I understand the motivation behind the graffiti, but I still don't condone destruction of property. This kind of criminal behavior only serves to validate the self-righteousness of people like Pastor Allison.

true, rachel... if the only times certain folks are directly interacted with out gay people, it's through actions such as vandalizing a church, it's not going to help them to understand anything - except for the lies in which they already believed.

Vandalism is wrong but there's something very right about that.

Apart from the obvious criminal offense here, brought up by Rachel, I do think that it's a good statement to make.

While I'm sure that this is less offensive than throwing a rock through the church window, I do think that it's a little problematic to answer this hatemonger with illegality. It makes it seem like he's a victim.

Clearly, Pastor Allison is a dick, and I think he should be sniped at for his behavior, I'd just prefer we did it legally.

I think it is horrible that someone defaced and degraded that church sign. However, I do understand how many gays and lesbians would be mad at the church's stance on homosexuality. What you have to understand is that many of the most popular religions frown upon homosexuality, not because they think they are better than them or that they are afraid of them, but simply because it is an act that does not reproduce the human species. True, that in today's world, the population is so overcrowded that, surprisingly, a lot of good would be done if more people did not reproduce and instead adopted more children, but thousands of years ago( when many of the world's religions were forming), that was not the case. Certainly, there were just as many gays and lesbians back then as there are today, perhaps many were even involved in the creation or furtherance of many of the worlds religions, but many of them carried out heterosexual lives and relationships instead because they thought it was the right thing to do for society and for the survival of the species and thus, for the good of others. They put that cause above themselves and there own self gratification.

I was wondering why the church sign doesn't say "Finding and Feeding His Heterosexual Sheep" up there at the top. So inaccurate. But of course, you can always just make your own at http://www.churchsigngenerator.com/ . I have my office hours posted on one of these.

First off, this sign is not the only contact Pastor Allison has had from gays. Several of my friends send him letters to tell him in a respectful way they don't agree with him. No one knew about their letters but the people who sent it and whoever received it and sent the form letter answer.

Thanks to these radical activists... everyone who drives down that street knows that gays are out there and are fighting against this bigotry and hatred coming at them from this pastor's teachings.

We all need to take a tip from whoever did this, get off our asses, get out there and make the news in new crazy, radical ways every day!! We can't sit around and just blog about the crazy shit conservatives are doing to get in the news. We need to ACT!!

indykat--thank you for your guesswork. too bad such altruistic thinking didn't extend to war, witch hunting, and the many other ways that humans shrink their own numbers.

So is it real or not?

I don't have a problem with graffiti aslong as it is tasteful and this surely is. It was only done in response to that idiotic message that was there before.

I applaud this action, and love civil disobedience!

Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous to condemn these in-you-face not-taking-bullshit actions because they don't fall within the confines of the law! who is the law there to protect? sure as shit isn't queer folks, womyn, or many other minorities!!

also, spraypainting "god loves you" isn't degrading a church message board; but telling girls they'll go to hell for kissing other girls sure is!

feminist love, and a dose of righteous anger,
jen

Actually, Indykat, you're very wrong. Judaism's/Christianity's (because most of the anti-homosexual writing is in the Old Testament) reasoning against homosexuality had very little with having babies. If you read the passages speaking against homosexuality, they are against men breaking traditional gender norms. They don't say "Don't have gay sex because it doesn't have children", they say "Don't have gay sex because then one of you is taking a woman's inferior role". This is why there is much, much more about homosexuality in men than in women, because a man being penetrated belittled him. The reasoning was not as altruistic and well-meaning as you would put out, it was just deeply sexist. It was also, in a smaller part, a political move to set the good, noble Christians/Jews apart from the evil, perverted pederastic/homosexual Greeks, Romans, and other nations. And the gay people who pretended to be straight did so because to even be suspected of being gay could mean their death--and women didn't have a choice in the matter of marriage at all.

