of life was to answer the accusation if it being a "unnatural act". On pedophilia, it might be considered a natural act but it is definitively not consensual, no matter how much predators would like to disguise their actions by calling "young love".
posted by francesca too at 5:59 AM on March 9, 2008

Thanks for the links ericb - the interview with the director is especially worth reading. I definitely agree with many of you about the cartoon part in the middle - it was jarring and patronising, and not helpful in reaching out to people. And there were other points in the film where I was wanting the director to pull back more, and let the people's stories make his point. Plus I always find myself wanting documentary filmmakers to stop using music to sweep people along - in fact, to stop using music at all, except maybe right at the end. (Silence is okay!) To believe that the story you'll telling is enough, on its own, to reach people. But it's still a very good film.

What moved me the most, watching it, was the parents' love - their children were more important to them, than their deeply-held beliefs, worldviews. Many parents are not able to, or don't know how to, love their children that much.

It was good to get to know more about Gene Robinson too, having followed his story in the news. He is a courageous man.
posted by Ira.metafilter at 7:10 AM on March 9, 2008

Oh and thanks for mentioning Lake of Fire PeterMcDermott - will have to seek it out.
posted by Ira.metafilter at 7:12 AM on March 9, 2008

The Askme thread ericb linked to should be part of this thread too.
posted by Ira.metafilter at 7:19 AM on March 9, 2008

This movie was God-is-great, Christian propaganda. The cure for bigotry is not more Christianity but less.
posted by dydecker at 8:35 AM on March 9, 2008

Our church showed this documentary last nite, followed by a talk with the filmmaker. The film was moving, but the talk afterward blew me away. Daniel Karslake cries still while talking about interviewing Archbishop Tutu, receiving emails from closeted gay teens, and remaining in touch with the various subjects of his work. If you get the chance to attend a Q&A with him in your area, I highly recommend you do so.
posted by houseofdanie at 9:18 AM on March 9, 2008

dydecker: Whether or not you're right, I think that this movie was actually about trying to find a cure for bigotry within christianity rather than within society as a whole. I consider myself an atheist, but I have no problem with people practicing the kind of christianity that advocates intelligence and maturity when it comes to reading the scriptures rather than just accepting it at face value.
posted by emperor.seamus at 10:52 AM on March 9, 2008

PeterMcDermott: you're mistaken if you suppose that David Jenkins 'saw no evidence whatsoever to believe in the divinity of Christ'. Jenkins argues in his autobiography that it is 'perfectly possible for a thoughtful modern person today to hold to the orthodox belief that Jesus was at the same time both truly God and truly man and to believe (as I most certainly do) in the resurrection of Jesus, whether or not one is convinced by the story of the empty tomb as the account of an indisputable, physical fact'. How he manages to reconcile these views is not entirely clear to me, but he plainly believes he is within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.

Anthony Freeman, who did reject the divinity of Christ, was sacked as an Anglican parish priest -- so all the signs are that the Church of England is not 'sufficiently broad to accept' views of that sort. Remember too that there has been a big backlash against religious liberalism in the last few years, and I doubt very much whether someone like Jenkins would ever be made a bishop nowadays. After all, we now have an Anglican bishop who believes that the government is like a 'demonic beast' and that alcoholism, anorexia and anal sex are all manifestations of evil spirits.
posted by verstegan at 11:06 AM on March 9, 2008

you're mistaken if you suppose that David Jenkins 'saw no evidence whatsoever to believe in the divinity of Christ

Thanks for the correction, vergestan. I've never really paid that much attention to his positions, and was simply remembering what little I'd seen reported in the newspapers about him. What I do recall was that everything I ever heard him say seemed eminently reasonable to my atheist sensibilities, and certainly didn't seem in line with the orthodox views on things like the virgin birth, or the resurrection, but instead, seemed to be insisting on the symbolic importance of them as myths to live by rather than in their literal historical truth.

I do agree though, that it was something of a stretch to regard those things as a lack of belief in the divinity of Christ, but he does seem to be very much in that theological humanist tradition articulated by Cupitt, Jenkins, Freeman, etc. Though I confess to not knowing anything like enough to articulate any distinctions that may exist between them.

IIRC, wasn't Jenkins chosen at that time because he was the lesser of two radical evils? I seem to recall that Thatcher, who had some part in the process, balked at whoever was originally proposed and settled on Jenkins instead? I'm wondering what on earth the more radical person must have believed?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:48 AM on March 9, 2008