It’s not a complicated answer. Al Qaida’s attack on the U.S. was motivated by religious fundamentalism. So the lesson learned should be to oppose and quell religious fundamentalism. But we did the opposite. We turned to our own churches and gave them even more power over society than they already had. We propagated Islamophobia, drawing sharper divides between faiths than those that had inspired the attacks to begin with. We launched two holy wars, fighting fire with fire as we’ve attempted to assert our “Judeo-Christianity” world-power authority over those who don’t fit the mold. And we did it all because we’re insecure, because we’re a nation who relies on faith—God shed his grace on thee—to find meaning and value in the potential we have to be great.

It’s ten years later, and look where we are. Islamophobia is a multi-billion dollar industry. War persists without end, though the Arab Spring brings hope that change will come not at the hands of an outside force but from within those nations who will no longer suffer tyrants. And on our home soil, we have creeping Dominionism, the effort to impose Christian dominion over the “seven mountains” of society: government, education, media, arts & entertainment, religion, family, and most importantly, business. As Christian leaders motivate fear of Islam through so-called “creeping Sharia”—the  absurd idea that Muslims have already started taking over our communities and instituting strict Sharia Law—they are using this fear to impose their own control over society. And while some like Pat Robertson and Matt Barber now play coy as if they’ve never heard of Dominionism, let alone the fact they contribute to it on a daily basis, Dominionism is more visible and present in mainstream America than ever before and well connected to the entire religious right. Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s prayer rally this Summer (which featured a wide array of religious right leaders making cameos), was predominated by some of the top names in Dominionism. Both he and Rep. Michele Bachmann have close ties to the movement and our frontrunner Republican presidential candidates.

The answer to Muslim fundamentalism is not Christian fundamentalism. Both are warring factions, fighting for power and control over society. The creeds that inform them do little to distinguish them. Both need to be opposed.

The attacks on 9/11/2001 taught us how destructive religious fundamentalism can be to mind and heart. Until we learn to resist fundamentalism’s lust for hegemony, we will continue to fall victim to the very primitive notions that caused 9/11. The time is over for sadness, confusion, insecurity, and fear. It’s time for courage of conviction, organized inclusion, trust in one another, and confidence in the power of diversity. We must avail ourselves of a society in which all people can live freely without imposition of one faith group or another. The goal should be harmony, not “safety.”

It’s been a while since I’ve taken time out to critique the privilege religion has over society, but I hope that today, whoever’s out there reading this thinks of nothing else. Where would we be today if ten years ago, we realized that the scariest threat to our world is shallow, insecure thinking and that the answer is to reach out to one another rather than cloistering ourselves off and forcing everybody else out?

Where would we be if we treated people the way we want people to be treated rather than just the way we think our particular version of God wants us to be treated?

Until we learn that lesson, we are no safer than we were ten years ago today.

athiest can go to hell

Matthew Laws, whose email address includes the word “skinhead,” offered these five words of brilliance, and I’m going to leave the comment up, but offer this reply.

I am amazed that in just five words, Matthew Laws was able to communicate a spelling error, a grammatical error, and a message that is factually inaccurate.

First of all, it’s atheist, not athiest. The “EE” comes before the “ist.”

Second of all, it ought to be plural; otherwise, specify which one atheist you think can go to hell.

Lastly, it wouldn’t matter which atheist, because atheists can’t go to hell. We just can’t. You have to believe in hell to get there.

I will not go to hell. You can’t make me go to hell. You can’t convince me I’ll go to hell. You can never prove to others that I went to hell.

There is no hell. (And boy is my life a whole lot more pleasant with that knowledge.)

So, this comment seems a grand way to demonstrate how little people know about atheists. Thanks, Matthew Laws. You’re a testament to skinheads everywhere.

The opening plenary of Creating Change 2011 bridged the main conference with its subconference, Practice Spirit, Do Justice. Entitled “Hard work for our common good,” the panel featured four religious leaders with prepared statements: Bishop Yvette Flunder (City of Refuge/UCC), Rev. Elder Nancy Wilson (MCC), Rabbi Joshua Lesser, and Faisal Alam, a Muslim leader.

And while I was prepared for many faith-centric messages, I was not prepared for how erased and marginalized I would feel on the very first day of the conference. Most of the 25 who joined the atheist caucus the following evening expressed similar concerns, as did many CC veterans who could not attend but followed along on Twitter.

As an obvious start, the opening panel did not feature a Humanist, Unitarian, or nonbeliever who could speak for the experiences of those who do not identify with faith. Arguably, plenty of other worldviews also went unrepresented as well. But the language that was used, particularly by Rev. Wilson and Bishop Flunder, not so subtly erased nonbelievers from the LGBT community and movement. And while atheists and agnostics were acknowledged a time or two, we were not represented nor affirmed by the supposedly interfaith panel.

Rev. Rebecca Voelkel opened the session by declaring, “This is where we are as a movement,” celebrating that a panel of faith leaders were opening the conference. Both Rev. Wilson and Rabbi Lesser spoke to the way the LGBT movement has excluded or dismissed faith communities in the past. And then Bishop Flunder pronounced the following:

I’d like to lift up tonight the presence of faith and deep spirituality as the underpinning if most, if not all real, authentic civil rights movements. I believe that the power to endure and be courageous amid continual physical, emotional, and spiritual attack must come from a deep well that is continually filled by the divine of our understanding.

She later invoked the prophet Paul, reminding us, “If God be for us, who would dare be against us,” and then declared “We will get our God back!”

Rev. Wilson added in her follow-up remarks that “Activism, to be sustained, requires faith of some kind, maybe not religious or spiritual, but some kind of sustaining faith.” This was her introduction to her hopes for the nonreligious and religious to work together.

These are just a few of the examples of language that left me incredibly triggered, excluded from the movement and the community. I left the session taking not much else with me. I’m glad the entire video is online, because upon relistening, I found a lot of important and powerful ideas that I could respect and appreciate. I implore you: take 45 minutes and listen for yourself. And yet, the panel still makes me feel incredibly invisible, like I am not welcome to be a part of this movement—that because I do not identify with faith of any kind, I have nothing to contribute towards our queer liberation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXXfcwJm2zo

The atheist/nonbeliever caucus was a remarkable experience. Not everyone there identified with the a-word. There were Humanists, agnostics, and even some folks of varying degrees of spirituality. But we weren’t there to argue over vocabulary semantics; we were there to affirm each other. And one of the qualities that united most of the 25 individuals in the room was that it was the first time in their lives that they were in a room with that many other nonbelievers and the first time in their lives that they felt affirmed to come out and commune with their fellow nonbelievers.

I had proposed the caucus because I knew there was a need. I had no idea the need was so great.

Historically, there had been visibility for atheists in conferences past, but it has been many years since that was the case. If this year’s atheist caucus was any indication, we are overdue to reverse the trend of that invisibility.

The room was alive and abuzz! We committed most of the hour to creating space for each individual to speak and be affirmed. We could have easily communed and discussed issues for four or more.

In the course of the discussion, we agreed that Practice Spirit, Do Justice was not particularly welcoming or affirming for us. We also acknowledged that the intensity of faith at this year’s conference was likely unique, as Minneapolis is where The Task Force’s faith arm, The Institute for Welcome Resources, operates. Most importantly, everyone was energized to create additional inclusive spaces for atheists in future conferences.

And while I’m committed to that, I also put forth a challenge here and now to the organizers of the conference at large to create a more inclusive space for nonbelievers. Creating Change has been very proactive about offering suggestions for language use regarding other dimensions of identity, including race, gender identity, and ability. It’s time that these efforts be updated to create a truly interfaith space that does not exclude and erase nonbelievers.

In his book, Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, Greg Epstein offers the following suggestions for fully including Humanists and Atheists in interfaith spaces:

Don’t ask, “Can you be good without God?”

Do ask why we are motivated to be good, or to work with you.

Don’t proselytize to atheists in an interfaith context.

I hope readers can see how some of the assertions made during the plenary about the role of faith in the movement left out the motivations and experiences of those who do not identify with faith.

Do reach out specifically to atheist, secular, and Humanist groups and solicit their participation.

This has not been standard practice for Creating Change. Had I not proactively proposed the atheist caucus, there would have been no actual affirmation of nonbelievers’ contributions to the conference aside from lip service.

Don’t advertise interfaith events as for the religious only or as a way for everyone to unite, despite theological differences, around belief in God.

Practice Spirit, Do Justice and its overwhelming intersections with the conference at large clearly ran into this problem.

Do advertise as religiously pluralistic, including all religions as well as atheists, agnostics, Humanists, and the nonreligious.

To its credit, Creating Change does acknowledge nonbelievers as part of its community.

Use inclusive language: In addition to including us on your usual flyers, posters, or recruiting emails as above, try a special poster or e-mail emphasizing that interfaith includes the nonreligious too.

Include us in programs.

Learn and teach about us.

I was encouraged privately to propose atheist-centered workshops (such as an “Atheist 101″ workshop) as part of the Practice Spirit, Do Justice track, but I will confess that I did not truly feel welcome to do so. This may very well have been a failing on my part, and an opportunity I regret not seizing.

It is an interesting sort of personal irony I recognize.  I wish to counteract the lack of affirmation for nonbelievers, but it’s the very lack of affirmation that inhibits me from taking too bold a step.

Still, there were individuals at our caucus who told me that I was a trailblazer, a compliment I don’t think I earned by simply creating one space. Clearly the work needs to be done, and I do feel affirmed to step up and be a leader for this community of overlapping identities.

Rev. Wilson said, “You need us to beat their agenda.” Bishop Flunder repeated several times that negative religious messages need to be met with positive religious messages. I don’t disagree with either sentiment. Still, our commitment to reclaiming faith for LGBT people should not abandon those who seek not to reclaim faith and who are perhaps quite eager to challenge it. There is a boisterous atheist community chock full of LGBT allies who are just waiting to be invited to the table.

I hope Creating Change 2012 is where we can finally make that invitation and create a balanced space that celebrates all worldviews and lifestances, from the most spiritual to the least. It is certainly my commitment to step up and make it so.

For some reason, though, the legislature has found it necessary to go a step further, just to really rub LGBT faces in the discrimination already faced. On Tuesday, the Indiana House passed a marriage discrimination amendment with a bipartisan vote of 70-26, with many Democrats defecting to support the bill. The state equality group has very little influence; the only support for LGBT Hoosiers comes from a few public universities who don’t see too far past their campus borders.

Fed up with the incessant abuse taking place in his home state, Bil Browning has committed to using The Bilerico Project to bring the heat on Indiana legislators. I am all too happy to lend my support for Queersiers (a word I just made up, but one I hope catches on) by doing what I do best: responding to the insidious rhetoric of the religious right.

Indiana’s “pro-family” talking head is Ryan McCann, Director of Operations and Public Policy for the Indiana Family Institute. It’s clear by his response to the House vote that conservative Hoosiers are letting this unnecessary “icing on the cake” victory go to their heads—the rhetoric is not particularly tame.