Please do your research before condescending to us about what homophobia really means.

many of them carried out heterosexual lives and relationships instead because they thought it was the right thing to do for society and for the survival of the species and thus, for the good of others. They put that cause above themselves and there own self gratification.

Sexuality is not about self gratification. Having a meaningful connection and relationship is not about self gratification. Sexuality is not something frivolous that can be tossed aside. Having a meaningful connection and relationship is not something frivolous that can be tossed aside. In the example you have given, people would not ignore their sexuality "for the good of others," but as a means of self-preservation. Regardless of sexuality, most people need a connection with another human. I do not know how to say this any more clearly than I already have.

SEXUALITY IS NOT ABOUT SELF GRATIFICATION.

Yes, vandalism is a crime...but the church's previous message hurt more people than this illegal act does.
oh!press pass

The church really can't complain... I mean, if you're going to put something like "kiss another girl and you'll go to hell" on your message board, then you pretty much HAVE to expect retaliation in one way or another.

nightingale beat me to it: it's all about gender roles. I'd like to add that this is the reason that it's still such an issue w/ Christian fundies, too, because so much of their dogma relies on the proper place of men and women within society and family. Having two men or two women in a relationship is a mindfuck: "How do we know who is supposed to rule over and who is supposed to submit? How do we know who is supposed to stay home with the children and perform the housework and who is supposed to provide?" It's just too confusing and murky for (most of) them to deal with. They use the procreation argument in secular settings because they can't bring up the aforementioned reason without revealing their deeply ingrained sexism.

On another level, there's also the "But I think it's disgusting/wrong/unsettling, therefore no one should do it." Also known as the Lima Bean Defense. As though sexuality is solely a matter of personal taste.

Btw, both of these illustrations come from actual conversations I've had and sermons I've heard within the fundie community (from which I happily escaped).

I don't think it's right for Feministing to be condoning criminal behavior. It really belittles all the other fine posts that go up at this site.

i hear everyone who's congratulating this act... i mean, it's ridiculous... because it's so clear how far from god anyone is who says that because of how you love, you're going to hell.

among other things, that's a lie. god loves us... and all ze asks is that we love one another... there is no way ze would damn us to hell for loving, for doing what we are meant to be doing.

however, as i learned on another thread, it doesn't matter how right you are if you offend folks... your point won't get across. it may feel good to say it, but it's just not effective communication - if that's the intention.

Feministing isn't condoning criminal behavior. No where in their post does it say they condone this behavior. However they were right in assuming some of their readers would be interested in seeing the response some people have made to this church.

Monica, read the post's headline. "New and improved Church sign." That's approval of the graffiti, which is a criminal act. Plus, as shown by other "fun with feminist flickr" posts, there's been a long history of Feministing supporting criminal vandalism in order to portray a good message.

feministjen, i agree with your post `00%

feministjen, i agree with your post 100%

I know I shouldn't condone vandalism, but hell, this is great.

Couldn't the explanation of homophobia be a combination of indyKat34's and Nightingale's comments?

Perhaps, at the beginning of history, when it was hard to raise a child into adulthood, anything less than procreation was wrong. And later, once a large and extensive population was developed (the Roman Empire)that idea of homosexuality being wrong could evolve into "bringing a man down to the status of a woman".

I don't see why things would have to be black and white on this issue, and an explanation for this way of thinking doesn't necessarily mean anyone condones the idea of homophobia.

The Christian God doesn't adore gays, if he says he will condemn to hellfire. The graffiti seems amusingly ignorant of that.

I can only speak for Catholicism (of which I am no longer a member), but ALL acts of sex without the intent to procreate are sinful. Heck, the Pope said that a husband looking at his wife "with lust in his heart" is a sin.

However, the Church has a special loathing for homosexuality for precisely what was said before: it's about keeping a strict dichotomy between maleness/femaleness. It's "It is unclean to lie with a man as you would with a woman", not "Be fruitful and multiply" that resonates. The Apostle Peter said "A man shall not suffer a woman to teach (him)".

