Creating Change offers a huge variety of workshops, academies, and day-long institutes to choose from, which is one of the many reasons it continues to be a rich experience every year. This year, I decided to take a risk by committing to a day-long institute that would be a personal learning opportunity as opposed to just a professional skill-building one.

Geographies of Sex: Mapping our Desire: An Institute for Sexual Liberation

Any time a title has two colons in it, you know it will be intense, and it was, but in really poignant ways.

The goal of the institute was “discovering and reclaiming pivotal experiences that have forged our sexual paths” so that we can map our desire and “move toward a more vibrant, empowered daily expression of our sexualities.” So yes, that meant lots of people talking about their sex lives, and then each of us taking time to reflect on our own sex lives and examine them for themes and understandings of how we think about sex today and make decisions about how to move forward. But no, I’m not going to blog my entire desire map.

Let me start by saying this: sex needs to be demystified. I thought before I attended this institute I had a pretty forward-thinking view on sex (and I certainly haven’t shied away from talking openly about it in positive ways). I was wrong.

Sex is so taboo, and it’s bizarre! We are all sexual beings. We all have sex lives (even abstinent ones). We all have fantasies. We all have desires and our bodies are all capable of experiencing pleasure. And yet conversations about sex have really diminished in our movement.

What’s the one thing that sets apart queer people from the heterosexual/cisgender homogeneity? Our bodies and what we do with them. And as we’ve pushed forward for acceptance, we’ve often done so at the expense of covering up the very things that make us unique.

The problem is that all thoughts related to sex reside in the primal part of our brain. It’s the place where anger and fear are first-responses and it’s quite far removed from our much more evolved intuition and critical thinking skills. So when people are faced with conversations about sex, people go to that very protective place, which makes it difficult to move forward. We’ve moved  toward equality by sacrificing our understanding of our own sexuality.

But honestly… if there is consent and mutual benefit, everything should be fair game.

So let me take my own little step towards a liberated queer community. My name is Zack. I have kinks and fetishes. I am also a romantic and love connecting with sexual partners on deeper levels. And after spending a day examining my sexual history, I realized that I’ve been tentative and insecure with sex in the past. I’ve been afraid of sex, I’ve been afraid of not being desired, and I’ve been afraid to let myself feel pleasure. Moving forward, I am going to try to overcome these insecurities and take a greater ownership of my desires. I’m not ashamed to be a sexual being and I’m not going to let anyone suggest I should be. In fact, I’m going to do my best to encourage others in embracing their own desires as well.

What’s hot for someone is hot for someone.

If shame is in charge, we avoid opportunities for pleasure for ourselves.

If you don’t play out sexual desires, they could take over in other ways.

Those are three quotes from the day. I can’t wait to see how someone tries to use this personal disclosure against me at some point in my life.

Honestly, what I just shared is nothing compared to the kinds of conversations we had at the institute. Here are a few examples of some of the discussions that came up…

It’s not uncommon to have rape fantasies, but what if you’re a rape victim? What kind of sexual paradox is it to still find pleasure in a fantasy that has such a traumatic imprint in your life? I can’t even begin to imagine that conflict, but how liberating it was to have several people in the room who could speak to it. Once you’ve healed, you can play with it. Without undermining the severity of rape, these powerful survivors spoke to reclaiming their sexuality and their desire. How profound to focus on being the survivor instead of always being the victim!

What about consensual incest? I’m talking about two people who have a familial connection but are both capable and willing of giving consent to the other for sexual pleasure. It’s a thought that really racks the brain and makes us think it’s such a horrible thing. What about even just the fantasy of it? What about having a crush on a sibling or a cousin? Given that we’re all sexual beings, don’t we owe it to ourselves to at least consider the question before dismissing it outright for the ick factor it evokes?

Are fantasies in our head meant to stay there or be realized? Sometimes our desires have consequences. Sometimes we spend our whole lives “performing” instead of just “being,” letting go. How do sex workers rediscover what their own sexual desires actually are? How do racial dynamics impact power exchange play? How do we distinguish between our personal sexual feelings and the feelings we have for our partners? How do we ensure that we aren’t just catering to our partner’s desires at the sacrifice of our own?

What is it about monogamy that motivates us to hold it up as an ideal? Is it because we’re just so insecure about expressing our own sexual desires that once we’ve found a single person who pleases us that we aren’t able to trust in an emotional commitment without strict sexual monogamy? I’m asking these questions as someone who identifies quite strongly with monogamy!

One of the panelists discussed a time when he and his partner of then-5 years were having a fight. It had come to light that both of them had had sexual encounters outside of their relationship. But the fight wasn’t working. It was a conditioned response; they weren’t fighting because they actually wanted to fight, but merely because they felt they were supposed to. They soon realized that they were actually both okay with the other’s “indiscretion.” In fact, it kind of made them hot to hear about what each did with the outside person. Eventually their relationship evolved to the point where they could be open and cruise together, and occasionally even welcome a third home with them. They sit on the subway and play the “who would you bang?” game. They are still a committed couple (now 11+ years as I recall), and they are confidently committed enough that they recognize they don’t (and never will) complement each other’s desires perfectly.

I still don’t know if I could ever do that… but how great is that? When we choose to value individuals’ sexuality and desires, it’s not difficult to arrive at a place where his experience with his partner actually sounds quite healthy and vibrant. Still, we have these constructs about what is “right” and “wrong” with sex that are hard to shake. Ultimately, what do we gain from these schemas except limitations to our own sexuality and relationships?

I want to share one more moment of personal learning for me. At one point, I made a comment to the group about how young people (like myself) have absorbed a lot of messages about safe sex that are motivated by fear of HIV and STIs. Later in the day, several different folks in the room disclosed they were HIV+ and that my comment reminded them of the stigma they often face and the way it can really stifle their sexuality. It caused them to shut down a little bit. I had really forgotten about the privilege I have as someone HIV-, and I had indirectly reinforced the stigma against people with HIV. I approached these individuals later to express my regret for the microaggression, and it’s an awareness about creating inclusive spaces that I will carry with me.

