Comments | northlighthero: The Dallas Principles

northlighthero

The Dallas Principles

May 21, 2009 23:50

In order to achieve full civil rights now, we avow:

1. Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender individuals must be enacted now.
Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.

2. We will not leave any part of our community behind.

3. Separate is never equal.

4. Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to
affirm or deny civil ( Read more... )

acceptance, privilege, oppression, bigotry

Comments 8

america_divine May 23 2009, 00:40:44 UTC

#4 may be poorly stated, and may also be at war with American cultural history and the importance of words like "We hold these truths the be self evident, that all...are created equal and endowed by their creator..."

It may be poorly stated because there is no reason to exclude (from what, exactly?) the affirmative power of religion, which has done a great deal to actualize progress; because freedom of religion is itself a primary civil right; and because religious identities often constitute classes requiring civil rights protection. Religion is also a conceptual basis for Native rights, land use, immigration equality, sanctuary rights, access issues and epistemological self-determination.

northlighthero May 23 2009, 15:22:30 UTC

I can agree that #4 might be poorly stated, but I suspect the authors of the Dallas Principles were looking to that same bit of American history to point out that, essentially "your religion" should not be a reason to deny "my civil rights."

While I might quibble with the wording, I think the time has come for a national declaration and these statements look like "it" to me.

It's always good to have your perspective, Dear One.

america_divine May 23 2009, 15:46:27 UTC

In the present climate of a very poorly informed militant atheism, I don't think it's quibbling. It goes to the heart of things. These things have a tendency to become what that say, and that prohibition of affirmation would silence Martin Luther King ( ... )

northlighthero May 23 2009, 16:46:21 UTC

Hmm. There's a lot in what you say that I can agree with, and even more that I can respect. But in my community I'm not encountering "militant atheism" much at all. What I'm encountering lots more of is the notion that if I'm not a member-in-good-standing of an established-and-accepted-house-of-worship then I'm fair game for everyone whose religion demands that they seek converts among those who "haven't heard" about their particular brand of One True Way ( ... )

Thread 7

anonymous May 28 2009, 18:01:53 UTC

Are these principals only meant to apply to the gay/gender queer debate? If they're meant to be larger civil rights principals, I'm not entirely comfortable with #2, as it happens. At first, it's because it reeks so heavily of the ordure that is No Child Left Behind, but even at second glance, I don't think it entirely in line with my paramount duty to not infringe on others' Free Will as long as they cause no harm. Furthermore, I just don't think it's logical or possible ( ... )