top.gif - 25.77 K


letterscomp.gif - 12.60 K Pen Points
Letters to
Gay Today


Alcoholics Anonymous is Not Christian

Deep in your very good article "Why Reparative Therapy and Ex-Gay Ministries Fail" (Viewpoint, August 17, by Kim I. Mills) you said, "Like Alcoholics Anonymous, Homosexuals Anonymous is decidedly Christian but non-denominational."

This statement regarding AA is false. The practice of AA's Twelve Steps calls for faith and spiritual action. The Third Step says "(We) made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him."

While many members of AA may be Christians of various denominations, we are tolerant and accepting of them, as we are of members of other religions, and of athiests and agnostics.

It is a firm tradition in AA that "The only requirement for membership is a desire to stay sober." My personal experience with other members of AA is that their predominant faith is one of direct connection to God through prayer and meditation unencumbered by doctrine and religiosity, and has little to do with "Christianity".

Sincerely, Pat Bryan

"F*ck the Bloody Pope!" & "Piss Christ"

I am not Catholic, but I do not understand what redeeming value a work of "art" that directly insults another person's beliefs can possibly have to anyone. The paintings featured in Gay Today (Top Story August 26: http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/ garchive/events/082698ev.htm) can have no effect but to cause hurt to anyone of the Christian (especially Catholic) faith.

Why would we gay people, who would certainly be offended by a painting entitled "All Gays Must Die of AIDS", champion another painting wishing harm to someone else? Any "artist" who must gain his notoriety through controversy and offensiveness must have no REAL talent. So THERE!

mikebrown2.gif - 46.29 K Mike Brown's work is causing controversy in Australia

Zoomie

Catholics & The Pope

popesmile.gif - 18.50 KMost American Catholics are opposed to many of the policy statements coming out of Rome and the New York Archdiocese. You have to remember that the mouthpieces for the Catholic Church are the conservative faction being directed from Rome.

Most Catholics that I know are embarrassed by the mouthings of the "princes of the church". For instance, the church is opposed to birth control while at the same time being opposed to abortion. That's an oxymoron. The way to keep abortions down is to allow birth control…. Back to the art or not art question. If you don't like it, ignore it. Things tend to go away if nobody takes any interest in it. On the other hand damning something is a sure fire way to create more interest and controversy. Great art will persist and not so great art will be used to wrap fish.

Bill S.

National Endowment for the Arts & "Piss Christ"

pisschrist.jpg - 8.20 KI support eliminating the NEA. Since the whole funding process has become politicized (not to mention that the money these groups and individuals need should be raised privately), the money could be used elsewhere. Paying down the national debt would be my first choice. Because of the simple fact is that there are more applicants than there is grant money, people are already being turned down.

Nota

Tax Dollars & "Piss Christ"

What I've always found engaging about the "Piss Christ" is that, if one divorces the artist's intentions from one's interpretation of the work (that is to say, of course, that I don't think Serrano would endorse the interpretation that follows), the "Piss Christ" can be seen to make a poignantly orthodix statement: For to continue in sin in the face of Christ's ultimate sacrifice is, in effect, neither more nor less than to submerge a crucifix in a jar of piss. If one allows that interpretation--and, based solely on formal criteria, I defy anyone to disallow it--then this extraordinarily "offensive" work is changed utterly.

Those who say they don't want "their" tax dollars going to this or that, for my money, understand neither democracy nor art. Had I the option, not one thin dime of my tax dollars would go to pay the salary or either Newt Gingrich or Bill Clinton. However, I don't have that option--and neither does Pat Robertson, who probably isn't thrilled silly that his tax dollars help pay the salaries of Paul Wellstone and Barney Frank. As for the truly reprehensible notion that only art which is offensive should receive public funding, I'm afraid that that's tantamount to turning the National Endowment for the Arts over to Hallmark Cards.

Strato

Catholic Loyalists and Complicity

jesus.jpg - 15.56 KCatholic loyalists will have a hard time dealing with their complicity with this hate on the part of the institution they support, but there is no denying that the Catholic Church strongly discriminates, and by its opposition to civil rights laws condones discrimination.

A part of freedom of religion in this country is that if you disagree with this hate-mongering bigotry you are free to get up and walk away from this institution and stop supporting it with your time and money.

I expect I will annoy Catholics with this analogy, but to me it's a lot like saying you only go to KKK rallies for the great BBQ's, you really disapprove of the bigotry, but these guys have been your neighbors all your life and they're really nice guys deep down inside.

Horsefeathers. If you don't agree, do not support the institution.

Ellipse


Send Your Pen Point to:
gaytoday@badpuppy.com

© 1997-98 BEI