So, I hope I’ve given you all something to think about. Much thanks to all the presenters and panelists who helped give me something to think about! Sexual liberation is something I think we all deserve. I know I am nowhere close to being liberated, but engaging in these kinds of ideas has had a profound impact on my thinking. As we move forward in achieving LGBT equality, we have to continue creating space for our sexuality and acknowledge that sex can be a very positive thing. I welcome your thoughts about these important ideas as we all challenge the taboo around sexuality and desire together.

At the end of the intense and emotionally draining day, we were invited to share a next step we were going to take upon leaving the workshop. One young man shared simply, “I intend to fuck soon.” He received a boisterous round of applause.

I’m traveling the rest of this week, so blog updates will be limited. Shannon might have something up soon though!

In the interim, here’s some content you should definitely check out.

First, read this article on The American Prospect called “Giving Bullies a Pass.” It speaks to the way the mainstream media has lost sight of the importance of addressing LGBT issues when talking about bullying. Here’s an excerpt:

The “It Gets Better” project started off as a community response to growing up gay in a society where that’s not accepted. The gay teen in me — exiled to some remote corner of my consciousness — feels a little less isolated when I see Fort Worth City Council Member Joel Burns talk about his fear of being rejected by his father and his happiness the day he got engaged. It would have been nice for the public at large to join the conversation, but instead, they changed the subject.

After you read that, watch this beautiful new video from friend of the blog, Tom Goss. The song is called “Lover” and speaks to the pain of losing a same-sex partner at war under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN56zvQTeWk

Then, if you still need more content in your life, catch up on Queer and Queerer! This week’s episode is a doozy, but an important listen about recovering from a local teen suicide.

Have a good weekend everyone!

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.

Last week, I posted on Facebook a link to a blog post by a mom whose son wore a crossdressing costume for Halloween. She wrote how happy she was for him, and how disappointed she was about the other moms at the preschool who bullied her about it. Her post has been incredibly widely read, so much so that she appeared on the Today show this morning to discuss it.

The conversation was mostly positive, but I found myself really struck by the use of the phrase “gender confusion.” Dr. Harold Koplewicz of the Child Mind Institute talks about how if a child refuses to wear clothing that matches the child’s sex beyond the age of 5 (i.e. when it’s no longer play), it could mean “something significant for a child’s sexuality later on or gender confusion.” His message is positive, so I’m not too worked up about it, but that language seems troublesome.

Wouldn’t gender confusion refer to people who are unsure of their gender? He uses it in the context of children who very clearly decide they are a different gender, not that they are confused. Confused people need to be guided, reoriented. To refer to a gender identity or gender presentation that is moving from cis to trans as confusion seems both inappropriate, inaccurate, and subtly demonizing.

I’m not a member of the trans community, so I don’t want to pretend I fully understand the personal impact of this language, but this just strikes me as wrong. Gender exploration, gender variance, transgender… these terms I think would be more appropriate.

Any thoughts?

Sound familiar? That’s because a federal judge recently stated as a finding of fact that the very tactics FOTF is using are motivated by discrimination and animus. (See the Prop 8 Findings of Fact 44, 46, 58, 62, 67, 71, 76, and 77.) Autumn Sandeen has a great rundown of all the holes in Focus on the Family’s approach that you should definitely read in addition to this post.

As a result of this new campaign, CNN covered the “controversy” last week in the 11-minute segment below. I think this report from Anderson Cooper is demonstrative of the weak state of mainstream media coverage and the real damage that CNN’s “equal time” philosophy does to our community. In fact, I’m going to make the case to you in this post that Cooper is actually enabling FOTF throughout the whole interview. This is a sad reminder of how little support we get from having a gay man as one of the mainstream media’s most popular anchors. Get it buffering and I’ll walk you through this disaster of fact-finding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUXkY5ejJg8

The opening of the segment is deceptive. AC is talking to us about kids who commit suicide because they were harassed for acting gay. We also get to see Carl Walker-Hoover’s mother testifying before Congress. This is powerful because 1) it shows us how serious a concern anti-gay bullying is and 2) it reminds us that lots of straight kids are hurt by this kind of bullying. It’s a great opening to the segment, but you can forget about it, because it never comes up in the conversation. Not once.

In fact, the whole point of this segment is to put Focus on the Family’s point of view on a pedestal. It’s not really a controversy; it’s just an extremist group voicing their same-old dissent based on their same-old beliefs. And no journalism is taking place here, because there is no scrutiny. It’s just sensationalism. It’s 11 minutes of television that amplify the dissenting voice without offering any critical analysis. Focus on the Family is not held to any accountability for what they say or believe.

In addition to being poor journalism, it’s also an upholding of religious privilege. It’s the respect meme, the foundation of all religious belief. We have to respect the beliefs and that’s that. Why? If we ever find out, it sure won’t be from CNN. I’m going to give you a blow-by-blow, because I want you to see how much Anderson Cooper protects Focus on the Family throughout the discussion. I’ll sum it up at the end so you can see how bad it is.

AC segues to the discussion (1:26) by saying (paraphrased for effect), Here’s what the Safe Schools Improvement Act would do, but Focus on the Family objects, so let’s hear them out! So we meet the players. Candi Cushman is FOTF’s talking head, while Eliza Byard speaks for GLSEN, and Rosalind Wiseman, who wrote the book that inspired Mean Girls, is there for color commentary. You’ll note that Cooper stumbles over both of the latter two ladies’ names. Then, AC gives Cushman the first word (1:54). This sets up Focus on the Family to take the offense and make their case first, meaning the other two will be stuck playing defense most of the interview.

Cooper sets up his first question by paraphrasing FOTF’s policy in his own words (thus validating it with his authority as a respected reporter) and then asking the following about anti-gay bullying (2:13):

How do you suggest stopping that if you can’t mention anything about gays and lesbians?

