PS.  For those who are unsure what Affirming (capital A) means, check out this site: http://www.affirmunited.ca/

pps.  I was part of the advocacy group at our church for the Affirming process...it isn't a vote, it is the process which is important.

Given the history of the place I am dubious that it could work.  It is hard enough to police in real life in some spots, much less in a virtual world.

but, it is the intent, which then puts the process down.  I understand, GordW, but, it is a thought.

If say the vast majority, say "yes", this is an affirming site, then, you segregate the non-affirming stuff to an area, saying, enter at will. It sets a minimum standard, which is higher than the hate law standard.

I've had private conversations with other members about this, and I think it's a fantastic idea, but wouldn't it be impossible to accomplish given the current format and norms?

Ideally, I'd like the cafe to be a homophobia free zone and a good place for young people and others to learn how to be accepting of themselves and 'cafe members, and a way to set a positive example.  I would wish to see homophobic slurs taken seriously, including "hey, I don't make this up -- it's God's word etc..."

I'd like to see more education too.  Stereotypes challenged.  Unfortunately, some discussions cross the line from information to inappropriate stuff, which doesn't help, since admin will shut them down.

I don't think it's only "conservative Christians" who would have a problem with perceived censorship that would result from this.

Oh I could go on forever, and would really support the move toward Affirmation, helping in any way I can.

I just doubt it's possible.

That was poorly worded, even from me.  Let me try again.

If we can agree to an intent to be Affirming, then, the next step would be to determine who could work  out the process, including asking Affirm United for guidance -- how do you become an Affirming site? 

Part of the process would have to include how does the site continue to encourage dialogue with those who are clearly NOT affirming, and wish to state same, and/or those who are somewhere in between and wish to discuss.

It would also probably result in a minimum standard which is higher than the current minimum regarding "hate" speech.

I think that would be a reasonable goal.  It would be raising the bar a little, but if there were too many "boxes" for affirming, non-affirming and those in between, how would learning take place?

It's a dilemna

well, agreed, nf, but, in a way, that is how an affirming process occurs...and in a way, that is how it is in a church anyhow.  One can't presume eveyrone is affirming, you know there will be levels of affirmation...but, there is a minimum standard which is higher than is the norm elsewhere..and in addition, there is a clear goal by the majority to be affirming.

 I am all for turning Wondercafe into an Affirming Site. It`s a process. So what could Wondercafe do to become so.

One thing we could do is to advertise on GLBT sites and in magazines, or if that is problematic due to the adult content on these sites, we could buy google ads so whenver someone searched using keywords like gay and christianity, or gay and christ, transgender and religion an Wondercafe would appear at the top of the search results.

ok, so....you are saying, Alex that by appealing to gay population, that we are affirming.....

wouldn't we have to work on our norms of behaviour before doing so? wouldn't be good to hang the Affirming flag, and then be set up for damage to folks

Just a little reminder that an affirming congregation or commumity is affirming of many different groups -race colour. disabled/ablesw, aged, youth , women, men as well as GLBTQ. It is a long process and  acomplicated.. undertaking on WonderCafe, imo but we wouldn't know unless we tried. is it better to try and fail than not try at all.?

I, too, wonder how it would work given the free and open nature of the internet.  However, if someone or a team of someones were to discern a process we could mostly agree on that would walk us towards becoming Affirming, I would totally support it.

It's a good thing to be Affirming, no matter what.  (Can you tell I'm on the board at an Affirming ministry???)  But, I think a simple glance through some of the Relationships and Social threads shows how important it is for us to somehow accomplish this feat.  There are numerous threads of coming out stories, advice on accepting oneself, people struggling with their identity and what it means to them and their families -- people are coming to WonderCafe looking for a safe place to discuss these issues.  Is it presently a safe place?  And, did you notice that a lot of those threads are started by youth and young adults?  There's currently a thread in the Religion and Faith forum of GLBTTQ youth in churches and it's very clear that some sort of programming needs to be put in place to support these youth.  Perhaps branding WonderCafe as Affirming is one way to do so?

I look forward to hearing some ideas.

At first glance, it looks similar to the Welcoming Congregation program in UU'ism, so I don't see a problem with it myself. My own UU fellowship has been a welcoming congregation for several years.