He opens by boasting some “research” on marriage that was done by a bunch of “pro-family” scholars, citing their three fundamental conclusions:

1. Marriage is an important social good, associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike.
2. Marriage is an important public good, associated with a range of economic, health, educational, and safety benefits that help local, state, and federal governments serve the common good.
3. The benefits of marriage extend to poor and minority communities, despite the fact that marriage is particularly fragile in these communities.

Actually, though I don’t trust the contributing perspectives, those three conclusions are pretty agreeable.

He also cites the tax-payer costs of “family fragmentation,” an estimate that includes costs for things like Head Start, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and other assumptions about the costs associated with impoverished children and unmarried adults. To give you a sense of these numbers, 17% of the cost estimate is for the “Justice System,” based on the assumption that boys raised in single-family households are more likely to commit crimes. In other words, these are extrapolations based on severe “pro-family” biases and not actual data. Still, the numbers—as meaningless and unfounded as they may be—suggest the state benefits if more adults are married and more children have married parents. The figure for Indiana is $839 million per year.

So, consider what he’s saying at this point: 1) Marriage has benefits for individuals, 2) Marriage is good for the health of society, 3) Marriage is good for underprivileged communities, and 4) Getting more adults married saves the state money.

Sounds like a great series of arguments for allowing same-sex marriage if you ask me. I’m pretty sure same-sex couples would appreciate those same benefits, as would their children! Good stuff all around.

However, redefining marriage to anything but the union of one man and one woman would only send these costs higher.

This is an outright lie. Let’s look at how he distorts the facts.

He starts by citing an FRC (hate group) “study” by Peter Sprigg (repudiated research distorter) suggesting a significant portion of same-sex couples in Massachusetts “seriously discussed” divorce after a year or less of marriage. First of all, discussed? Meaningless. Second of all, even if those numbers were actual divorces (which they aren’t), the numbers (35% and 46%) were less than 50%, so the overall divorce rate would go down. Plus, any same-sex divorcees would only become as single as they already are without the right to marry.

In reality, the evidence shows that not only have divorce rates in Massachusetts declined in the years since the passage of marriage equality, but they are the lowest in the country. By 2008, they were as low as the national divorce rate was in 1940.

So while McCann is trying to paint same-sex marriage as increasing the divorce rate, the reality is that with marriage equality there would be fewer unmarried adults and a lower divorce rate. It would only take 50.00001% of same-sex couples to stay married for the divorce rate to decline. The best McCann has to offer is that a significantly smaller group than that “discussed” divorce?

He then goes on to suggest that this supposed “higher divorce rate” from marriage equality would require Hoosiers to pay more taxes (again, based on the assumption there would be more unmarried adults and impoverished children). Not only is this completely illogical, but there is significant evidence to the contrary. The Williams Institute released studies this month showing that Rhode Island would make money by legalizing same-sex marriage and that Colorado would make make money even just for legalizing civil unions. Similarly, San Francisco’s chief economist testified in the Prop 8 trial about all the money his city could make were same-sex marriage legal there.

Indiana’s economy would have to be disturbingly off-base to lose money on marriage equality.

Of course, McCann doesn’t care about facts. He cares about his homosexual neighbor’s “spiritual development.” He may have used some economic arguments, but this is a religious battle.

It’s bad enough that McCann is blatantly saying that Indiana should go as far out of its way as possible to deprive same-sex couples of all the aforementioned benefits and lying to make his case. That’s tyrannical enough.

But McCann wants to erase gay people entirely. He sees same-sex sexual orientation as a “temptation” and a “lifestyle,” and he does not hesitate to promote the ex-gay ministries of Love Won Out. It’s funny how he started by trying to use social science to try to defend his point of view, and then a few paragraphs later, he completely defied them. It can’t be said enough: ex-gay therapy doesn’t work AND it’s harmful, and there is consensus on this point from all the leading psychological and sociological professional organizations. In fact, the ex-gay movement realizes four of the five forms of genocide identified by the United Nations. To promote ex-gay therapy is worse than bullying; it’s proposing eradication.

It seems to me Indiana’s social conservatives are getting incredibly cocky, as evidenced by unnecessary anti-gay efforts and untamed rhetoric. While McCann surely sees himself and his organization as compassionate, his lie-riddled propaganda promotes legal tyranny over Queersiers.

As these conservatives continue to harass our community by reigning over our private lives, I look forward to seeing Bil give them a taste of their own medicine. We’ll show the Hoosiers that committed same-sex couples are not the immorality they should be concerned about in their state government. Not by far.

The National Organization for Marriage is set on preventing that and dissipating that momentum however they can.

Today, they released a poll saying that Marylanders OPPOSE marriage equality 54-37, a poll that doesn’t jive with a poll conducted just a month ago that found Marylanders SUPPORT marriage equality 51-44.

NOM claims that the January poll was biased because it asked its question using the phrase “giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples in areas such as tax exemptions, inheritance and pension coverage.” By couching the language in “giving rights” to gay couples, Dr. Gary Lawrence says that it biases the poll toward support.

So how does NOM ask a balanced question?

As far as you personally are concerned, should marriage be between a man and a woman, or should it also be available to same-sex couples?

Funny how their talking point comes first… yeah, there’s no bias there. It’s also perfectly balanced to demonstrate the proponents’ side.

Just ignore this. Nothing of value to see here. Certainly no integrity.

Naturally, Peter and his group were quite put off with some of what they found at Creating Change (which apparently was sponsored by Chili’s? I didn’t realize, but I’ll remember next time I chance to eat there). As my twitter exchange with Peter continues and he prepares to report on more detail about what he and his spies “discovered,” I thought I’d offer an initial response to the complaints he has filed about the conference.

Here are the different ways Peter perceives The Task Force’s “extremist vision” (and why they all sound great to me!):

Taxpayer-financed “sex change” operations for transsexuals (not to do so is “discrimination” against “transgenders”)

Apologies to my transgender friends and allies for his mocking quotes. You deserve to be talked about like the real people you are.

For better or worse, gender identity disorder is a diagnosable condition. It’s been in the DSM for over 30 years. To treat it is a question of health care. Peter seems to have a problem with people getting health care.

Using polling, focus groups and emotional arguments to persuade evangelical Christians to ignore Scripture and accept homosexuality-based “rights”

Evangelical Christians don’t need the influence of the gay agenda to ignore Scripture. They do it all the time. We just want them to ignore the verses they use against us too.

It’s pretty easy to connect the dots between Biblical condemnation and youth suicide, or between international evangelism and legalized anti-LGBT oppression, or between ex-gay therapy and genocide. Given how upset Peter gets that he and his ilk are painted as “hateful,” he should be glad that the gay agenda wants to minimize the infamous correlation between evangelism and discrimination.

Using the tragedy of homosexual youth suicides to shame Christians into stop calling homosexuality sinful

Well, if you tell young people their choices are a life of depression or an after-life of agony, what do you expect to happen? Think about it, Peter. You make them feel so miserable about the lives they might live as gays or lesbians that they would rather send themselves off to Hell than endure the picture you’ve painted for them. If you want to own that, feel free, but I would think true Christians would experience shame for all the judging and first-stone-throwing you promote.

Celebrating sadomasochism (consensual sexual violence and degradation) and “kinky”/fetish sexual behaviors

I don’t really know what’s bad about this. AFTAH bothered to include the word “consensual,” which should make it a non-issue. Live and let live. As we discussed in the Sexual Liberation institute I attended, if there is consent and mutual benefit, everything should be fair game.

I feel bad for those upstanding Christian heterosexual couples who never let themselves get a little nasty! They’re missing out.

Pro-homosexuality lessons for grade school kids (because waiting until middle school is too late to reach them)

Well yeah. There are kindergartners who have same-sex parents. And not just parents who they go home to, but parents who will serve on the PTA and chaperon field trips and volunteer in classrooms. They are families that are part of the community, so yes, for the sake of those children, their families need to be validated, and more importantly, not alienated.

Of course, from the way this is phrased, it is probably meant to imply teaching young children about how to have anal sex, which isn’t really on anyone’s agenda.

Non-judgmental condom advocacy for young men in the name of HIV prevention — and even being non-judgmental in “safe sex” training when it comes to bizarre/disgusting “fetish” behaviors

So what… if people want to get a little nasty, we should not encourage them to still use condoms? I think supporting condom use and safe sex is always a good thing. Why does AFTAH think it’s a bad thing?

Predicting not just a future “gay” president of the United States but also a “bi” and a “transgender” president! (I’ll withhold the jokes…)

I’m pretty sure the Constitution doesn’t mention “heterosexual” or “cisgender” as required qualifications. It sure sounds like Peter/AFTAH aren’t just anti-LGBT, they’re anti-LGBT happiness and anti-LGBT dreams. You don’t have to be cruel to be the opposition. Sheesh.

“[F--k--g] with gender,” and celebrating bisexuality and “genderqueer” lifestyles (see this definition for latter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer)

Gender is fun to play with. This is another one where I don’t even see what could possibly be negative about it. Just let people be who they are. I’m surprised the definition is provided; I am all for people better understanding the diversity around them!

Are anti-LGBT evangelical Christians so insecure that anything that doesn’t resemble Leave It To Beaver completely freaks them out?

Using “gender identity” laws to pressure businesses to bend to the transgender agenda of “Gender-Neutral Restrooms” — to replace the old-fashioned variety with an “M” or an “F” on the door.

Most gender-neutral restrooms are single-use, so I don’t see the problem. Like so many of the others, this sounds like it’s meant to scare and provoke. “BE AFRAID! THINGS MIGHT CHANGE!” Ally McBeal was so far ahead of its time.

So that’s it. For now. Apparently, “there is much, much more” and AFTAH will be reporting on it over the coming weeks.

Honestly, I find this list even less compelling than I did when I first started writing this post. The tantrums of AFTAH over the efforts toward LGBT equality are laughable, and if this is all they have to try to smear the work of NGLTF and the Creating Change conference, it probably won’t be worthwhile to respond to their ensuing posts.

Still, compared to the obvious vitriol documented at AFTAH’s “Truth Academy” this summer, it seems worth a good laugh that this is the best they can do to criticize Creating Change, a conference with 5500% more attendees and 100% less restrictions on who can attend.

GLN’s Bob Schwartz pointed out that 60 percent of Catholics now support marriage equality (multiple polls add to the evidence of this majority view), and that the real problem is in the hierarchy. Surely groups like Catholics for Equality are helping move that message within the Church community.

Of course, that doesn’t change the power of the voices of Cardinals, Bishops, and Popes who speak on behalf of all Catholics. Their voices carry and often successfully paint the Zeitgeist in ways that very much oppose those survey results. If so many Catholics do support marriage equality, then they should speak up and denounce the anti-LGBT expressions of their Church leaders.

More importantly, are all these pro-marriage equality Catholics ready to put their money where their mouths are? How many of them continue to tithe the Church, enabling its continued campaign against queer liberation? If 60% of Catholics suddenly stopped giving to the Church, it would be crippling!