This question is terribly weak, and kind of stupid when you think about it. It gives FOTF’s point of view the benefit of the doubt, when there is actually plenty to be doubtful about! It doesn’t really scrutinize their stance at all, though Autumn will be the first to show you there is plenty to scrutinize.

After Cushman spews her nonsense about wanting “to protect any child for any reason” as a cover for just not talking about gays, Cooper pushes her, but not in any way that challenges what she has said, merely to help her further clarify her point of view. It’s not so hard to watch it and perceive it as if he’s actually helping her get it all out. It’s odd to see it in that light, but that’s the effect of his “pushing.” This is most evident around 3:20 when Cushman gets out her other talking point about “not focusing on the characteristics of the person victim because it doesn’t matter why the victim was targeted. “

Now (at 3:30), Cooper puts this on Byard of GLSEN. He says that FOTF has challenged GLSEN of “promoting the gay agenda” as if 1) FOTF is a respectable authority on gay issues (though the Southern Poverty Law Center says otherwise) and 2) the “gay agenda” is a real thing, a legitimate threat, and something GLSEN has to answer for. This is quite different from a moment ago when he uncritically reiterating FOTF’s stance. What gives?

Byard is great, though. She points out that the Safe Schools bill does everything Cushman wants plus pays special attention to specific characteristics because the data shows it makes a difference. This frames the argument well, because it shows that FOTF wants to do less than is possible and that there is data to show why they’re wrong in wanting that.

What does Cooper do? He ignores this point with another weak question for Cushman (4:20), designed to be perceived as a challenge without echoing the legitimate points Byard just made. He asks if FOTF would be opposed to talk about race, disability, or other traits that kids might get bullied for. This isn’t an awful question, but it protects Cushman from having to respond to Byard (and Byard’s data).

What’s most pathetic here is that Cushman dodges the question anyway. She says she’s worried if you start specifying kinds of bullying, you might end up leaving some kids out. I’m sure she prefers not talking about any of the Presidents specifically in U.S. History because if you spend too much time on Washington and Jefferson you might leave out Millard Fillmore.

Then, after plugging the True Tolerance website, she whips out the old parents-who-are-concerned-about-”homosexuality lessons presented to their kindergartners” nonsense, playing on age-old stereotypes of fear. The implication here is that kids will be taught to be gay and that that’s a bad thing. It’s exactly what Dr. Chauncey testified about in the Prop 8 trial. It’s bunk. But hey, FOTF doesn’t “think it’s necessary,” so that’s enough for a controversy.

Cooper almost doesn’t challenge Cushman, but let’s Byard jump in (5:26) and reiterate the data-driven facts about the importance of mentioning sexual orientation in anti-bullying education. She is calm and eloquent in her presentation of GLSEN’s work. Does Cooper follow-up on the facts? No, he jumps over to get Wiseman in the conversation (6:06).

Again, he shows favor with FOTF by asking “Do you see an agenda being spread?” as if Byard hadn’t just clarified what GLSEN does and has found through multiple studies. Wiseman kind of throws the whole mess under the bus by claiming you’ll only get a 45-minute assembly out of the initiative, and then oddly echoes Cushman’s talking points (about all students) to agree with Byard’s points (naming the behavior). I think she actually says something worthwhile at some point about homophobia and masculinity that could’ve been brilliant, but it’s generally lost in her meanderings.

So what does Cooper do? Invite Cushman to talk freely again about what Focus on the Family believes, of course (7:30)! Cushman goes on again about wanting to defend the gay kid without actually defending him for being gay. Her “they’re all God’s children” is just a repackaging of color-blindness for sexual orientation. It doesn’t matter that the kid’s gay, just protect him for being a kid. (Of course, by not validating the kid’s identity, the teacher would essentially be validating the anti-gay bullying. That couldn’t possibly be what FOTF wants, could it? Oh wait, yes it could.)

Now, kudos to Wiseman for jumping in here and calling out Cushman (8:08) that her perspective “does not in any way reflect the reality of what schools are like.” She makes up for her earlier incoherence with a very coherent smackdown, suggesting Cushman is oblivious to “concrete reality.”

How does AC respond to this outburst? He challenges Wiseman by reiterating FOTF’s language and saying, “What’s wrong with just that?” Now, some might say he’s just facilitating the discussion without personally taking a point of view, but he is taking a point of view. He’s offering a defense of what Focus on the Family is trying to say! Wiseman (8:50) offers a weak explanation for respecting victims at their word but is about as ambiguous in her words as the ambiguity she’s trying to describe.

Cooper then comes back to challenge GLSEN’s Byard again! (9:30):

There are certainly a lot of parents who don’t believe that being gay or being lesbian is okay and don’t want their kids—especially very young kids—exposed to that. Do you think this should be mandatory for everybody?

He’s essentially agreeing that teaching kids that some of their friends might have two mommies or two daddies might be an awful thing. He’s also validating their scare tactics—you know, the ones that demonize gay people… like Anderson Cooper.

Byard gives another eloquent response (9:43). She talks about data, findings, evidence, and facts. After she’s finished, Cooper ignores what she has said (again) to give Cushman the final word (10:25). Cushman talks about scared parents and sexual content again, but is again left unchallenged with her foundationless, stereotype-driven, fear-baiting tactics. Cooper thanks them and ends the discussion.