My only concern with making WC Affirming would be that if it pushes us into a stricter mod regime re. certain topics, we may find less diversity around here. In particular, some of the conservatives might decide to leave rather than have their ability to speak their truth restrained. I realize that some might consider that a good thing (the conservatives leaving), but I do not.

My suspicion is that the only way it could be properly policed would be a forum called "Open" or something where the moderation is less stringent. You enter that forum at your own risk. rpg.net (my other board) did something similar when they decided to create a separate forum called Tangency for non-rpg related discussions rather than trying to continually shut down the ones that kept popping up in the rpg forum. (rpg = Roleplaying Game).

Mendalla

I would be completely supportive of this idea.  The cycle needs to be broken.

LB

The whole worlds broke and it aint worth fixing
Its time to start all over, make a new beginning
Theres too much pain, too much suffering
Lets resolve to start all over make a new beginning
Tracy Chapman, New Beginning

You're reading my mind, YW.  I believe there's a wonderful influx of young people here making their own community, obviously feeling this is a good place to do that.  How can we make this better?  It's quite amazing, actually.

Here's a thought, first, let's ask our respective Affirming groups if they know of an on-line community who has done so.

Is anyone willing to reach out to affirm united and ask them?  Ninja, would you be willing to explore that conversation, or at least, invite them to come and partake in this thread?

I don`t think so. One of the problems we have in Ottawa is that is only one Church that is Affiming, however to get there it had to go through a process. However what has happened is that there are other churches that should be, however they do not have any or few openly GLBT persons to lead by example, or to put a face on the issue. So this leaves a wide gap between my Church which is Affirming and others in Ottawa. It makes the other churches appear completely homophobic if they do not become Affirming. I do not believe not being certified should stop us from reaching out. 

Also we would have to come up with a process to make an internet site Affirming, and since praxis is part of the emerging church dialogue, by advertising to GLBT and other groups we will be able to work with more people affected to do so.  

I know Wondercafe already has GLBT people, but part of the process to becoming an Affirming place could be to open the doors (OPen the Circle Wide)"to GLBT very wide, while at the same time explaining that we are in a process that is not finished. The same technique could be used to make Wondercafe more open to other groups. We might advertise on sites geared to people with certain disabilities, differences, etc.  The more diverse we are the easy the process will be come.   Yes harder in one way, but as we develope the skills it will become easier to do so for other people who are different, or marginal.

 I believe that Affirm was involved in setting up Wondercafe, in so far that some kind of resolution was past and accepted by the church. I think we saw the wedding cake ad and other ads that reflected this. However the ads were placed in Family type magazines.

aah, interesting about opening doors Alex.

I have always been afraid of the opposite, but you were saying, open the doors with a partial affirm sign..interesting.

note; of course this is all just a suggestion. I have no connection with wondercafe, other than a regular poster; and a member of the united church, yet i sense there is a desire, and affirming is really a community decision, rather than an organizational decree.

so, let's continue the dialogue, and see how it evolves?

This is a project that really interests me and I would be happy to offer my support in any way I can.  I'm not an actual UCC member, however, and wonder if I'd have the background to liase with the UC proper. 

I see my role appropriately in a community building and maybe in a referring capacity. 

Wouldn't it be interesting to just toss the topic out there and see what happens?  Alex touched on the potential of this format to reach out to lots of different groups.  Maybe it needs to be clear that the forum is a "work in progress" to warn newcomers.

Exciting stuff.

agreed, more it was just someone sending an email to Affirm United inviting them to come into this thread, and then, answering any questions, hosting them.

I know with GC coming up and other stuff, I don't have much time to send that invitation, but if no one else will do it, i will do so.  I jsut don't think that I will be able to respond well.

ps..ninja..not being a member of the united church shouldn't matter in this dialogue.

I am not saying be partially Affirming, I am saying being honest and saying we welcome people of all sorts but we are not perfect, and maybe very far from perfect to being safe for all GLBT people. There are a variety of GLBT, some are thicker skin then others and they are well aware of the realities of the world. Some would need an Affirming and safe place , while others would not need one. I think if local churches here in Ottawa and Wondercafe  could open the doors to the later group, then they would help us open the door to the former group by furthering the process to becoming Affirming.