I think Linny is right, but in the wrong way. Religions' traditional mission was that of governance: to keep social order as they see fit and increase membership. To do so, most religions demand that women produce as many children as possible. If men are allowed to have sex with men and women are free to choose how many children to have, a religion faces loss of control, loss of members, and loss of legitimacy.

Spirituality has done a lot of good in this world. But the hierarchies which control many religions function in many ways like businesses rather than spiritual leaders.

I am a little sad at how some folks responded to Indykats comment. It seems to me that she/he was just trying to explain the church's teaching and was not condoning homophobia in anyway. I was raised Catholic, and that is exactly what they taught us and continue to teach people. Which is also why they are against birth control. I strongly disagree with the Catholic church's teaching, but there is no harm in trying to explain that to other people. At least
we can all be informed about it.

If people never did anything illegal we would have had no civil rights movement and no feminist movement. Wtf is up with this graffiti prudery? Some of the best artists are graffiti artists, like Banksy.

It actually looks like TWO separate acts of graffito - one done in pink, the other done later to sanitize the first. My $0.02.

Personally, I think property desecration/destruction is a great means of protest. It hits the TPTB in the wallet - something that actually matters to them. It gets past their earplugs and eye masks. As long as the target isn't those least able to afford the loss, and no one is injured/killed, spray away.

Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man — living in the sky — who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of those ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time…

But He loves you!

-- George Carlin (R.I.P.)

@indyKat34: You don't have to be gay or lesbian to be offended by the initial sign.

The Christian God doesn't adore gays, if he says he will condemn to hellfire. The graffiti seems amusingly ignorant of that.

i disagree with this... perhaps on a technicality... because i don't believe the Chrisitan God is the hateful one here... it's the mortals who think they know what God want. the spiritual teaching with which i was raised is that we were created by God, that s/he loves us and that a loving God would never condemn his/her children and creations to an eternity in hell...

the original gospels don't even talk about this crap, it's just a bunch of power-hungry spirituality brokers who are very much human, mortal and flawed...

in the words of marvin gaye

"oh don't go and talk about my father
god is my friend
jesus is my friend
he made this world for us to live in, and gave us everything
and all he asks of us is we give each other love."

i can't see how these clerics, these middlemen, get off by claiming that God would damn us for loving one another... that kind of teaching spits in the face of any greater being, any force of love...

Ah stop freaking out. Its just a little paint, telling a good message. There is something called paint remover folks.
Yay, I am loving this. Maybe then he will think twice about putting up such a degrading and disgusting sign.
FeministJen, love your post! Well said!

I'm kind of surprised that people are against this simply because its illegal. I mean, you know what else is illegal in most of the US? Gay marriage.

And "legality" and "morality" do not always coincide.

I feel like this act was justified. I think that there was a person, probably gay, but not necessarily, who lives in the neighborhood and passed that sign every day. How many times would you have to pass a sign that hatefully singled you out before you flipped out? And considering, I don't think it's even a "flip out". Though the paint does vandalize the sign and will probably be costly & time-consuming to removed, the message is loving and a nonviolent, contrary response to hate.

Was it the best way to deal with the situation?- Maybe not. But it got attention. After careful consideration, I approve of this message.

seriously, though, there are a lot of legal things which are a lot more harmful/ immoral than paint. how many small arms manufacturers are in prison? how many sweatshop operators or companies which operate in free trade zones are facing jail time, closure or even fines?

that's a great point, danyell...

and two thoughts... previously, i mentioned that i don't think this is a good idea if the goal is to convince the churchgoers that lgbt people are people and that saying they're going to hell is hateful and malicious. i still stand by that... justified as the act is, and it most definitely is, i don't think it's a really pr move.

however, that may not be the goal... perhaps it wasn't that neighborhood gay person who painted on the sign, but what if that person walked past it after it was painted... imagine the relief realizing that, despite all the hate, there's some stranger out there who risked jail time or a fine to reaffirm your humanity...

and, enginegal, despite my criticism of the act, one part of me hopes that it's the enamel paint that you can't remove so easily.