I don’t really see that happening. Catholicism is not a democracy, so it doesn’t get credit for poll results. Only when all these supposed Catholic allies can turn their support into real action do they deserve any credit.

If you’re a Catholic who supports marriage equality, good for you! If you’re still putting money in the offering basket each week, thanks but no thanks. All those hundreds of thousands of dollars the Church spends on anti-LGBT campaigns come from good pro-LGBT Catholics like you.

Nothing seems to irk white conservatives quite like the way members of the black community tend to support Democrats, and in particular, President Obama. Clearly, there was a meeting held and/or a memo sent out, and it was decided that a wedge had to be introduced. With support for gay rights higher than ever as evidenced by the support of DADT repeal, the Prop 8 plan would not be effective. How, then, to turn African-American voters against a beloved biracial President?

The answer seems to be abortion.

Religious right discussion of abortion seems to be (re)accelerating, and the latest anti-choice pitch looks like this:

We white conservatives care so much about the black community that we don’t want any more black babies to be killed. You don’t want your race to die out, do you? Of course not. We’re your real allies.

Of course, as Pam Spaulding pointed out to Peter LaBarbera on Twitter today:

Pam_Spaulding: @peterlabarbera It’s been quite clear the Right isn’t interested in minority babies once they are out of the womb and growing up in poverty.

The conservative syllogism is this: Racists want less black people. Abortion results in less black people being born. Thus, opposing abortion means opposing racism.

Nothing should inspire suspicion of racism quite like white people trying to preemptively prove to an audience of color that they’re not racist, particularly when they’re trying to convince that same audience that someone else is. Margaret Sanger, the original founder of Planned Parenthood, is a favorite target, but even Barack Obama himself is not off limits.

(Lest you, my reader, should try at this point to point an ironic finger of blame, please allow me to set myself apart by acknowledging that I’ve got a ton of white privilege to work through and I’m not nearly as good an ally as I surely could be. I welcome all critiques of this and any other post that might help me be a better ally.)

Lila Rose, President of Live Action, is happy to help you assume that Planned Parenthood is inherently racist. It’s a pretty paltry exercise, though she doesn’t hold back to smear PP every chance she gets in every convoluted way she can. In this case, a “racist donor” calls up different Planned Parenthood locations and asks if he can give money and have it earmarked specifically for the abortion of a black baby. The PP representative says “Yes.” Thus, according to prominent pro-lifers like Alveda King (a profit-eager quisling who wouldn’t be anywhere without her uncle’s last name), PP is racist, because they accept money from racists.

To suggest that an organization is anti-black merely because they accept money intended to help provide the very service that they offer seems a pretty far cry. In fact, it could be argued the opposite. If a black woman is less likely to be able to afford an abortion due to her socioeconomic status, that essentially means she does not have equal opportunity—she doesn’t have the same right to choice. Therefore, having money set aside specifically for people of color to access is an effort against racism and white privilege, and it isn’t so different from scholarships that have the same intention.

So should Planned Parenthood be accepting huge donations from the KKK without flinching? Of course not. When Hell freezes over and I start believing in God, let me know, because that’s the day such an offer would ever be made. If PP is committed to social justice as they claim, they should perhaps better coach their personnel for identifying and responding to overt racists like in these baiting calls, but the uncomfortable reactions of a few ambushed administrative assistants do not come anywhere close to representing the principles or intentions of the organization as a whole. According to a New York Times article on this matter last year:

Planned Parenthood has apologized for the employees’ statements and says they do not reflect the organization’s values or policies.

As for Sanger, her support of eugenics is obviously deserving of scrutiny, but her rhetoric does not in any way live up to the blatant racism she is accused of. Regardless of any of her questionable principles, Sanger insisted that it is solely up to the mother to make the decision of whether a child should be brought into the world. It’s surprising that Alveda King is so eager to denounce Sanger and Planned Parenthood, given that her uncle, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., proudly accepted the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award in 1966. In his acceptance speech, he pointed out a “striking kinship” between the civil rights movement and Sanger’s early efforts, adding, “the years have justified her actions.”

While the Live Action recordings are not new, Peter Heck’s twisting of Obama’s support of the right to choose is beyond the pale. In his column (re)published yesterday on the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow, Heck actually tried to paint President Obama as a proponent of slavery. Obama is “disgracing his racial ancestors” by embodying the “very dark spirit of oppression” that Frederick Douglass opposed. (Heck is on the same page as Douglass, obviously, in case you didn’t understand what he was trying to imply here). Anyone who supports abortion supports slavery by treating fetuses (“tiny humans”) as legal property. It’s a “slavish mindset” to have, and Barack Obama honors the legacy of “the plantation owners’ ideology.”

He continues to compare the “heinous butchery of abortion” to southern progenitors’ “abusive bull whips,” and Obama (“our first black president”) “has chosen to take up the whip against his fellow man,” warring “against the life work of Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Abraham Lincoln.”

Only a man terrifyingly unmoved by the injustices perpetrated against his own ancestors could, just a century and a half later, facilitate even worse atrocities without a hint of remorse.

Even though Heck is trying to suggest Lincoln was a better black president than a black (biracial) president, I suppose we should at least give him credit for acknowledging that Obama’s ancestors are American. But the Lincoln juxtaposition isn’t the worst of it.

Heck is unabashedly trying to make the case that Obama’s support of the right to choose is so harmful to “black America” (Heck’s quotes, not mine) that it undermines anything else he’s done to support that community. This is a euphemism for: Hey black people, Even though Obama looks like you, you shouldn’t trust him. He’s actually working against you. He’s a racist.

Of course, Heck is not the first white man to try to suggest Obama is racist. And in this case, it’s not even that euphemistic:

…it can rightly be concluded that Barack Obama disgraces his office, his ancestors, and his place in the eternal struggle for the rights of man.

That’s quite a claim. I wonder how successful it is with black readers.

These tactics are deplorable. It’s a farce to think that conservatives actually have the black community’s interests in mind, and it’s downright offensive that these people are trying to paint themselves as allies. Their motives are malicious, attempting to win votes through fear-mongering and hoping that the voters they sway just ignore the rest of their platform.

If the lack of racial diversity in Tea Party is indication, the tactics aren’t working. Let’s keep it that way.

With the Creating Change conference as our case study, it seems that the pendulum has not reached its highest point; in fact, this year’s conference unabashedly embraces faith with a whole subconference called Practice Spirit, Do Justice.

The conference’s Spiritual Needs Subcommittee offers a Spiritual Diversity Ethics Statement (p. 20 of the Program Book), suggesting the following principles:

What we can affirm and agree on is:

» The inherent worth of every person; that every person is worthy of respect, support, caring, and invitation.

» The intention to work towards a culture free of discrimination and oppression based on any identity.

» The ethic that everyone is welcome to participate in this conference without the need to become like us in order to be acceptable.

» That the way we behave towards one another is the truest expression of [what] we believe.

I agree with all these principles. Still, the preponderance of religion-focused and faith-centric sessions seems to communicate an expectation that communing with faith is an essential part of LGBT work, which I inherently disagree with. I expect that there will be several occasions this year, as with last, when I will be in a situation when a religious practice is taking place around me.

And while I certainly understand that dealing with religion is an important part of LGBT work, this integration of being religious continues to trouble me. Here’s a look at all of the different sessions related to faith. (See the Program Book in my previous post to see full descriptions.)

First, there are a number of spiritual gatherings (p.25), which I actually appreciate as part of an inclusive conference, including Muslim Friday Prayer, Shabbat Celebration, and a Sunday morning interfaith gathering. The Calling of the Names continues to be part of a plenary session, but as long as it is not dominated by rhetoric like “lifting them up,” I think a group remembrance can be very meaningful for people of any worldview.

Faith in America is holding a reception Friday evening to discuss the way people justify stigma and hostility against the LGBT community (p. 37). I continue to be nonplussed by FIA, an organization that defends and challenges faith at the same time. Members of the Episcopalian, Unitarian, and Metropolitan Community Churches are having receptions as well (p. 38).

The Practice Spirit, Do Justice subconference has its own day-long institute on Thursday to address intersectional movement building for both veterans and newbies of faith organizing and movement building (p. 43). There also several PSDJ sessions as part of the Task Force Academy for Leadership and Action (p. 51).

Here are some of the other workshops that relate to faith or that are part of the Practice Spirit, Do Justice track:

Beyond Transgender Inclusion to Transformation (p. 71)

Faith Based Models that futher Self-determination, Sovereignty and the Preservation of Sacred Sites (p. 72)

Hidden Voices: The Lives of LGBT Muslims (p. 72)

Making the Christian Case for LGBT Equality: Message Training (p. 73)

Join the Movement, Keep the Faith (p. 76)

Messology of the Black Church (p. 77)

The Pulpit of the Press: Making the Religious Case for LGBT Equality (p. 77)

(LGBTQ) Justice, (LGBTQ) Justice Shall You Pursue (p. 78)

Changing Minds of Conservative/Evangelical Christians (p. 79)

Media Savvy for Media Strategies (p. 81)

“God Hates Fags” (p. 82)

Race and Power: An Examination of Intersectionality (p. 84)

Working with Asian & Pacific Islander (A&PI) Congregations to Become Welcoming (p. 85)

API Caucus @ Practice Spirit, Do Justice (p. 86)

Atheist, Free Thinker, Non-Believer Caucus (p. 86)

Homo-Interior: Religious Design for Your Queer Soul (p. 88)

Telling Our Stories (p. 89)

Transgender: A Question of Faith (p. 89)

Lifting As We Climb: An Exercise (therefore you might sweat) In Rethinking How We Do What We Do So We Can Do It Better (p. 89)

Case Studies For Denominational Engagement (p. 89)

Mobilizing Pro-Equality Catholics on LGBT Issues (p. 91)

Of Faith and On-Line: Tools to Get Going (p. 91)

It’s All About The Frame (p. 94)

LGBT Synagogues and Organizations: Surfacing Our Diversity and Fitting the Mosaic Together (p. 94)

Spirit and Desire: Framing a Discussion About Our Spiritual and Erotic Lives (p. 95)

Building the Response to HIV and AIDS Across Communities (p. 97)

Humor, Hospitality, and Heliotropes as Tools for Social Change (p. 97)

Majority Minority – Case Studies in Advancing Equality among People of Color and People of Faith (p. 98)

Strategic Storytelling (p. 99)

Uganda-the Armageddon of the Culture Wars (p. 99)

Building a Statewide Interfaith Network for Equality (p. 101)

Fighting Islamophobia and Homophobia: Building Solidarity in Oppressed Communities (p. 101)

The Possibilities of Faith Work In An Aging LGBTQ Community (p. 103)

Building Bridges to Wholeness – Next Strategies for LGBT Jewish Movement Building (p. 104)

It’s All About Me: Queer Spirituality (p. 105)

Pagan and Queer (p. 106)

Queer Muslim Caucus (p. 106)

Strength for the Journey: A Reflective Workshop (p. 107)

That’s a whole lot of faith.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with any of these workshops. I’ll probably go to some of them. Still, it’s a healthy chunk of the conference dedicated to discussing (and often reinforcing) faith and spirituality. What’s important to note is that such a focus isn’t just unwelcoming of nonbelievers, it can also be contrary to the perspectives many bring to this work.