Alex:  Have you read the process for the Affirming designation?  It is actually fairly laid out, or was regarding requirements.

My sense is that we would need to honour that process to use the designation.

I think I get what you are saying though, and so, would be interesting to get someone from Affirm United's viewpoint on it.

Regardless, lets not get tied up in this aspect, though, I do agree it is important.

I was wondering if approval for that invitation should come from admin.  I found the contact people at Affirm, and would be pleased to write to them, but it would be embarrassing to say the least, if admin wasn't on board. 

 A good example is my posting on needing help in finding a mate. Serena is right when she said it`s a brave thing to do, to disclose the many things that I do. I did so not just to find a mate but also to educate people about barriers, and to set an example to others.

If we had more openly HIV positve people on Wondercafe who would participate in that discussion it would in turn lead to other HIV positive people feeling safer here. So why wait for a process to be complete when their are people who just need to know they are invited invited.

Also I know serveral people who grew up in the UCC in the sevenities, and there impression of the UCC is coloured by what happened in local congregations in the eighties and nineties. They expect the church to be extremely homophobic, especially those from  liberal churches. (Those who come from conservative churches see the problem as one of theology while those from liberal UCC saw it for what it was and it was purely cultural homophobia inside our liberal churches.)

I regularly get asked byone guy who grew up UCC about  when we are having our next vote to deny someone or some group membership. The fact is that the church has moved, and it still needs to keep moving, however people like me are unaware of how much movement because we and our families stop attending due to the eighties debate, or our families stopped talking about the UCC because of the pain it caused in the eighties.

I agree that we need to honour a process to get a designation of Affirming, but we create a false dicotomy if we accept only one path. When we say a congregation or place is not Affirming is not the same as saying they are totally homophobic, likewise an Affirming congregation is not completely free of homophobia. 

As well many Affirming churches exclude the disabled, and others even through these issues are suppose to be addressed by the Affirming process. It did not stop my church from getting an Affirming designation even as they continued to meet in a place that effectively barred those in wheelchairs from joining.  

I also see homophobia as a type of disability, (Its in the DSM as a mental disorder, so legally in Canada it is a mental illness)  and homophobic people have lots of church places they can go to, more so then GLBT people, however my theology tells me we need to at least try to make some accomadation as we move to become Affirming, so that we can help heal people of their homophobia. 

lol, i understand Ninja.

My thoughts are to be clear and upfront about the situation.

Let's see if we can draft something

Dear Affirm United

A few participants in wondercafe were wondering if any on-line forums/ sites have become affirming.  There is a sense that a number of posters are affirming and that there is an ever-increasing number of youth and glbtq people posting on the site.

We wondered if you would help us to discuss how that would look in a site that welcomes open communication.  It would be great if you would be willing to create an account on the site and enter this thread with us (insert link)

It is important for us to be clear that we have connection with the Wondercafe administration or organization, nor do we have a sense of consensus.  In a way, this is like the advocacy groups in an Affirming Process at a church.  We are just trying to understand how it would be, what would it mean, what are we saying.

kind regards,

insert real name aka Pinga

insert real name aka NinjaFaery

insert real name aka Alex

argh, i can't edit.  important:  that should say "It is important for us to be clear that we have no connection with the Wondercafe administration or organization, nor do we have a sense of consensus.

 I would just add to the letter that we would like 

We wondered if you would help us to discuss how that would look in a site that welcomes open communication. As well we would like ideas on how to become more welcoming during the process. It would be great if you would be willing to create an account on the site and enter this thread with us (insert link)

You've read my mind. The thought occurred to me too Pinga. I think it's the best idea anyone has ever had on wondercafe. I absolutely completely support it; I'll do anything to help & to make it work.

It's long overdue and I think it's absolutely brilliant. Like any congregation I think our community should decide and I want to help.

I liked the first one better. We have connections with the admin and add as well we have connections with God

lol, I love your addition Alex.  I was trying to figure out how to word some of that..and you did a great job.