Ok, so let me turn it around for all those who are ok with this vandalism. You're ok with people spray painting our enemy's sign as a means of getting your message across, would you also be ok with pro-lifers spraypainting a PP sign with anti-choice messages? If you're not ok with both sides having access to the same means, you're being blinded by your own side.

And if you're ok with this property destruction, where are you not ok with it? What if the vandal had broken the sign plate instead of painting it (same cost both ways as the church has to replace wither sign cover)? Shattered windows? Overturned cars? Bombs? Where do you draw the line between OK property destruction and not OK property destruction. I'm saying that everyone who condones this is being very arbitrary in their standards of protest.

You know how many church signs here in the south spew hateful TRASH every week? Boo hoo. Now we're one to one million. There are also a lot worse things that whoever did this could have put. It's actually kind of rare now to see church signs with messages of love.

There's a really mouthy Methodist one near us (You'd think it would the Baptists...and I was raised Baptist) that always has some snarky saying or something outwardly hostile and ignorant, then at the bottom it's signed "-God", as in they attribute it to him. Hey, I thought that was blasphemy!

Last week's was

You Want Safe Sex?
Get married.

-God

Hmm yes, i believe i am ok with people spray painting messages of peace and love over any messages of hate that I may have.

Your second argument is tentamount to a "slippery slope" argument. I believe direct messages of peace love and acceptance are a bit different from destroying property outright, especially property which could cost large amounts of money to replace/repair. I don't believe there is anything arbitrary about it.

Honestly though, when I first started reading the comments about the sign I wasn't exactly for the spray painting due to its illegal nature. I still agree that there are perhaps better ways of saying what had to be said, although perhaps still illegal such as rearranging the letters of a sign thats already up. However, as I read through the comments I realized that playing by the rules doesn't make people ask questions, it lets people get by in their own little world ignoring the reality of today. While I think that there could be a legal action that could have been taken, I'm not sure if the "vandal" had the resources at the time to come up with a more creative approach.

Graffiti is a way for people with low resources to express themselves. I find that admirable in some ways.

Wow - I am amazed by the number of people who are troubled by the "vandalism" of this brilliant response to the pastor's paranoid-style hatred! Are you kidding me? I'm from the older spate of third wavers, so maybe I missed the "vandalism isn't good" mental hygiene film that some of you saw in school, because I only felt gleeful when I saw the response spray painted on the sign.

Graffiti art? Heck yeah! Think Banksy (yes! Moxieheart!) and the Guerilla Girls!

Seriously, Pastor Allison asked for this...

Do you know how many signs I have to pass, when I go to visit my parents, telling me how Invisible Sky Daddy will spank me if I masturbate, get an abortion, or kiss a girl? Fuck that hatefulness. If you want to keep your religious beliefs, that's fine, but don't impose them on me. One person changed a sign that said, "Pray the rosary to end abortion" to "Pray the rosary to end war." That was brilliant and way better than the liberal Christian game of "Don't tar us all with the same brush."
Frankly, I'm more troubled with the encroachment on public space by ads than I am by graffiti. So excuse me while I vandalize every dead-eyed American Apparel ad I see.

Ok, so let me turn it around for all those who are ok with this vandalism. You're ok with people spray painting our enemy's sign as a means of getting your message across, would you also be ok with pro-lifers spraypainting a PP sign with anti-choice messages? If you're not ok with both sides having access to the same means, you're being blinded by your own side.

Pro-lifers wouldn't do that. They'd blow the damn building up instead.

"Pro-lifers wouldn't do that. They'd blow the damn building up instead."

That's good for the economy. It will create a new loan and new debt until its termination. Think about the caskets and all the other stuff too. There will be newborns to replace the ones blown up. It's not really all that negative. Everyone has a choice.