Certainly, many of these workshops are about working with people of faith or responding to people of faith, which doesn’t necessarily require being one. However, there is only one session at the whole conference that recognizes the existence of nonbelievers or those who might not have the same interest in promoting or reinforcing faith and spirituality.

And guess who’s hosting that atheist caucus Friday night?

Me.

I think this pendulum swing of our movement’s approach to religion is something worth discussing. I hope folks will come to the caucus to have that conversation, because I honestly don’t know how welcome it will be in the sessions I just listed above.

Is religion a good thing?
How do critical dialogues on religion impact efforts for LGBT equality?
What challenges do we face when we come out as atheists?
How can we best utilize the support of LGBT allies who are nonbelievers?
What responsibility does the LGBT community have to be allies to the atheist community?

These are some of the important questions I’m hoping to address this week. Perhaps I should be optimistic that so many other folks are as enthusiastic to discuss religion as I am.

Z: Ummm…. hi?

P: Yes, it’s me, Pope Benedict.

Z: I can see that. Don’t you ever get to wear jeans or sweats? That must suck. Anyways, hello. What can I do for you?

P: Well, I’m still kind of waiting for you to kneel and kiss my ring. You are Catholic right?

Z: Oh, yeah, not so much. I know I’m still on your records and all, but those are probably about 25 years out of date.

P: I know you call yourself an atheist, but I’m still the Pope, and you’re still Catholic, so down you go.

Z: Not likely.

P: Well that’s not a very good way to get things started.

Z: What are you even talking about?

P: We wise sages of The Vatican have initiated a new dialogue with you so-called nonbelievers!

Z: That’s interesting. So you’re paying for me to come to The Vatican to tell you what’s up?

P: Actually, it will be in Paris.

Z: Oh, that’s nice. I guess it wouldn’t be the most welcoming setting to invite atheists into the heart of all the Church’s opulent wealth.

P: Yeah, we thought universities would be better settings. And the Cathedral of Notre Dame.

Z: *sigh* Ah, of course.

P: And we’re not paying. In fact, we’re not even inviting. We like the idea of talking to atheists, and we like people knowing that we like the idea of talking to atheists, but we actually haven’t found anyone we want to have this dialogue with.

Z: Umm… well, I’ll pretend I believe you at this point and that it’s actually going to happen and be meaningful. Tell me more.

P: It’s going to be a series of seminars on the theme of “Religion, Light, and Common Reason.”

Z: Oh neat! The only thing I love more than physics lessons is discussions about how everything we’ve learned about our universe—much of which has become common knowledge—it all points to how unnecessary religion is. Sounds interesting!

P: Actually, we are thinking of it more as a “‘courtyard of the gentiles’ where men can in some way hook on to God, without knowing Him and before having gained access to His mystery.”

Z: Wait, so my lady friends aren’t event invited? I know the atheist community hasn’t been the best at creating visibility for our female members, but I still know plenty who would be just as eager to dialogue as these men you’re referring to.

P: They can come, I suppose, but we never have any real expectations about women’s ability to connect with God, which is why we just disregard them most of the time.

Z: Yeah, about this connect with God thing. That’s what you expect from this charade?

P: Of course. You atheists are lost in the dark. You cannot truly know God because you’ve stopped looking for Him. We just want you (at least the men) to have at least a little bit of God’s influence in your life. It’s because we care.

Z: So where does the dialogue come in?

P: What do you mean? We’re having all of these seminars just for you.

Z: Are you going to listen to us at all?

P: And at the end of it all, there will be a big party for youth, and then we’ll pray and meditate inside the Cathedral of Notre Dame.

Z: That’s a no.

P: We’ve got to turn back the tide of Western secularism!

Z: This is like inviting vegetarians to a slaughterhouse.

P: Aren’t you excited? You should feel so honored that we’re sinking so low as to reach out to you!

Z: Yeah. I’m thrilled. What are your actual goals? How will you know if this is a success?

P: Well, obviously, we’ll convince you you’re wrong. At the very least you’ll shut up, and at the best you’ll join our new evangelical efforts!

Z: So let me get this all straight. You want to hold a dialogue with atheists, but you don’t really want to hear from the atheists. You want to bring us to Church locations, teach us Church teachings, and have us pray with you. It’s on your terms, it uses your rhetoric, and you have made no suggestion that the Church is open to growing or cooperating more with secularism.

P: You’ve got it exactly! Doesn’t it sound great?

Z: You going to apologize for anything while we’re there?

P: Like what?

Z: Well, I’ve got a pretty long list, but since this is about dialogue with atheists… how about taking back what you said in September about us atheists being Nazis who exclude virtue from public life?

P: Nazism was not very Christian behavior—

Z: You were a member of the Hitler youth.

P: Don’t interrupt me! I’m still the Pope, you know.

Z: And I’m still unimpressed. So that’s a no to the apology then?

P: I can’t apologize. I’m infallible, and the truth is the truth.

Z: The truth is the truth, eh? Then what you’re saying is you’re holding a public dialogue with Nazis. And you’re inviting me to these seminars because I’m one of the Nazis?

P: No… no… that’s not… we want atheists to like us.

Z: Do you like atheists?

P: Not really.

Z: Are you even willing to say that you’d be willing to hear what atheists have to say?

P: It’s a pretty big step for us to say we’re even willing to talk to you.

Z: I’m flattered.

P: So you’ll come? You’ll give us a chance to convince the world we’re not archaically stodgy?

Z: You paying?

P: Sorry, times are tight.

Z: Yeah, wouldn’t want the Vatican going broke on atheists. Good luck with that.

P: Awwww, please! I promise I won’t call you a Nazi again!

Z: Too late.

THE END.

(Look, everybody! I made fun of the Pope without referring to his complicity in covering up all the Church’s pedophilia!)

(Whoops.)

The day before taking office, Bentley, a deacon at First Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa, spoke at Dexter Street King Memorial Baptist Church, once led by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. An occasion meant to honor Dr. King on his holiday seemed to have quite the opposite effect. Said Bentley:

But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have, if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives with me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.

Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.

Maybe he was just getting it all out of his system while he could.

What’s worse, if you read the news article, you’ll see plenty of people (the Anti-Defamation League notably excepted) are open to defending him or at least equivocating about his intentions. It must be really bad for non-Christians in Alabama if they’re afraid to even say, “Yeah, I was pretty damn offended” on the record.

This is ridiculously offensive. We’re a nation with a history of denying groups of people a role in their government, and here’s a newly elected official who seems eager to govern in just that way.

And who says “daddy”?

I don’t think folks realize how fragile the separation of church and state is. They’re not non-overlapping magisteria; they both deal with serving the people, so we have to try our hardest to maintain the boundaries we can. Electing religious leaders to government positions does the exact opposite, and Bentley is a shining example.

If you pause and consider the phenomenon of the religious right, you realize how bizarre it is that a political point of view so concerned with the constitution is the most concerned with violating the intentions behind it. Of course, snap back to reality and remember that integrity has nothing to do with it; it’s all about power. Try to make rhyme or reason out of it and you’ll get nowhere (If it weren’t for my horse, I wouldn’t have spent that year in college).

We’re not a Christian nation. That meme is just the largest-scale example of the George W. Bush approach to truth. Say it enough and act like it enough and people will buy into it.

Alabama, you have my sympathies. Maybe all you Jews, nonbelievers, and other non-Christians can be at least counted as 3/5 of a brother or sister.

You know what would be great? To hear some Christian groups condemn him, to stand up and say, “This was not Christian behavior and we disapprove of infusing such evangelism into state government.”

I guess they’re all too busy filing their amicus briefs to help the Department of Justice defend DOMA.

Rather than regurgitate my reconciliation of my atheism with a not-so-secular holiday, I thought I’d share a simple thought today (Christmas Eve for many).

Lots of billboards debate the reason for the season. Some atheist groups like to point out that Jesus is a myth, which is a reasonable point. Some Christian groups like to hammer home that Jesus is the reason. I never understood what makes the birth of a baby in a stable a compelling story unless you 100% accept the virgin birth, which I think is a stretch for most believers. (That’s besides the fact that if Jesus was born, he most definitely was not born in December.) Jews, meanwhile, already celebrated that there was enough oil to burn for eight days instead of one—not as miraculous as the virgin birth of a god, but at least a bit more original (or did Osiris have long-burning candles, too?).

None of those stories really matter, though. See, way back in 46 BCE, Caesar figured out that December 25 was the Winter Solstice, the day when the Earth’s tilt is farthest way from the sun and thus it is the shortest day and longest night of the year. The calendar was off though, and the date started shifting to earlier in the year. Pope Gregory XIII standardized it in 1582, but screwed up and restored the date to December 22. (Maybe he didn’t want all his loyal followers in the Holy Roman Empire to be suspicious about Jesus just happening to be born on a day already celebrated by many Pagans.)

But that’s why we have holidays around this time. It’s dark.

So we need to light it up and warm it up (though admittedly, the wintry association with this time of year is biased to the Northern Hemisphere).

We need pretty lights and warm food and stirring music and good company. We need to make each other smile and show each other how much we love each other and exchange presents as tokens of that love.

And that’s it. That’s all it’s about. That’s all that’s important.

No myths or legends necessary! Just the intention to warm the hearts of your loved ones. We all owe ourselves and each other to do so at least once a year, and what better night than (almost) the longest of the year?

So whatever you do this holiday season, enjoy it. Do what it takes to make it really feel like the holiday season and not just the dark one. Celebrate that which makes us all human: love.

Season’s Greetings from ZackFord Blogs!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCNvZqpa-7Q

Consider the belief in an afterlife. This single, simple, commonplace belief can easily define the context for a person’s entire life. Juxtapose 80 years with eternity and priority number one becomes getting into that afterlife, according to the prescriptive guidelines. Priority two might be a compassionate attempt to get others to abide by the same guidelines so they can get there too. And once all the ducks are in a row for the afterlife, all that’s left to do is sit back and tolerate life.

Yes, yes, this is a simplistic generalization that doesn’t recognize the nuance of belief—I hear ya. But at a basic level, it is still fair to say that believing in an afterlife can impact every single decision a person makes as the very motivation that leads them through life. This dubiously simple factor provides an important context for understanding the concept of “conservative,” particularly in the malicious way it is being employed by Congressional Republicans during this lame-duck session.

Fundamentally, there is a “me” factor: I want to go to Heaven, I want you to go to Heaven the same way, and I want God to be pleased with what we did in the meantime. Social conservatism is wanting society to abide by God’s laws… or at least not stray from them any further. (Just ignore that shifting Zeitgeist.) Fiscal conservatism is just a way to make that happen. It’s the same philosophy of unchange; let the people with money keep it. And while Jesus may have said to let go of all your possessions, having money in a capitalist society is great leverage for enforcing a social agenda. It also makes the ride incredibly more comfortable until that Rapture comes along.