Now, let’s review everything Anderson Cooper, star gay journalist, did in this segment:

» He opens the segment by talking about bully-driven suicides (which he never refers to again).
» 1:26 – He introduces Focus on the Family’s concern about the Safe Schools Improvement Act as reason enough to talk about it for a full segment.
» 1:36 – He welcomes the guests, happening to stumble over the names of the two guests who will disagree with Focus on the Family.
» 1:54 – He reiterates FOTF’s position and then lets their spokesperson, Candi Cushman, speak first.
» 2:41 – He pushes Cushman to further clarify her position.
» 3:30 – He challenges GLSEN’s spokesperson, Eliza Byard, to refute the “gay agenda.”
» 4:20 – He ignores Byard’s points to throw another easy question at Cushman.
» 5:26 – He almost lets Cushman go unchallenged but lets Byard jump in.
» 6:06 – He again ignores Byard’s points, bringing author Rosalind Wiseman into the conversation by also challenging her about the “gay agenda.”
» 7:30 – He throws another easy question to Cushman.
» 8:27 – He responds to Wiseman’s retort of Cushman by reiterating FOTF’s points and challenging her to refute them.
» 9:30 – He reiterates another FOTF talking point to Byard, challenging her to defend them.
» 10:25 – He gives Cushman the last word, again without challenging her on anything.

Essentially, he protects Focus on the Family the entire segment. The segment, itself, exists solely to amplify and validate their message. They are held to no scrutiny. In just 11 minutes, two completely unequal points of view are conflated through “equal time” to having equal footing. It’s a massacre of knowledge, and a complete journalistic failing.

Now, you might have read all that and said, “Yeah, but he was just facilitating, and this is just one segment, and Zack, you’re just making a big deal out of nothing.”

No. You’re wrong. CNN does this all the time. Tony Perkins is an AC360 contributor and Maggie Gallagher is also on there all the time. They make news about Bryan Fischer’s extremist statements then give him airtime. They refer to ex-gay therapists like Richard Cohen and Exodus International. And every time, they pull this “equal time” crap that ends up validating the side that has no footing. There is no scrutiny. There is no journalistic integrity.

I’ll stop just short of calling Anderson Cooper a quisling. It’s a shame he cares more about how CNN wants him to do his job than his own community. But CNN has a neutrality suppository so far up its butt that it doesn’t know right from wrong. We need to start holding them to a higher standard. This talk show sensationalism is hurting our community. Let’s not let them call it journalism any more.

I don’t think anything in the decision is as powerful as the Findings of Fact I compiled yesterday. Another important aspect was the determination of expertise for the witnesses that were offered as “experts.” As I pointed out back in January, there were some compelling face-value distinctions between the plaintiffs’ witnesses and the proponents’ witnesses. It seems that Judge Walker thought so too.

He takes a fair amount of time in the decision to outline the credentials of the expert witnesses and the criteria used to evaluate them. This was surely necessary given that he did not accept them all. Starting on p. 28, he affirms the testimony of all the plaintiffs’ experts. Scroll over each to see the brief summary of their testimony and then check out the decision to see all the credentials: Nancy Cott, George Chauncey, Lee Badgett, Edmund A Egan, Letitia Anne Peplau, Ilan Meyer, Gregory Herek, Michael Lamb, and Gary Segura.

Those Religious Studies Professors

Then (starting on p. 35), Judge Walker gets to the matter of the proponents’ witnesses. First he describes Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “experts” the proponents’ withdrew, but whose taped depositions were still submitted as evidence by the plaintiffs. What is remarkable is how—perhaps because they were withdrawn—their expertise and their testimony have little to do with each other (p. 36-37 citations omitted):

Young has been a professor of religious studies at McGill University since 1978. She received her PhD in history of religions and comparative religions from McGill in 1978. Young testified at her deposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that same-sex couples possess the same desire for love and commitment as opposite-sex couples. Young also explained that several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples.

Nathanson has a PhD in religious studies from McGill University and is a researcher at McGill’s Faculty for Religious Studies. Nathanson CV. Nathanson is also a frequent lecturer on consequences of marriage for same-sex couples and on gender and parenting. Nathanson testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians and that there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples.

Proponents made no effort to call Young or Nathanson to explain the deposition testimony that plaintiffs had entered into the record or to call any of the withdrawn witnesses after potential for contemporaneous broadcast of the trial proceedings had been eliminated.

This seemed an incredibly useful tactic by the plaintiffs’ legal team. It demonstrated that even if Young and Nathanson had testified at trial, their expertise on religioun would have been irrelevant to what we actually know about gays and lesbians.

Kenneth P Miller

I’m going to save David Blankenhorn for last, because he makes for a grander finale. Skipping down to p. 49, we see where Judge Walker considers the testimony of Kenneth P Miller, who plaintiffs contended did not have sufficient expertise to testify on the subject of the political power of gays and lesbians.

Miller received a PhD from the University of California (Berkeley) in 2002 in political science and is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. Plaintiffs contend that Miller lacks sufficient expertise to offer an opinion on the relative political power of gay men and lesbians. Having considered Miller’s background, experience and testimony, the court concludes that, while Miller has significant experience with politics generally, he is not sufficiently familiar with gay and lesbian politics specifically to offer opinions on gay and lesbian political power.

It seems that the proponents found a witness who was willing to say what they wanted him to say, but really had nothing to back it up. There are several pages where Judge Walker showed how Miller could not explain how his conclusions contradicted studies and reports submitted by the plaintiffs. My favorite was this one (p. 52):

Plaintiffs questioned Miller on data showing 84 percent of those who attend church weekly voted yes on Proposition 8, 54 percent of those who attend church occasionally voted no on Proposition 8 and 83 percent of those who never attend church voted no on Proposition 8. Plaintiffs also asked about polling data showing 56 percent of those with a union member in the household voted yes on Proposition 8. Miller stated he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the polling data. Miller did not explain how the data in PX2853 are consistent with his conclusion that many religious groups and labor unions are allies of gays and lesbians.

It was also revealed that Miller was fed most of the documents he cited by the defense. I’ll let Judge Walker take us home on Miller’s testimony (p. 53-54):

The credibility of Miller’s opinions relating to gay and lesbian political power is undermined by his admissions that he: (1) has not focused on lesbian and gay issues in his research or study; (2) has not read many of the sources that would be relevant to forming an opinion regarding the political power of gays and lesbians; (3) has no basis to compare the political power of gays and lesbians to the power of other groups, including African-Americans and women; and (4) could not confirm that he personally identified the vast majority of the sources that he cited in his expert report. Furthermore, Miller undermined the credibility of his opinions by conceding that gays and lesbians currently face discrimination and that current discrimination is relevant to a group’s political power.