Kinst...sometimes, the solutions are there...but, they aren't easy.  Being Affirming is hard work and can cause tumult.  At the same time, it is an important justice issue in our church and community.

At the same time, an affirming church is not 100% affirming nor would wondercafe be, so there are norms and safe spots for all.   That is the stuff I would really like some other information / processes  about, and I am guessing others would too. 

Email sent to Affirm.  I added your piece too, Alex, and filled in Pinga's and my real names.  Alex is aka Alex.....

What if we sent a petition to wondercafe@united-church.ca?

My sense is that we can do so, Kinst, and of course, the admins will be required..but, my sense is they will be following along in the dialogue if not now, then at least by tomorrow morning.

At the same point, the process of becoming affirming is really a community action.  One cannot decree something to be affirming....if the vast majority are not..hence the process.  Wondercafe is interesting, in that it is "church community" but "not church via polity", "of the united church ", but "not official united church".

I think the sense of the communities status, and how affirming might play out in an affirming site, is something that admin would require in addition to multiple other stuff.

....leaving the liberal/fundy war for a moment....

I hate to throw a damper on this but I am not so sure this is a good idea. 

In another thread Wolfie and RevJohn were talking about how the gay community were bait for homophobics and got really roughed up at wondercafe.   StevieG has left because of what goes on here.  Is it really a good idea to invite more people to be abused?  Is there a way to ensure their safety?

You raise good questions, Serena.

These are some of the items discussed earlier -- just like a church, not everyone is affirming, yet, there are higher standards expected in an affirming church regarding behaviour.

In addition, there needs to be a place where open dialogues can occur.  In other words for those who wish to enter the challenging ones, that they enter knowing what they are walking into...

you know, there is a another book I had out today, entitled "difficult conversations".  Difficult conversations need to be had. This is one of those difficult conversations.  If we don't, if we stick to the easy conversations, then we become luke warm, afraid to risk, change, etc.

Our motto could Closets are for clothes, fabulous clothes

 I also have an idea for a theme song for Affirming people on Wondercafe. Perhaps we could rework it as a wondercafe ad 

Pondering how being Affirming might look here and what small changes could be made.  When, for example, you flag a post as offensive, the "Reason" menu does not include Homophobia, just "Other".  Maybe that could be changed. 

Homophobia is listed as unacceptable in "Guidelines of Conduct". 

What even happens when a post is flagged offensive?

We are supposed to have a system in place to empower people on this site but it is apparent that system is not working.

I keep going back to StevieG's profile and these words, emphasis mine...

Maybe it is also that I, or they, cannot function in this online medium. In person, tough discussions that go anywhere are framed that respect and decorum are requirements from all sides of issues. It is required and it is expected. Not so here. It definitely is not required and I doubt it is even expected.

When it gets to "well they are learning/maturing/at a different stage..." I want to gag. We expect more from our children. We expect they show respect. When they don't, they are told they must. No, "let's make allowances" or "try to understadn why they disrespected ____".

Sad when we make more allowances for supposed adults than we do children, all in the name of being "good Christians" or making friends.

I have to say that octagenarians who had never met a gay person, held themselves and each other to higher standards. They also met and surpassed any standards I might have had. Those who felt the need, from either side, to take potshots or take it personal were dealt with. The line you had to tow was that if you wanted to discuss, it stayed respectful or you left, period.

  [...]

You have to decide if you are protecting wolves or tending sheep. You cannot do both. If you try, eventually, the sheep you protect or once protected will stray or just be devoured.

http://wondercafe.ca/users/stephengordon1

It is the personal, not the political, that Stevie emphasizes and devolution into rock throwing barbarianism.  We all have done it.  The question is how to stop the landslide while still showing solidarity?

LB

The tendency in modern civilization is to make the world uniform... Let the mind be universal. The individual should not be sacrificed.     Rabindranath Tagore

I think that this is a wonderful goal for us to work towards - but I would exercise caution and not move too quickly - one step at a time -

I think that this is a wonderful goal for us to work towards - but I would exercise caution and not move too quickly - one step at a time -

EileenRL, I concur, the Affirming Process is just that, a process. 