So consider this “hostage situation” regarding tax cuts for the rich. Hoarding money is clearly not Christian (a memo many Christian leaders have missed), and Reaganomics (or as Rachel Maddow calls them, “Riganomics”) clearly fail. So why are they “all in”? It could be greed, which itself could be reflective of subservience to the afterlife. But it could also be for leverage. Leverage against the DREAM act. Leverage against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal. Leverage against support for 9/11 first-responders. Remember, the one budget Republicans will never cut is defense; we are, after all, engaged in two wars on behalf of Christianity.

The will to impose the proper afterlife on others is not benign. Just today, a story on good old OneNewsNow complains that Liam Neeson suggested that Aslan from The Chronicles of Narnia (whom he voices) represents non-Christian spiritual leaders. Because, damn it, Aslan is Christ and that’s what C. S. Lewis intended! Don’t worry, “Dr.” Marc T. Newman (whoever he is) comes to the rescue with ideas for how Narnia can be an effective evangelism tool.

And while critics of my post will argue that believing in the afterlife is not a reasonable reduction of Republican motives, I think it’s hard to find a better one. Sure, there is an obsession with power (and ascension thereof) as well as the gluttony of being lobbied, but while there might be incredible focus on their own lives, I’m not sure that conservatives are motivated by the lives, per say, of anybody else. Who cares if people have money, or food, or a job, or a house, or healthcare, or citizenship, or integrity? As long as everyone is abiding by the Bible, they’re going to Heaven, and they should be thankful for that.

It’s not a surprise that the Christian myth of an afterlife (social conservatism) and the myth of the American dream (fiscal “bootstraps” conservatism) have become so intertwined. They both are founded on self-determination. They both assume that the individual is responsible and that no other context plays a role in an individual’s success. And both ultimately help a very small group prosper while creating false hope for all the rest.

The opposite of all this, after all, would be true for progressives. Not believing in an afterlife (or at least not abiding so stringently by such a belief) makes it much easier to recognize the needs of others now, in life. Rather than a focus on “me” until everybody goes to Heaven, it’s a focus on everybody because right now is all we have. Being a social progressive means recognizing that the human species is capable of learning more about its own nature and adapting to accommodate that new information. Being a fiscal progressive means trying to help the most number of people, even if it means asking those who have to make sacrifice for those who have not, because it’s life that matters. Life is all that we have control over while we’re living.

Imagine, though, a completely different universe, altered in just the way that no one believed in an afterlife. Would these political hijinks be par for the course? Maybe. But at the very least, they wouldn’t be based on complete irrationality.

Here are a few highlights:

Second, your “religion” is a myth. It’s bogus. Jesus did not die and rise from the tomb and ascend into heaven. Okay? That. Did. Not. Happen. God did not take the form of a little bird and fly down and impregnate an unwed teenage virgin girl so that she could give birth to a half-human half-divine man-god. Immaculate conception, virgin birth, raising people from the dead, walking on water, loaves and fishes — great stories, but correctly filed under “fiction.” The sad fact is, what you call “faith” is a form of mental illness. It’s amazing enough that so many of you are running around in your mental case dream world. But it’s simply unacceptable when you start trying to impose your delusions upon the rest of us. Cynical politicians may feel the need to humor you and kowtow to your demands. I, however, do not.

It’s wonderful the things you can get away with using satire…

Oh, and here’s one that you even put on your own Manhattan Declaration document, which is ironic because you don’t seem to understand what it means and in fact what you’re doing is the exact opposite of what this statement intended: Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. In other words, do not become entwined with the state. Focus on the next world, not on this one. Or, to be more blunt: Stay the hell out of politics, you boneheads. If a state or federal government wants to marry gay people, that’s their decision. Leave it alone. Go say some prayers.

Yet somehow you’ve twisted this around and interpret it to mean that you should impose your will onto others by passing laws that would force other people who do not share your beliefs to be bound by the rules of your Bible, even though (a) your Bible is fiction and (b) you’re not even interpreting the fiction correctly.

It’s bad enough that you’re hateful bigots. But to dress up your hate and bigotry as an expression of Christianity? That, my friends, is pure evil. If you want to go around hating people, fine. Go for it. It’s stupid, and pointless, but whatever. Go hate people. Just don’t go around saying Jesus told you to do it.

So, listen up. You can’t put your bullshit in my app store. I’m sorry. But I won’t let you use my store to spread your hate. I don’t want any part in the spreading of your phony religion, either. There is no God. There is no heaven. There also is no hell, which is too bad, because if hell did exist, you would surely be spending eternity there, with red-hot pokers up your butts. And nothing would make me happier.

Go read the whole thing.

I’ve created a playlist for all the clips below. It’s pretty good, and Hitchens is still right on his game, despite his health. I particularly appreciated Hitchens’ argument that the way to end poverty is to empower women. It’s worth a listen.

Tony Blair continued making two arguments throughout the debate that I just do not understand. I mean, I don’t think either of them actually help support his point that religion is a good thing to have.

The first was the idea that faith is good because lots of people already have faith. Since we can’t convince everyone to suddenly not have faith, we should encourage people who have faith to apply that faith in good ways.

Is this really an argument for anything? This is the same argument people make to support smoking. They say, Oh, well lots of people are smokers (i.e. addicted to smoking), so we should just let them keep smoking. Umm, no! Sorry smokers. Your habit is gross and makes me sneeze. Go outside, keep your tar clouds away, and yes, keep trying to quit!

Just because people have faith doesn’t mean faith is good! Like Tim Minchin says in his song White Wine in the Sun, “I don’t believe just because ideas are tenacious that they’re worthy.” This argument is really a concession. It doesn’t demonstrate anything at all about the difference faith makes, just that we’re stuck with it, so we ought to try to make the most of it. If anything, it sounds more like a strategy for coping with the persistence of faith.

The other argument he made a lot is that though some people use religion for bad things, some people also use religion for good things. This is not a good argument in favor of religion. It actually demonstrates how pointless religion is. If it can be used for both good and bad, then it doesn’t make a difference at all! It just is.

My argument has long been that there are no unique benefits to religion/faith. None of Mr. Blair’s arguments challenge that claim at all. Sure, some people do good things inspired by their faith, but so what? Plenty of people do good things without faith, and honestly, they’re often better things in the absence of proselytization.

If you are supporting the claim that religion is a force for good, you have to be able to demonstrate that there is something we get from faith that we could not get without it. Given that there are plenty of bad things that are unique to religion—the very suspension of critical thinking that faith requires is itself a detractor—I really don’t think Mr. Blair had much to offer. Admittedly, my expectations were not high given that his opening statement included mention of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, hackneyed jabs at atheism that don’t hold up (and which Hitchens didn’t even bother addressing). It’s not surprising that Mr. Hitchens successfully swayed a much larger percentage of the audience than did Mr. Blair.

The debate is not short, but throw the playlist on and listen while you’re at work. Share your own thoughts about these arguments or other things that are said in the discussion.

httpvp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=45A081C92957109B

As I wrote last year and discussed on yesterday’s Queer and Queerer, Thanksgiving has an underlying assumption that God is responsible for those things. So today, rather than just thinking about WHAT you’re thankful for, think about WHO you’re thankful to.

We’re all just monkeys in shoes and all we have is each other, so take a few minutes today to show your appreciation to those who have made a difference in your life.

I know that I am thankful to all of you out there who support me and this little old blog I write. It’s not been an easy year, but it’s meant a lot to have your support and your feedback.

Best wishes for a lovely day with friends and family.

A recently released study shows a link between childhood family structure and the rate of female homosexuality – undermining the claim that sexual orientation is genetic or biological.

First of all, there is a lot of research that shows there is at least some genetic component to homosexuality, so it’s not just a claim.

Second of all, it shouldn’t really matter if it’s genetic or biological; it’s still not a choice, and it’s still dangerous to talk about it like it is.

So what did Pat Fagan have to tell us about this study he “co-evaluated”?

“Once the girl grows up in a home in which her father is not present, it’s about three times” more likely she has had or will have homosexual partners, he says – but when she is raised by parents who are married and “always intact, it’s about a four-percent rate.” Moreover, he explains that rate is “slightly higher in the always-intact-but-cohabitating parents — that’s parents who never married.”

Statistics are also higher with step-families, the cohabiting step-family, and the single divorced parent, adds the FRC spokesman.

“The big take away from this study is that clearly, this [type of sexual behavior] is not genetic,” Fagan points out. “The different rates of homosexuality among women are very reactive to the family structure within which they grow up. If it was genetic, you would find pretty much the same rates all across.”

He further notes that, according to the results of the study, women who claim to worship weekly or monthly have a lower rate of lesbianism, while those who rarely or never worship are at a higher rate.

Okay, so this is a joke. And the fact that there is no title, citation, or actual results to this “study” doesn’t help. Remember, too, that this is all written with the assumption that lesbianism is bad and should be prevented. But let’s think about this a bit with the limited information we have.

These anti-gay “family” groups use the word “fatherless” a lot. They assume that the same conclusions about children of single moms applies to children of lesbian moms because both are “fatherless.” Of course, we know this is an absurd assumption to make. A loving committed couple is a lot different than a single working parent.

And so it’s quite possible that some of the children described as “fatherless” are actually the children of lesbian couples. Given that they’d have grown up in a home where sexual orientation was regularly discussed and they had the freedom to explore, it would not be surprising if they were more likely to do such exploring! Further, if the biological mother of those girls is a lesbian, that’s actually evidence in favor of a genetic argument. The ambiguity, unfortunately, does not give us much to work with.

What’s also important to note here is that they identify “lesbianism” as behavior, not identity. By this definition, there are plenty of happy heterosexual women who probably qualify. And thus, the claim that the behavior is not genetic becomes meaningless. No one ever claimed that behavior was genetic. Moreover, the claim that rates would be the same “all across” would be even less true if there were a genetic component.

Lastly, the connection between worship and lesbianism is highly constructed. Given that most religious organizations condemn homosexuality and actively discourage it in their members (to the point of intimidation and bullying), it is not surprising that women who receive more of those messages are more scared to not explore their own sexuality. It’s kind of sad, really.

So, if you’re curious about the way these groups propagate hate, they gave you a shining example right out the gate today!

Oh! And I cannot leave out the icing on the cake, ONN’s accompanying poll. The AFA learned long ago that their polls get crashed, so they began designing them in ways that are win-win-win for them, making them utterly pointless. Take a look and decide how you would vote! I’m not going to show you the results, so you’ll just have to vote and see where you stand. My answer’s in 2nd place.

Stop back here next time for a poll about the best way to trap unicorns.

For some, these are obvious choices. Others might think it overreaching. Personally, I think this is a very important step, and I’m very proud of the SPLC for making it.

Let’s not forget that Tony Perkins, in particular, is regularly included in national newspapers and mainstream cable news discussions. It is always done in the name of “showing both sides” of the story. Now, one of those sides is clearly designated as “hate.” Similarly, the AFA’s Bryan Fischer, who is never short on astonishing talking points, is also clearly labeled as “hate.”