Miller’s credibility was further undermined because the opinions he offered at trial were inconsistent with the opinions he expressed before he was retained as an expert. Specifically, Miller previously wrote that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, are vulnerable and powerless in the initiative process, contradicting his trial testimony that gays and lesbians are not politically vulnerable with respect to the initiative process. Miller admitted that at least some voters supported Proposition 8 based on anti-gay sentiment.

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Miller’s opinions on gay and lesbian political power are entitled to little weight and only to the extent they are amply supported by reliable evidence.

I think Judge Walker ought be applauded for his critical observations here.

Determining Expertise

Now, you might read all that and wonder, “So what exactly qualifies an expert?” Judge Walker will happily walk you through it.

First, we have Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (p. 39-40):

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a witness may be qualified as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” The testimony may only be admitted if it “is based upon sufficient facts or data” and “is the product of reliable principles and methods.” Expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable, with a “basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.”

This is key language. The information provided has to, essentially, be scientifically valid and reliable. Scientific literacy is so vital to our society and we are fortunate that Judge Walker understands that. He goes on to say that formal training and peer-reviewed publications are not necessary, but speak to the intellectual rigor expected of an “expert.” However, the court is not required to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. So peer review is an effective way for the court to ensure that an expert’s methodology is sound.

Several factors are relevant to an expert’s reliability:

(1) “whether [a method] can be (and has been) tested”;

(2) “whether the [method] has been subjected to peer review and publication”;

(3) “the known or potential rate of error”;

(4) “the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the [method’s] operation”;

(5) “a * * * degree of acceptance” of the method within “a relevant * * * community”;

(6) whether the expert is “proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation”;

(7) whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion;

(8) whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations;

(9) whether the expert “employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field”; and

(10) whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.

I know that kind of reads like gobbledygook, but each of those is a significant point in which the court upholds scientific thinking.

Essentially, the court holds (or should hold and has precedent to hold) experts accountable to their testimony. If their research isn’t accepted by their field or their conclusions don’t match their claims, they are violating the expertise they claim to have. This is so important, and I think we have to appreciate the way Judge Walker carefully meted out and considered all the facts in this case.

And why did he have to write this all out in the decision? Because of David Blankenhorn.

David Blankenhorn

You might think I’ve already beaten up on David Blankenhorn a bit too much. It’s not without irony that I was chastising his pity party yesterday just hours before the decision came down. But you ain’t seen nothing until you’ve seen the way Judge Walker eviscerated Blankenhorn’s testimony (p. 39):

Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, he has no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure, and his study of the effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it.” Plaintiffs argue that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are not based on “objective data or discernible methodology,” and that Blankenhorn’s conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected quotations from articles and reports.

The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s opinions. The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.

Ouch. That’s gotta hurt. And Walker says it a few more times, too. You see, Walker didn’t just dismiss Blankenhorn’s testimony; he took the time to dismantle it. (And there is a lot more detail in the decision than what I’ve excerpted here!)

In regards to Blankenhorn’s opinions on the definition of marriage (p. 43-44):

Blankenhorn’s interest and study on the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure are evident from the record, but nothing in the record other than the “bald assurance” of Blankenhorn suggests that Blankenhorn’s investigation into marriage has  been conducted to the “same level of intellectual rigor” characterizing the practice of anthropologists, sociologists or psychologists. Blankenhorn gave no explanation of the methodology that led him to his definition of marriage other than his review of others’ work.  The court concludes that Blankenhorn’s proposed definition of marriage is “connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit” of Blankenhorn and accordingly rejects it.

Strike One!

In regards to Blankenhorn’s opinions on the ideal family structure and children (p. 44-45):

Blankenhorn’s conclusion that married biological parents provide a better family form than married non-biological parents is not supported by the evidence on which he relied because the evidence does not, and does not claim to, compare biological to non-biological parents. Blankenhorn did not in his testimony consider any study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married adoptive parents. Blankenhorn did not testify about a study comparing children raised by their married biological parents to children raised by their married parents who conceived using an egg or sperm donor. The studies Blankenhorn relied on compare various family structures and do not emphasize biology. The studies may well support a conclusion that parents’ marital status may affect child outcomes. The studies do not, however, support a conclusion that the biological connection between a parent and his or her child is a significant variable for child outcomes. The court concludes that “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Blankenhorn’s reliance on biology is unsupported by evidence, and the court therefore rejects his conclusion that a biological link between parents and children influences children’s outcomes.

Strike Two!

In regards to Blankenhorn’s opinions that same-sex marriage will lead to the “deinstitutionalization of marriage” (p. 48-49):

Blankenhorn stated he opposes marriage for same-sex couples because it will weaken the institution of marriage, despite his recognition that at least thirteen positive consequences would flow from state recognition of marriage for same-sex couples, including: (1) by increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage
might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more children growing up in loving adoptive and foster families; and (2) same-sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and the worth and validity of same-sex intimate relationships.

Blankenhorn’s opinions are not supported by reliable evidence or methodology and Blankenhorn failed to consider evidence contrary to his view in presenting his testimony. The court therefore finds the opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.

Strike Three! You’re Out!

The problem with Blankenhorn isn’t just that he speaks out against the rights of gays and lesbians. It’s that he’s wrong. Like so many believers, he puts the cart before the horse, and thus looks for studies that support his opinion instead of drawing opinions from studies.

I hope he sees this decision as an important check on his credibility as well as the authenticity of the work coming out of his so-called Institute for American Values.

Ultimately, science won this case. There is no getting around the solid facts about sexual orientation that make it quite clear that Proposition 8 was discriminatory and wrong. Anyone who disagrees needs a lesson in science.