It comes down to the discussion we had in another thread about moderation. If we really want to stop the personal and collective attacks, then we'll need fairly active mods and a clear set of rules governing when they can act. For example, RevJohn's "Butthead" comment in his thread would have earned him at least a warning, possibly even a 1 or 2 day suspension for a PA (2 PAs, really, since it referred to two people) on rpg.net^*. A GA (group attack) on homosexuals, conservative Christians, or any other identifiable group could get you a longer suspension or, if it was a repeat offense, a ban. Everyone who signs up for rpg.net is required to read and agree to the rules that the mods use in deciding these things. The questions is: do we want this kind of regime or can we continue to be somewhat self-policing, calling shenanigans on this sort of thing when it happens and let admins deal with the most egregious cases? I don't think just designating the site as Affirming is going to fix the problem in and of itself (I support the idea, but let's not pretend it's some kind of panacea) and I don't know if everyone here is prepared for what might be needed to make it "safe" for all.

Mendalla

^* Not saying that he should be, although I would never use that language about someone online myself. I don't always agree with the level of moderation used at rpg.net. However, the reality is that under the fairly strict rules applied at rpg.net, he likely would get a warning unless it was a repeat offense, then the suspension would come into play.

 I want to create a group for those interested in Wondercafe interested in having Wondercafe become an Affirming and Safer place for GLBT people.

I need a name. How about GLBT and Friends, or Friends of Affirm. 

Also we might want to also start a group for users wanting input into Wondercafe. A Union of Wondercafe Members. This is because as we progress it will be necessary to have some sort of mechinism to lobby for change in general. Unlike churches Wondercafe has no membership policies and is essentially run by computer programmers, with input from a church committee.  They are not necessary the best qualified to determine how to deal with homophobia and distinguish between homophobia and what I call bad theology.  

I have less concern about people with theologies that are anti-gay, because they also tend to have other things they talk about .  The problem is when people use these theologies to go after Queers to the exclusiveness of other groups. In m experience on Wondecafe, these are the people who make it unsafe, not the people with theologies in general.

Many people are called homophobic who are not. They are just following theologies that are not friendly to the Gay Liberation movement. It`s not right to label the individual as homophobic, when these theologies are what they believe and often it is the only theologies they know. It takes a while for them to understand even if they do not accept progressive theologians, because they might have never heard of them before participating in wondercafe.

 It is my belief that in the best interest of Queers, and others we would need to hire a theologian, or minister. They might be also able to step in to disscussions to clarify and mediate when conflict arises, and we need to distinguish between homophobia and people with theologies who themselves are not homophobia, and homophobic people who are just using these theologies to attack Queers.    We must remember that truely homophobic people are mentally ill, and often they are also suffering form self hatred.

(as  an aside As well I would like to see Wondercafe host online worship as there are many people in institutions, housebound, or who live in communities without access to a United Church that is either Affirming, accessible or there is no United Church at all, or in communities that have recently had to close their United Church.)

These types of things would come up in the in the Affirming Process and would need some sort of community mechanism to disscuss it it with all members interested and not just Queer and Queer friendly people who would make up our group.

As well when it would come time to lobby the United Church and Wondercafe we would need a union of members to be heard as a legitamate voice.

Also we will need the mechanism for other reasons 

We also need to organise people in case of cut backs that might be facing Wondercafe. We might have to start talking about fundraising online and how to administer those funds. The list goes on. 

I think I would advocate hearing from Affirm.  If they have experience with online communities, I'm sure there would be lots of good information as to how to set something up.    There might be a way to assess what steps a forum such as this could proceed to maximize the chances of success. 

I took a tour of their website, and they have a lot of resources to draw on. 

The letter by StevieG stands as a reminder not to be "lukewarm".   Yes, it's a process certainly, but does that mean we never move forward because we risk offending some people?    Can't we afford to be proactive?

Unlike the physical church, there are no pews to fill.

I agree about the benefits of moderators, but this being a United Church site thise moderators would have to be trained, unlike on other sites.

Also my main concern regardingsaftely is not so much concerning the fighting and attacks that go on. It`s things like posters comparing GLBT people to serial killers. Or people who tell me and other Queers that we are going to burn in a lake of fire.  Those things are unnecessary no matter what your theologies are. Sometimes like the serial killer post they are addressed, but the you are going to burn in a lake of fire and deserve to was never addressed.