There are many who seek to somehow bridge the gap and claim that beliefs that homosexuality is a sin somehow do not amount to hate. This is very murky territory. The idea that homosexuality is a choice (and a bad one) is the most hurtful idea our community still fights. It has no ounce of truth, and yet it persists quite widespread. It is used to create shame, promote bullying, and maintain inequality. Anyone who holds such ideas is certainly contributing to the negative experiences of the LGBT community, but anyone actively promoting and reinforcing such ideas is most definitely a bully.

The culture war is all about one thing: legitimacy. With these new designations applied to some very large organizations and prominent anti-gay speakers, it is a big win for the groups promoting the health, safety, and prosperity of LGBT people.

Not all ideas are created equal. We now have some important reinforcements in the fight against hate.

But as you might recall, when I last wrote about Catholicism two weeks ago, I pointed out that people complain I “bash” Catholicism too much. So rather than just add one to the pile, I thought I’d compile the posts I’d written here about Catholicism. I want to really put it to all my Catholic readers out there… is there ever enough evidence of Church shenanigans that will make you question your loyalty? And more importantly, do you recognize that by putting money in the offering at Mass, you are endorsing all of the following behavior?

Take a look and just the few examples I’ve written about, a list that is hardly exhaustive.

November 1 – Cardinal-Designate Raymond L. Burke said that discrimination against gays is okay, because they “suffer” and are “wrong.”

October 28 – Materials I was handed at a summer street fair show that Catholics guilt teenage girls out of abortion with twisted facts, gender police dating rituals, and condemn homosexuals as “disordered” using bunk Paul Cameron research.

September 17 – The Pope told the Queen of England that “atheist extremism” was responsible for the holocaust, ignoring the fact Hitler had been Catholic.

August 24 – The group Catholics for Equality creates an opportunity for LGBT advocates to defend their Church at the same time (thus maintaining the very cognitive dissonance this post is meant to challenge).

July 13 – Chicago’s Reverend Robert Barron used atheist Christopher Hitchens’ terminal illness as a petty opportunity to promote prayer.

June 7 – The New York Times celebrated “A Gay Catholic Voice Against Same-Sex Marriage,” a profile of Eve Tushnet, who promotes harmful ex-gay therapies or condemns gay people to chastity.

April 12 – The Pope’s #2, Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, promoted the (completely wrong) idea that homosexuality and pedophilia are related.

April 3 – A senior Vatican priest speaking before the Pope compared the backlash against the Church for sexual abuse scandals to the persecution of the Jews.

March 16 – A lesbian couple cared enough about their children being Catholic that they didn’t care if their kids learned that they were actually going to Hell for their relationship.

March 12 – Bill O’Reilly actually defended the aforementioned lesbian couple when their kids were kicked out of their Catholic preschool; Father Jonathan Morris, not so much.

March 5 – A number of highlights! The DC Archdiocese ended their foster care program and all spousal benefits rather than subscribe to marriage equality. An Italian cardinal made it clear that if you support same-sex marriage, you can’t be Catholic. Distributing condoms to help fight AIDS in the Philippines is also anti-Catholic, according to bishops there. That was also the week we heard about the gay prostitution scandal inside the Vatican.

November 20 – Many Catholic leaders signed the very anti-gay Manhattan Declaration, just a week after threatening to pull out of DC charity serves should marriage pass there (as we saw above the ended up doing).

..

So there are my posts about Catholicism from the past year (aside from reminders here or there about Catholic positions on LGBT issues). That completely ignores the huge sums of money they gave both in 2009 (Maine) and 2008 (California and elsewhere) to fight marriage equality, as well as all scandals of sexual abuse, which continue to come to light.

So… you all okay with all of that? How many cracks will it take to break your diplomacy dike and cause you to raise some concern about your Church? If you disagree with the above actions and statements, why do you still support them both financially and in name? And if all of these things are so wrong, how is it that your beliefs are still so right?

Are you still proud to be Catholic? How did Catholicism get to be so important in your life? Can the values Catholicism represents for you ever be separated out from support of the Church?

Let me hear from you all.

This story comes from Britain, where a Christian couple was told they may not be fit to be foster parents under new laws about sensitivity to gay and lesbian kids.

Mrs. Johns told London’s Daily Mail, “The council said, ‘Do you know, you would have to tell them that it’s OK to be homosexual?’”

“But I said I couldn’t do that,” Johns continued, “because my Christian beliefs won’t let me. Morally, I couldn’t do that. Spiritually I couldn’t do that.”

The Johns appealed to the courts, hoping it would force their council to clarify whether Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics would be forbidden from adopting foster children.

I think it’s brilliant, aside from being perfect common sense. We want kids to go with parents who will love unconditionally. If the parents are going to condemn a same-sex orientation, that is quite far from love unconditionally.

Now, I’m not going to quote too much from the WND story; I quickly grow weary of being called homosexual and “gay” and having my “rights” talked about. The mocking quotes are so degrading. But I want to share this next bit because it clearly shows how Christians really struggle to understand the privilege they have, perceiving a reduction of the oppression they cause as a loss to the supposed “equality” they think they have.

The groundbreaking legal collision of homosexual “rights” and the freedom of religion has generated extensive public attention, including an open letter from several British clergy and signed by former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton:

“The High Court is to be asked to rule on whether Christians are ‘fit people’ to adopt or foster children – or whether they will be excluded, regardless of the needs of children, from doing so because of the requirements of homosexual rights,” the clergy write. “This ‘equality,’ however, privileges homosexual rights over those of others.”

“There is a ‘clash of rights,’ which the court must settle,” the clergy continue. “If the court believes that those with traditional Christian views on homosexuality can be discriminated against, the state has taken a position on a moral question, namely that such religious belief is problematic.”

The Christians are suddenly concerned about the needs of children! That never happens when there are same-sex couples ready to adopt. But when there are Christian parents ready to bully their own children for being gay, now that’s a home for a needy child.

Guess what, such a religious belief is problematic. And I hope the British courts say so!

And, as is already happening, I hope the American conservative movement freaks out.

And then, I hope the American LGBT movement has the courage to stand up and say the same thing: Religious beliefs against homosexuality are extremely problematic whether a child turns out to be gay or not.

“The city council needs clarity on this matter,” [Jeremy West, representation for Derby City Council] said. “It defends diversity and equality and has treated the Johns as it would have treated anyone else. It would be inappropriate for the council to approve foster carers who cannot meet minimum standards.”

Weston also said, however, “It would be difficult and impractical to match children with Mr. and Mrs. Johns if they feel that strongly.”

Weston added that the Johns’ application could also be ultimately denied should the Johns be found “unsuitable” for other reasons, including “if Mrs. Johns’ attendance at church twice on a Sunday would limit available time [to care for children].”

So what comes first, children or God? To any of the Christians out there who might possibly be torn about this dilemma, you need to seriously reconsider how much influence you want your faith to have over your life.

This week, Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly reported that the World Bank will be including PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) in their Community Outreach Program; they’ll be listed right below PFLAG. Wayne Besen at Truth Wins Out added that this was fraud on the part of PFOX, because they don’t have any local presence in DC—their headquarters being located in Reedville, VA, 127 miles away. TWO has since called upon the World Bank to remove PFOX from its outreach list, pointing out the group’s connections to Richard Cohen, his protégé Caleb Lee Brundidge who was part of the conference in Uganda that led to the death penalty bill being considered there, and Arthur Abba Goldberg, who scammed poor communities with complicated bond schemes.

I’ll leave you to the articles for details about how the World Bank’s charity outreach works, but let’s be clear, PFOX is no charity. And contrary to its name, it is no friend to gays.

PFOX is remarkable for its application of the Victim meme. See, the ex-gays that PFOX represents? They’re real victims. But they’re victims of the harmful, ineffective brainwashing of ex-gay therapy. But what PFOX says is that they’re victims of harassment from those of us in the LGBT community who ostracize and discriminate against them for being ex-gay. This, of course, is absurd, as we only have the utmost compassion for ex-gays; it is only the promoters of ex-gay therapy who deserve to be challenged and disavowed for spreading their lies.

Groups like PFOX continue to create visibility for the idea that sexual orientation can be changed, and that it’s just a different perspective; the issue is still up for debate. This is both factually untrue and incredibly harmful. Let’s take a look at some of their language to see what they’re real motives are.

Don’t be misled by the first sentence in the next paragraph:

Who are PFOX families?

PFOX families love their homosexual child unconditionally.  Unlike other organizations which insist that parental love is conditional on affirming homosexual behavior, there are no conditions on our love for our children.  We do not have to approve of everything our children do.  Blanket approval is not responsible parenting or love.  True love is loving in spite of our differences and treating each other with kindness and respect.

It’s not hard to read between the lines here. What PFOX wants from families is for them to show their love by shaming their children for their homosexuality.

And of course they do! And look! They have the APA (both of them) there to back them up!

Aren’t some people born gay?

We have all heard of individuals who entered homosexuality later in life after marrying and having children with an opposite sex spouse.  No scientific evidence has established a genetic cause for homosexuality or found a “gay gene.”  There is no DNA or medical test to determine if a person is homosexual.  Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration.  “Gay” is a self-chosen identity.  According to the American Psychiatric Association, there are no replicated scientific studies to support that people can be born “gay” or that homosexuality is innate.

According to the American Psychological Association, “[a]lthough much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” [2008]

Pssst… the period is supposed to go outside the citation, at least according to APA’s own style manual.

So, is that really what the APA has to say? No, I think we should look to 2009 for a more accurate statement on the matter:

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

…

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others’ sexual orientation;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Psychological Association concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation;

Aww… looks like PFOX was misleading just a little bit there, huh?

Don’t be surprised. Their motives are unabashedly hurtful.

Lastly, let’s take a look at some of the “discriminatory actions against ex-gays” that show the importance of support from groups like PFOX. Note that most of these are efforts against ex-gay groups or individuals who support the ex-gay movement, NOT ex-gays themselves.

Unlike gay groups, ex-gay groups like PFOX are routinely denied equal access to participate in public school events, donate books to public school libraries, and present speakers on diversity day.

Well, let’s see. If PFOX’s materials promote harmful therapies that have been disavowed by all major medical authorities, should they really be welcomed? Are those good resources for students or communities to have access to? No.

Transgenders and cross-dressers are affirmed for changing their gender but former homosexuals are ridiculed for making the decision to change their sexual orientation.

This is misleading (and offensive). People who are trans do not change their gender. They simply have genders that are different from their sexes. This is a false comparison that completely misunderstands (unsurprisingly) the nature of trans identities.

Ex-gay conferences and seminars across the country are frequently picketed by anti-ex-gay protestors like PFLAG, a parents organization run by a gay activist, and Soulforce, a gay religious organization.