These concise points address the information presented in trial amazingly. They are straight-forward and compelling. Here is, essentially, what everyone should learn from this trial. The facts stack up nicely, but get particularly interesting—I think—starting down at #38.

All emphasis in green is my own and I have omitted citations for ease of reading,  but page numbers are provided. I have included the whole list, but I think people ought to pay particular attention to the following: 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 56, 58, 62, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 76, and 77; I have highlighted those numbers as facts I think are particularly compelling and noteworthy.

Let’s dig in (p. 54).

The Players

The first 13 or so facts simply outline the players in the case (many of whom are players in name only). Scroll over each for a description: Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, San Francisco, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G Brown, Jr, Mark B Horton, Linette Scott, Patrick O’Connell, Dean C Logan, and the Defendant-Intervenors.

Now we learn a little bit more about who these folks are who promoted Proposition 8:

14. Proponents dedicated substantial time, effort, reputation and personal resources in campaigning for Proposition 8. (p. 57)

15. Proponents established ProtectMarriage.com —— Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal (“Protect Marriage”) as a “primarily formed ballot measure committee” under California law. (p. 57)

16. The Protect Marriage Executive Committee includes Ron Prentice, Edward Dolejsi, Mark A Jansson and Doug Swardstrom. Andrew Pugno acts as General Counsel. David Bauer is the Treasurer and officer of record for Protect Marriage. (p. 57)

17. Protect Marriage was responsible for all aspects of the campaign to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot and enact it into law. (p. 58)

18. Protect Marriage is a “broad coalition” of individuals and organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “LDS Church”), the California Catholic Conference and a large number of evangelical churches. (p. 59)

This description of Protect Marriage is important. It recognizes who was involved, what they tried to do, and how they were financially supported.

Should California Refuse to Recognize A Couple’s Marriage Because Of Their Sex?

19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law. (p. 60)

20. A person may not marry unless he or she has the legal capacity to consent to marriage. (p. 60)

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate. (p. 60)

Given that the entire case is about the right to marry, Walker walks us through the way that marriage is defined and has been defined throughout history.

22. When California became a state in 1850, marriage was understood to require a husband and a wife. (p. 61)

23. The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained. (p. 61)

24. Many states, including California, had laws restricting the race of marital partners so that whites and non-whites could not marry each other. (p. 61)

25. Racial restrictions on an individual’s choice of marriage partner were deemed unconstitutional under the California Constitution in 1948 and under the United States Constitution in 1967. An individual’s exercise of his or her right to marry no longer depends on his or her race nor on the race of his or her chosen partner. (p. 62)

26. Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the marital bargain. (p. 62)

27. Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines. Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family. (p. 63)

28. The development of no-fault divorce laws made it simpler for spouses to end marriages and allowed spouses to define their own roles within a marriage. (p. 64)

We can see how other forms of identity were used in defining marriage in the past.

29. In 1971, California amended Cal Civ Code § 4101, which had previously set the age of consent to marriage at twenty-one years for males and eighteen years for females, to read “[a]ny unmarried person of the age of 18 years or upwards, and not otherwise disqualified, is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.” (p. 65)

30. In the 1970s, several same-sex couples sought marriage licenses in California, relying on the amended language in Cal
Civ Code § 4101. In response, the legislature in 1977 amended the marriage statute, former Cal Civ Code § 4100, to read “[m]arriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman * * *.”  That provision became Cal Fam Code § 300. The legislative history of the enactment supports a conclusion that unique roles of a man and a woman in marriage motivated legislators to enact the amendment. (p. 65)

The “tradition” of one-man/one-woman marriages is very much founded upon not just gender roles, but gender inequality.

31. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the Family Code violated the California Constitution to the extent the statutes reserve the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples.  The language “between a man and a woman” was stricken from section 300, and section 308.5 (Proposition 22) was stricken in its entirety. (p. 66)

32. California has eliminated marital obligations based on the gender of the spouse. Regardless of their sex or gender, marital partners share the same obligations to one another and to their dependants. As a result of Proposition 8, California nevertheless requires that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. (p. 66)

This is an important question. If all the other changes to marriage have removed gender imbalances, why does California still require a man and a woman?

33. Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality. (p. 66)

34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents. (p. 67)

35. The state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. Some of the state’s purposes benefit the persons married while some benefit the state: (p. 67-68)

Here Judge Walker offers six benefits: a) cohesive family units, b) liberty, intimacy, and free decision-making for spouses, c) stable households, d) legitimating children, e) assigning care-providers, and f) facilitating property ownership.

36. States and the federal government channel benefits, rights and responsibilities through marital status. Marital status affects immigration and citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules and social benefit programs. (p. 68)

37. Marriage creates economic support obligations between consenting adults and for their dependents. (p. 68)

38. Marriage benefits both spouses by promoting physical and psychological health. Married individuals are less likely to engage in behaviors detrimental to health, like smoking or drinking heavily. Married individuals live longer on average than unmarried individuals. (p. 69)

Number 38 is important, because it’s the first (of many to come) that establishes psychological and sociological research as facts in the case. Here are a few more:

39. Material benefits, legal protections and social support resulting from marriage can increase wealth and improve psychological well-being for married spouses. (p. 70)

40. The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity. (p. 70)

41. The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children. (p. 71)

I think it’s pivotal that the decision recognizes the intangible benefits of marriage.

Should California Differentiate Between Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Unions?

This section outlines a lot of important history about the gay community as well as information about same-sex couples. Important definitions are entered into the record as fact regarding the nature of sexual orientation.

42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century. (p. 71)

43. Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. The vast majority of people are consistent in self-identification, behavior and attraction throughout their adult lives. (p. 71-72)

YES! Sexual orientation refers to which sex a person is attracted to, not which sex a person is attracted to in reference to their own.

44. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence. (p. 72)

45. Proponents’ campaign for Proposition 8 assumed voters understood the existence of homosexuals as individuals distinct from heterosexuals. (p. 73)

46. Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation. (p. 74)

I think there is incredible power in the stipulation of these qualities as facts. This essentially puts the legal kibosh (for the sake of at least this particular ruling) on any debate about whether sexual orientation is a choice.

47. California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California. (p. 76)

48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex. (p. 77)

49. California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology. Approximately eighteen percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children. (p. 78)

50. Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive. (p. 79)

51. Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals. (p. 79)

This kind of makes me laugh, but also makes me sad for all the sham marriages out there motivated by internalized homophobia.

Domestic Partnerships

One could easily insert “civil union” for DP in each of these statements and the same would be true. But, California has never had civil unions.

52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. (p. 80)

53. Domestic partners are not married under California law. California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in other states and are not recognized by the federal government. (p. 81)

54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships. (p. 82)

55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages. (p.83)

56. The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry. (p. 84)

Did Prop 8 Enact a Private Moral View Without Advancing a Legitimate Government Interest?

57. Under Proposition 8, whether a couple can obtain a marriage license and enter into marriage depends on the genders of the two parties relative to one another. A man is permitted to marry a woman but not another man. A woman is permitted to marry a man but not another woman. Proposition 8 bars state and county officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It has no other legal effect. (p. 85)

58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society. (p. 85)

59. Proposition 8 requires California to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples. (p. 86)

60. Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples. (p. 86)

61. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage. (p. 87)

62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples. (p. 89)

63.  Proposition 8 eliminates the right to marry for gays and lesbians but does not affect any other substantive right under the California Constitution. (p. 90)

64. Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments. (p. 90)

65. [The City and County of San Francisco] would benefit economically if Proposition 8 were not in effect. (p. 91)

66. Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same-sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs. (p. 91)

67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents. (p. 93)

68. Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships. (p. 94)

Yes, the stigma against same-sex couples is now part of court record.

Same-Sex Couples as Parents

69. The factors that affect whether a child is well-adjusted are: (1) the quality of a child’s relationship with his or her parents; (2) the quality of the relationship between a child’s parents or significant adults in the child’s life; and (3) the availability of economic and social resources. (p. 94-95)

70. The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. (p. 95)

Seriously, read that one again. Not only does the evidence show that same-sex couples make good parents, but the question is not even up for debate.

71. Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted. (p. 95)

72. The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes. (p. 96)

73. Studies comparing outcomes for children raised by married opposite-sex parents to children raised by single or divorced parents do not inform conclusions about outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents in stable, long-term relationships. (p. 96)

Discrimination Against Gays and Lesbians

74. Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination. (p. 96)

75. Public and private discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States. (p. 97)

76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes. (p. 98)

77. Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (p. 101)

78. Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians. (p. 103)

Can you feel the validation, folks?

79. The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that  parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child. (p. 105)

80. The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. (p. 108)

So there you have it! THOSE ARE THE FACTS. If you have any question as to why this decision is what it is, it should be answerable by those facts. If you don’t like those facts, tough. You cannot disagree with them; they are facts.

The theory hypothesis is that if you just let the market go, society will take care of itself. It’s this odd notion that keeps conservatives bedded to big business (in the name of “small government”). But the right is also bedded to Christianity, so when it comes to any social issue, hypocrisy reigns supreme. And lately, they’ve really tried to conflate the two. They argue that we don’t need to do anything related to civil rights because the market will simply insist upon them. It’s a convenient way to hide their bigotry and stifle progress.

The joke here, though, is that the effects of promoting this conflation (including the Democrats pandering to it) disprove it. How many millions (if not billions) of dollars are wasted or lost for reasons like:

» Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell discharges and the recruitment and training to compensate (at least $363 million, actually)

» An incredibly biased survey of currently serving troops ($4.4 million)

» The Department of Justice unnecessarily defending a law the President has already called for the repeal of

Those are just a couple of ideas as related to one of the many injustices against the LGBT community. We learned in the Prop 8 Trial of the huge financial impact of marriage inequality to just one city.

If the market could really control for human prejudice, it would have already. We wouldn’t be wasting all this money on utter nonsense.

This is just your routine reminder that our opponents operate on lies and fear and nothing more. There is no substance and no reason to their arguments, just a need to control and the intimidation to do it.

Then, we give our new society a free market system in which to function. Does our new society make sure that everyone has what they need to survive?

If they’re human, I doubt it. Humans naturally have a tendency toward greed; it’s just how psychological conditioning works. Even in a society without any context of identity-based prejudice, there would still be people who succeed and who enjoyed their success enough to not care about those less fortunate. A free market doesn’t mean everyone has the same chance of succeeding; it simply means that theoretically, everyone has the same opportunity to try. But even after one generation of our hypothetical new society, there would be people who have more and people who have less. So, even though there is nothing restraining equality based on identity, there is always inherently inequality, because you’re burdened or blessed by the circumstances you’re born into.

Still, we like the idea of a free market. Psychologically, it helps society move forward. There is reward for creativity; there is reward for hard work. People can be individuals and follow their passions. Despite its inherent inequality, there is also an inherent freedom, theoretically. This holds true so long as the divide between the haves and have-nots doesn’t become such that the haves control the have-nots and the have-nots depend on the haves to live their lives.

What should the goal of our society be? I think the freedom is important, but shouldn’t there also be a commitment to all people’s quality of life at a basic level? I don’t think a society is very successful if only a small proportion can prosper. So what happens when that divide widens? A growing portion of the population would not have enough, while a shrinking number would have more than enough. But in our hypothetical society, wouldn’t we want everybody to have enough? Since we’re controlling the dynamics of everything, I think we’d want to say to those rich folks, “Congrats on acquiring so much, but come on, you kind of have more than you need and a lot of folks are struggling. We’re not punishing you for doing well, but we’re going to ask you to sacrifice some of your excess so that everyone in our society can at least have enough to live a life at a certain baseline quality of life.”