Personal attacks or calling someone names is one thing. It might not good or loving, but it does not lead people to killing people (or suicides) like statements about queers derserving to burn in a lake of fire.   

interesting, i just had a post that went pop.  will report-- but the item below is a rewrite.

Mendela / Alex : responses

What I think Affirm could look like in wondercafe, though, like NF, i would recommend waiting

1.  Limits -- the current bar is "hate law".  The bar would be raised to some other level. The question is, what would the new level be.  To me, that is one of the most difficult questions to answer and is likely the nature of the process.

2.  Opportunity -- there needs to be a place to have the dialogue, where people know what they will face. In other words, this section is open, and yes, ask away..ask the questions which aren't affirming, state your beliefs which range above hate, but below the wondercafe norm.  It is essential that folks have a place to dialogue. I believe that Beloved has explained that probably the best of anyone I know.

3. Knowledge -- we know that knowledge is power. SG, RevJohn, GR have done wonderful posts discussing affirming from a Biblical perspective. It would be good to have some white papers which could be referenced.

4. Community -- wondercafe is a community. we have said that time & time again. for some, it is their church.  by going through the process, we will grow as a community. it will be painful at times; however, there is an opportunity to say -- we have listened to the people, and we responded....in a social justice manner.  To me that is church.

What I don't think Affirm would look like and why

1.  No additional "affirm or minister" staff -- We are all ministers and responsible for wondercafe.  We have lay, ordained, lay designate, diaconal, congregational, and a bunch of other designates in our midst.  A hired staff cannot be present or on-call 7x24 nor can they be accountable to review all threads. Given that, I would advise against looking for a person in charge to be responsible.

What I don't think Affirm would address

1. Posts which inflame -- Wondercafe is an on-line community and the nature of the beast is that there will be conflict.  People will post too late, or after one too many scotches or when manic, depressed, or any combination there-of, and you have no visual cues. 

2. Conflict -- Difficult conversations occur in wondercafe, and this is a GOOD THING.  We need to be able to have these conversations. That means sometimes people will be offended, again, that isn't bad. Some will be good at it, some won't.  That is ok.  Maybe our churches will get better at it.

********************8

Concerns

1. Transparency -- Alex, I am not a fan of closed groups. They create the "you are in - I am out".  At this time, I would not wish to join such a group.

2.  longetivity of wondercafe.  -- one question still to be determined is will wondercafe exist in 2 years.  I still feel it is worthwhile, regardless, as for as long as it is here, it should be a place that is responsive.

I would dispute that the current bar is "hate law" 

Lots of  disscussion is started by hate speech, that IMHO is illegal. Look at the disscussion that lasted for months about Gays and the Media and a secret agenda of pushing gays on others.

Would the administrators let a forum disscussion continue that impled the same about Jews. i.e. Is the a Hidden Agenda in the Media (instead of gays being behind it , what if they suggested that there was a hidden Jewish conspiracy.

As to closed groups we already have them. For drummers, for Congregations and other people etc.

 I was not suggesting additional staff. I was suggesting that we have minister or theologians administer wondercafe instead of computer programers. We could use already existing software packages and have the minister focus on running the site with volunteers. With a focus on content and dialogue. Computer Programers do not have the training or experience to do so.

What is clear to me is there is a lot of hate on wondercafe and I am not talking about fighting I am talking about the posts suggesting Gays have a hidden agenda, or suggestions that I will burn in a lake of fire.

Someone calling someone a butthead or other insults because of their demeanor or ideas is a different issue that I am not trying to address.

IMO that "bar" would be, as Alex said, the same as it would be for any other discrete group and aligned with what is outlined in the Charter and Hate Speech laws.  Why would it be otherwise?  As I have said elsewhere, no one would dream of "debating" whether or not we support racial equality.  It's also included in the Guidelines for Conduct on this site.  I don't like the term "zero tolerence", but in some cases, it applies, IMO. 

I admit, I find it incredibly frustrating that this isn't well understood, underscoring the need for this process. 

There are dozens of examples of posts, that if they were referring to say, Jews, would be met with immediate action.