Been there, done that. Of course we picket those groups! It is no great secret that they actively work to hurt members of our community. But we aren’t protesting against ex-gay people; we are protesting against the recruitment of gays into a zombified movement of ex-gays based on harmful untruths.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama was criticized by gay activists for allowing ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to sing at a fundraiser.  They insisted that Obama drop the African-American singer from the program.  Gay singers did not receive this treatment.

Haha, this is great. First of all, none of these people support Barack Obama. Second of all, this is a clear attempt to paint gay activists as racists. Third of all, Candidate Obama had committed to being a fierce advocate for LGBT issues, so discouraging him from essentially endorsing the ex-gay movement was a pretty important thing to do.

Harvard University conducted two separate investigations against employee Larry Houston because he discussed his former homosexuality on campus.

Houston was a cook in a Harvard dining hall, and the investigations only took place after many students complained he was inappropriately proselytizing. It’s clear from this Crimson article that Houston was coached with talking points by PFOX to make himself look like a victim.

Equality Virginia demanded that Washington DC Metro remove PFOX’s subway billboards advocating tolerance for ex-gays.

Why would a pro-gay group complain about the visibility of an anti-gay message? Huh.

An ex-gay volunteer staffing PFOX’s exhibit booth at the Arlington County, Virginia Fair was physically assaulted because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.  Wayne Besen, a former spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, falsely reported that the assault had never occurred.

Another misleading claim, intended as an attack on Wayne Besen. But Wayne wasn’t the one who claimed there was no incident! In fact, the Arlington County Board researched the claim, found no evidence, and reported the incident as a “pre-fabrication or a mistake.”

After speaking at an ex-gay conference, Michelle McKinney-Hammond lost her programming on a broadcast station because gay activist Wayne Besen had complained to the station.

Another direct attack on Wayne; another lie. In fact, aside from sites who have copied language from PFOX directly, I cannot find any evidence to this. Even if it were true, there would probably be a rightful claim, given that Hammond’s has a reputation as a relationship expert meant that a television gig gave her a very wide platform to share the harmful beliefs she was reinforcing at the ex-gay conference.

After writing a letter her local newspaper as a concerned citizen, Crystal Dixon was terminated from her job as an Associate Vice President of Human Resources for Toledo University.  An African-American, Dixon challenged the civil rights comparison of race with homosexual behavior.  Dixon’s letter also revealed that some gay people have overcome unwanted homosexual feelings, as evidenced by the growing popularity of PFOX and other ex-gay organizations.

It’s actually the University of Toledo. And there’s that racism implication again. Guess what? If you work in human resources, it’s your job to handle complaints of discrimination, including those related to sexual orientation. Not unlike the recent case of Andrew Shirvell (the assistant DA in Michigan), if you make public comments against homosexuality when it’s your job to protect gay and lesbian people, it kind of compromises your ability to do your job effectively.

And that’s the whole list. PFOX is just out to sugarcoat the harmful reality of ex-gay therapy and then benefit from claiming victim status.

They are not a charity. They do not help people. They do not deserve any support from the World Bank.

Canada’s 22 Minutes gives us a humorous portrayal that actually reminds us of the true harm done by ex-gay therapy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkB8isr3bZQ

…

At the Soulforce Symposium, I asked the panel about what I feel to be conflicting identities, being both gay and atheist. My friend, Cathy Renna, offered that she’s long witnessed a disenchantment with religion in the LGBT community, to the extent that it was once taboo to admit attending services on a Sunday morning. And she’s surely right, and it might only be in recent years that the LGBT community has placed a much greater focus on embracing and reconciling with religion. It could just be a pendulum swinging back towards a pro-religion point of view, but it would only have had to be as recent as the past six years for it to define my whole experience.

Now, let’s face it, it’s no surprise that LGBT folks would feel alienated from religion. After all, arguably all anti-gay and anti-trans sentiments are securely rooted in religious teachings and the willful ignorance that is religious thinking.

But not wanting to practice a religion and being an atheist are two very different things. Just because members of the LGBT community no longer want to be a part of religion doesn’t mean they’ve stopped believing, or stopped being “religious,” at least as I defined it above. It doesn’t make them atheists, and it definitely does not automatically make them welcoming or inclusive of atheists.

The virus of religious thinking does not let go so easily, and the human brain is incredibly adept at functioning under the conditions of cognitive dissonance. A person who believed that homosexuality is a sin that then decided that the Bible was wrong about that could easily never question that the whole rest of the Bible is just as fallible. That person might trust religion less, but never bother to think critically about any of the rest of it, and certainly not abandon it.

But being an atheist? That’s a whole different ballgame.

…

First, you should know that there’s a whole atheist community. It’s true. In fact, just like the LGBTQQIAA community has diversity, we have atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, nonbelievers, skeptics, brights, humanists, and more. There’s a lot of overlap—I identify with at least five of those labels—so we don’t use a a long acronym, just a single scarlet A. We have a coming out process and it can often be as difficult or worse than coming out as gay (and unlike the coming out process for homosexuality, it hasn’t been studied at all). We suffer incredible oppression in the United States; in fact, we are the least trusted minority and our vision of America is the least popular, even compared to Muslims and homosexuals [sic]. We’re also the only minority group for which tolerance has not grown over the past 30 years.

And yet, here we are. We vigilantly disclose our identities specifically so we can create change. We challenge people’s core beliefs and welcome heated debate. And we are a community. We make an active choice to identify openly and we seek each other out. We need each other’s support.

This community is a very different picture than the group of folks who just don’t participate in religion anymore. It’s a whole different identity, a whole different community, and a whole different set of challenges.

And you know what’s great about the atheist community? Even though it is predominantly heterosexual (like the rest of society), it is overwhelmingly supportive and inclusive of LGBT issues. I would go so far as to say that the atheist community understands that anti-gay attitudes are among the most dangerous and unscientific views still held by most of modern society, and they speak out in defense of the LGBT community all the time. The atheist community is by far one of the strongest LGBT allies of any other minority community.

But then I come back over to the gay community and the reverse is not true for me as an atheist. HRC’s putting out a “Clergy Call 2011 for Justice and Equality.” The Task Force has a whole “multi-faith” mini-conference as part of Creating Change this year, as if CC weren’t faith-centric enough. There’s the MCC and UU, Catholics for Equality and Soulforce, and a slew of other pro-religion organizations that work on behalf of LGBT equality. Now, don’t get me wrong, as a gay man, I appreciate those efforts greatly. But as an atheist, they totally alienate me. They make me feel unwelcome because they are antithetical to my point of view. And I seldom see partnerships with the atheist groups eager to help!

As an atheist, I want to dismantle the power that religion has, not reinforce it. I don’t want people to reconcile their homosexuality with their faith; I want them to see that homosexuality is a brilliant example for how flawed and unnecessary faith is. I hate the idea that religions or religious beliefs are something deserving of respect, and I have no intention of respecting them or catering to them in order to achieve legal equality as a gay man. I want to work with other LGBT activists, but I don’t want to have to sit through prayers or endure a faith hegemony to make my difference in the movement. And yet, that is increasingly the environment with which I am faced in the LGBT movement.

…

If you buy into the ex-gay movement even just a little, you are faced with two choices. You can try to change your sexual orientation or you can fail to change your sexual orientation. If you fail, they have nothing left for you, and certainly no validation for embracing an identity other than heterosexuality.

While it’s not as overt, I feel like the LGBT movement similarly offers a kind of non-choice for atheists. I can work with faith and I can work without faith, but there is very little room for me to work against faith. While there may be some who aren’t thrilled with religion, they like holding on to their own faith, nonetheless. Frankly, there is a certain baseline of anti-atheist prejudice (I call it “faithism”) and religious privilege that is just as prevalent in the LGBT community as the rest of society.

Many atheists within the LGBT community struggle to be out (or even come out), recognizing the challenges of openly identifying as atheist within the LGBT community, and particularly of identifying as both atheist and LGBT in greater society. Surely for most, LGBT issues are more salient to them, impacting their relationships, families, housing, and employment. It’s all too easy to subscribe to the silence and invisibility for nonbelievers that is already in place.

Gaytheism is a borderland that is not always fun to live in. On one side of the Venn diagram are the LGBT issues that are so salient and important to me that I am passionately dedicated to addressing, but which is a community that still ostracizes me for my way of thinking. On the other side is the atheist community, a group that completely appreciates who I am and supports my point of view, but who are less organized, less committed to the issues most important to me, and likely not the place I’ll find a life partner or a job in activism or education. And I can’t have it both ways and still maintain my own integrity, because I can’t both disavow faith and simultaneously reinforce it and feel like I’m making any meaning out of my own life.

Given that I am a man of integrity, what choice do I have but to push? Push the LGBT movement to open its eyes not just to the unreligious, but to its atheist subcommunity en masse. I have to encourage other LGBT nonbelievers to come out. I have to try to help organizations understand how their religious messages or strategies can be very exclusive. I have to convince the LGBT movement to accept and welcome the support of the many atheist and humanist organizations eager to be involved with the effort for LGBT equality. Maybe I even have to create one that represents LGBT issues specifically on behalf of nonbelievers.

So, I’m just putting it all out there for you, LGBT movement. I’m going to be a little thorn in your side. I’m going to call you out on your religious privilege. I’m going to cause some consternation for your believers. I’m going to say things that aren’t popular and that aren’t even always welcome. It is very much my intent to push and to change as much it is my intent to support and cooperate. We’re stuck with each other, so we’d best make the most of it.

But if nothing else, remember this: I’m not the only one. I know when prayers and Amens are making me feel uncomfortable and unwelcome; I can identify those triggers, respond to them appropriately, and continue on. But there are a lot of members of our community who aren’t where I am, who feel silenced and alienated by all the attention you pay to religion. I want to create a movement that understands and appreciates their point of view as much as any other, and I want to work together to make that happen.

I hope you do too.

Could you go a week without bashing – just let us be who we are?

Well, I could, except that that is exactly what Catholicism does not do for gay people. It’s amazing how often leaders of the Catholic Church (or its messaging) glibly rail on gay people. (These are the same folks whose salaries are paid by your tithing, by the way.)

I don’t know if you’ve noticed what the cultural environment is like for gay people right now, but we’ve finally been hearing about the many suicides committed by people who are persecuted for being perceived as gay. Where do all those bullies get their message?

The Catholic Church is a big source. Take a look at this Catholic Action insight from Cardinal-Designate Raymond L. Burke (hat tip Joe Jervis). You’ll note that commenting on the video has been disabled. Opponents of the gay community thinks this gives their message more power because there is no room for dissent; I think it just shows how insecure they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Hls4562qE

Did you catch that? First he said:

There is a discrimination which is perfectly just and good and namely that’s the discrimination between what is right and what is wrong.

Then, he goes onto say that “people with same-sex attractions” are people who “suffer” and that this attraction is “not right” that they should “correct in themselves” this attraction.

So discrimination between right and wrong is okay. People who are gay are not right. Thus, it’s okay to discriminate against gays. See how obvious the message is?

And if you don’t agree with my conclusion, you don’t have to. The good Cardinal goes on to make it for us:

And so it’s not at all an unfair discrimination to say, “Well, no. Persons who are attracted in this way…”—we can’t do them any good by making up a new idea of marriage contrary to the way in which God has created us.

…

[Church teachings, scripture, and tradition help us understand why] same-sex behavior is always and everywhere wrong.

I couldn’t quite make out all his words there, but his point was obvious. You can listen to the whole spiel for yourself.

Now, to all you folks out there who say, “Those are just beliefs,” you’re wrong. They are fallacies and they are incredibly hurtful. They’re not just different point of view; they are, in fact, wrong.

So yes, every time religious organizations try to use their beliefs to perpetuate discrimination against gay people, I’m going to call it out and hold the religious organization accountable for the harm it propagates.

Maybe if Catholic Church leaders stopped demonizing us and spreading the message that we’re sinners and in great need of help I wouldn’t have to keep writing about how archaic and dangerous it is.

It’s called “Encouraging Religious Pluralism & Interfaith Cooperation: A winter holiday conversation.”

That’s right, this student affairs professional organization has a whole commission dedicated to spirituality, faith, religion, and meaning.

And what’s this conference call going to be about?

The end of the fall semester presents an opportunity for university staff to educate students about the many religious celebrations that take place at the end of the calendar year other than Christmas. However, finding ways to have meaningful celebrations that are inclusive of multiple faith traditions, while avoiding overly simplistic gestures can be challenging. This hot topics discussion will provide participants with the opportunity to learn about best practices and conversation on promoting religious pluralism and interfaith cooperation on campus during the winter holiday break.

As long as all faiths are included, no one will feel excluded right?

And who’s leading the call?

The Reverend Gregory W. McGonigle has served as Director of the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life (ORSL) at Oberlin College since 2008. He received his Master of Divinity degree from Harvard Divinity School in 2004, focused on academic chaplaincy, interfaith relations, and American religious history.

A Master of Divinity, of course.

Dear ACPA members,

There are atheist students on your campus. They might call themselves nonbelievers, freethinkers, agnostics, brights, secular, or humanists, or whatever, or nothing at all, but they’re there. They don’t identify with faith. They don’t identify with spirituality. They don’t identify with religion. Some of them have valid challenges to faith, spirituality, and religion to make. Believe it or not, they are capable of making meaning without any of the mystical stuff you keep triumphing. And they already feel ostracized on their campuses. Please stop ignoring them.

Love,

Zack

The recent issue of the Secular Student Alliance newsletter offers a debate on interfaith movements. I have to say I agree with Ed Clint (and Hemant Mehta) that interfaith movements, by definition, are contrary to the experience of nonbelievers. An interfaith community is one of different faiths, but of faiths, nonetheless. How could it be inclusive of people without faith who are intent on challenging faith?

As long as the focus is on faith, religious privilege will prevail.

Thanks for such a critical, progressive approach to creating inclusive campuses, ACPA.

Well, now that Halloween is upon us, it’s time for that post.

In the background right now, I’m listening to a free CD I got from the Mary Foundation called The Mass Explained. I’m almost 20 minutes into it… it’s basically an extended rant about how the bread and wine REALLY IS the body and blood of God. It’s baloney. I don’t know if I can listen much longer. It’s really just baloney… reminds me of that Frank Zappa quote about the difference between cults and religions: size. Ugh, yeah, no more.

There were a LOT of materials being distributed at the Catholic tables, and I took but a few, but which will give plenty to discuss here. The first was the aforementioned CD, of which nothing more will be said. Then, I picked up two booklets by Jason Evert (chastity.com) which I’ll pull quotes from below, and lastly, a fetus model. The distribution of these materials was at a public street fair and clearly targeted at young adults.

Let’s look at the fetus first.

Gus, The Little Jelly Fetus

This little guy (its sex organs may have appeared, but not on the model, so it could be a gal, or intersex; I named mine Gus) is 10-12 weeks old. Known as “precious one” (“Some people think that my life began at birth; but my life’s journey began long before I was born…”), it comes with a little card that tells you some things about how developed it is, things clearly designed to humanize the little jelly lump. Example:

Week 1: Conception; the baby is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will become.

A zygote is not a baby and definitely not a person, but of course, the distributor of these cute little suckers, Heritage House 76, wants you to think otherwise.

Week 5: Tiny arms and legs appear, as well as the baby’s face. The baby’s blood is now separate from the mother’s.

Whoops! Sorry, an embryo is still not a baby. And I actually don’t think that’s quite accurate about the blood.

Week 11: The baby “practices breathing and facial expressions, even smiling. The baby can also urinate and stomach muscles can contract.

That one is good both for scaring girls out of getting pregnant AND guilting them out of getting an abortion. I don’t want no baby peeing in me!

Ugh. I don’t know if there’s much else need be said about the fetus. If you’re curious about getting some, they come in both Caucasian and Ethnic flavors (because all non-white fetuses look the same—you knew that right?). They’re $24.99 for a pack of 50; perfect for your Halloween party. Who doesn’t love the ol’ bowl-of-fetuses gag.

Providing misleading ideas about pregnancy are cruel, as is guilting young girls out of making certain decisions about their body. This blog is, and forever shall be, vehemently pro-choice, and disapproves of any and all pro-life propaganda.

Funny part is, there weren’t even religious messages that came with the fetus, but it sure came from the Catholic table, I can assure you of that.

Gender Policing and Sex “Education” Chastity Policing

So I picked up two booklets by Jason Evert, “Pure Love,” and “Pure Manhood,” published by Catholic Answers. Let’s be clear straight out the gate that a couple of degrees in theology do not a psychologist make. But what does a teenager know who wants to explore their sexuality? These books are loathsome.

Here are a few talking points from “Pure Love.”

p. 2: Chastity is a virtue (like courage or honesty) that applies to a person’s sexuality.

p. 4: If you’re sexually active and trying to figure out if it’s love, apply the love test. Take the sexual part out of the relationship and live the virtue of chastity. When you remove the lust, you can see if there was ever any love to begin with. Don’t be afraid to do this, because only when love is put to the test can its real value be seen.

p. 5: Your body is a gift, and during the sexual act, the couple give themselves to each other. But to reduce this gift to a loan gives you less respect than you deserve.

p. 6: Although it may be hard to see now, sex outside of marriage hurts both people. Besides the obvious risks of disease and unwanted pregnancy, it scars them emotionally.

p. 10: If you follow others into premarital sex, you may follow them into divorce court as well. In fact, if a guy gets married as a virgin, his divorce rate is sixty-three percent lower than a non-virgin. For girls, it’s seventy-sex percent lower.

That last one’s according to a 1994 study. This kind of crap pisses me off. It’s all about guilt. It’s all about some higher calling for what you are and are not supposed to do with your body. It’s incredibly stifling and, in my opinion, harmful.

What about masturbation, Christine O’Donnell asks?

p. 26: God created sex for two purposes: bonding and babies. Masturbation achieves neither, and instead of communicating life and love, the purpose of sex becomes the satisfaction of lust.

Yes, this 2007 mini-publication includes that lovely old nonsense condemning masturbation. After all, “nothing bad happens to a man’s body if he isn’t sexually active.” Just change the sheets more regularly…

Is homosexuality a sin?

p. 27: The causes of homosexuality have not been fully explained, and many who experience these temptations do not choose or want them!

Hey! That’s true! Alright! Oh wait…

p. 27, cont.: People with same-sex attractions are called to a life of chastity along with the rest of the members of the Church who battle with their own temptations.

So, being gay isn’t a choice, but your only choice is to never have sex. Ever. If you were ever confused about how Church teachings promote bullying, check out this condemning passage:

p. 28: When we understand sex for what it is—a reflection of God’s life-giving love—it becomes clear that same-sex unions cannot reflect this. Members of the same sex can reflect his love by doing what is best for each other, but the sexual act must always be ordered toward giving life.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Let’s look at some of the gender policing in “Pure Manhood.”

p. 4: When the time comes to ask a young woman out, take the initiative. … This honors the girl, because it takes the burden of rejection off of her and places it on you. … If she’s not worth the pain of rejection, then you don’t desire her enough.

Get that? Girls are weak and soft, so you have to be the strong man and take initiative. Here comes more chivalry sexism!

p. 5: If you go to a restaurant, open the door for her. When you sit down, pull her chair out for her. Deliberately give her the seat that faces the center of the restaurant, or whichever one has the better view. You should take the seat that faces the wall. This is a sign that you won’t be looking over her shoulder at the hostess or the TV during dinner. Your eyes are on her, and she knows it. If an attractive woman walks by, you should keep your attention on your date, so that she is secure in your love.

Right, because women are insecure!

She should also order first, and you should pay.

p. 7: If you’re getting the feeling that you’re becoming a servant, you’re getting the right idea. If you hope to be a father one day (as a dad or a priest), then get used to it. The man is the spiritual head of the family.

That’s Catholicism in a nutshell for you. It’s all about men, which makes its values as archaic as its delusions.

This booklet also includes info about masturbation and homosexual attractions. Check out these factoids:

p. 30: The world tells people who have same-sex attraction that they have two options: either hide in the closet in fear or come out, embrace your identity, and sleep with whoever you want. …

A guy who has these attractions may not want them, or even know where they’re coming from. Perhaps they stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse.

Wrong, wrong wrong. Such horrible lies.

p. 30-31: The homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God’s natural purpose for sex—babies and bonding.

I don’t know why he bothers mentioning bonding. Clearly, he doesn’t give a shit about bonding. And guess what, he’s not done!!!

p. 31: Even if a person does not believe in God, he cannot argue with nature. For example, the life expectancy of homosexual men is half that of heterosexual men. [Paul Cameron 1996 citation.] Furthermore, imagine what would happen if all people with same-sex attractions were place in their own country. It would be empty in a century, because bodies of the same gender are not made to receive each other. Even if a man has same-sex attractions, his body is heterosexual. He was designed to give life.

Excuse my language, but fuck. that. shit. That is the most bogus distortion of homosexuality I think I’ve ever heard (and the patronizing reference to atheists was icing on the cake). And it was right there at the Catholics’ table, freely shoved into the hands of every teenage boy who walked by.

Let me end this post with Jason’s 10-step guide to staying pure. I’m sure all of these steps will really help me deal with the fact that I have sex with whoever I want.

1. Admit the problem and set the goal. [Wait, what problem?]
2. Remove the temptation. [I can go to that country with all the gays, right?]
3. Go to confession. [Can I just blog about it?]
4. Receive the Eucharist. [I listened to that explanation of Mass and I'm really not into cannibalism.]
5. Use personal prayer. [Talking to myself isn't very productive; I already know what I'm going to say.]
6. Ask the saints for help. [They're dead, aren't they?]
7. Fast. [But... I'm hungry!]
8. Do something. [Like have more sex with men?]
9. Control your eyes and words. [Well, yes, that is how I read, write, and talk.]
10. Exercise patient perseverance. [I'm bored.]

Catholics want you to live life according to their archaic and psychologically damaging ideas.

Happy Halloween!