The teabaggers say no.

Flashback now to the reality of the United States 2010. Every big problem we’ve dealt with lately has been at least partially the fault of corporate greed. Companies like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin have financial interests in our wars. Our economy collapsed because of the greed of corporate execs like those at Goldman Sachs. Our healthcare needed reformed because of the greed of insurance companies. We have an environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico thanks to corporate mismanagement.

But the teabaggers fervently defend corporate power. They don’t see the inherent inequality in an unregulated system. They actually believe everyone has a fair chance if they just try hard enough. They’re blind to all forms of inequality and don’t care that they perpetuate them. They don’t blame corporations for anything. Iraq’s been liberated. The economy is recovering on its own. Banks don’t need to be regulated. Healthcare doesn’t need regulated. We don’t need environmental regulations; accidents happen.

It’s bloody naïve, I say.

They complain about big government, but the government, for the most part, isn’t responsible for all these problems. Is there government corruption? Sure, and I’m not defending that. But to give corporations a free pass on everything is irresponsible and misguided.

And now, let’s revisit the point I made at the very beginning. In addition to the inherent inequality of a free market system, we live in a society where many other inequalities persist. Male privilege, White privilege, Heterosexual Privilege, and Christian Privilege make it so that not only are we imbalanced, but the imbalance targets certain identities. These privileges are systemic. They cannot simply be erased; they must be overcome from generation to generation. When we recognize forms of discrimination, we have the opportunity to resist these systems of oppression.

Teabaggers are committed to letting inequality persist. They so buy into the myth of the American Dream (which itself is an allegory for promoting greed—we should aspire to be wealthy) that they don’t want any regulation of the economy. There should be no limits on the haves, the have-nots be damned. There should be no hand-outs, no efforts whatsoever to counteract the inherent inequalities in the system.

And this means allowing identity-based inequalities to persist as well. Take a look at these numbers from a University of Washington poll and what they tell us about true teabaggers:

74% of Tea Party supporters agree that “while equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it’s not really the government’s job to guarantee it.”

78% of Tea Party supporters disagree that “over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.”

Even 46% of Tea Party supporters agree that “if blacks would only try harder, they would be just as well off as whites.”

Ever wonder why you really only see White people at Tea Party events? It’s because they don’t care about resisting white privilege; in fact, they’re more than happy to reap its benefits.

They also don’t want anyone else getting a chance at their American dream:

54% of Tea Party supporters agree that “immigration is changing the culture in the U.S. for the worse.”

88% of Tea Party supporters approve of “the immigration law in Arizona which requires police to question people they suspect are illegal immigrants for proof of legal status.”

63% of Tea Party supporters disagree that “we should not single out Muslims or Middle Easterners for airport security stops.”

They’re also incredibly concerned about keeping this country in the control of breeders:

Only 18% of Tea Party supporters agree that “gay and lesbian couples should have the same legal right to marry as straight couples.”

52% of Tea Party supporters agree that “compared to the size of their group, lesbians and gays have too much political power.”

Some good it’s doing us.

It’s getting harder and harder to separate teabagging from prejudice. And even in the absence of identity-based prejudice, the Tea Party platform is blatantly selfish. Members of the Tea Party are more concerned with their own well-being (or even their own perceived potential well-being) than to worry about anyone else. America is the country where I can succeed, regardless of anyone else who suffers as a result.

The Tea Party is dangerous, and their ideals are ill-founded. The mere fact that their platform has popular traction does not mean they are ideas we should be respectfully considering. They are clearly intent on maintaining as much inequality as they can.

If we want to protect the ideal that we are truly all equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then the Tea Party should be our archnemesis. We need to hold them back or they will literally rewrite our history (and it’ll be rife with spelling errors).

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

(Kudos to this Tumblr for the photos.)

Since this is a conversation about language, the first thing to keep in mind is that all of it is socially constructed. Every word in this discussion is used to describe interpretation and commitment to ideas. I think it’s best if we start there.

What is an idea? Let’s define it simply as a coherent thought. It’s something you can make sense of in your head. It can be totally imaginative and fictional; the only criteria is it has to be mentally graspable.

A belief is a special kind of idea. There are many rhetorical uses for “believe” but let’s be specific about a belief for this discussion. A belief is an idea understood to be truth despite an insufficiency of rational explanation. God is a belief. Ghosts are a belief. Astrology is a belief. A dog is not a belief. A Halloween costume is not a belief. Astronomy is not a belief. (Evolution is not a belief, either.) It only counts as a belief if there is not proof of its merit. Otherwise it’s just an understanding.

Now, here is a question: Is there merit in holding a truth without merit? From a simple, objective, intellectual point of view, the obvious answer is no. There is no point in continuing to divide by 0 when you know you can’t divide by 0. However, from a sociological point of view, the answer throughout history has been clouded. While nothing has changed in regards to the intellectual merit of beliefs, the social merit of beliefs is quite developed.

So what is this privilege? Privilege constitutes any unearned advantages that individuals have in society derived solely from aspects of their identity. It can be considered the opposite of oppression. A man makes more than a woman from male privilege. A white person doesn’t have to carry identification papers around in Arizona thanks to white privilege. When it comes to invisible identities that rely on disclosure, privilege can play out in some complicated ways.

Consider people who are coming out as gay. They know that homosexuality is shunned in society and that they might be expected to conform to heterosexuality, so they might come out as bisexual so that they maintain some of their heterosexual privilege. Someone who is actually bisexual might, conversely, identify as the orientation that matches hir partner so as not to suffer the oppression of biphobia. A trans person might also make efforts to “pass” as hir identified gender so as to benefit from cisgender privilege.

Similarly, religious belief, itself, benefits from privilege. This includes all matters of spirituality and superstition as well, but belief in a higher power takes top priority. To believe is considered a good thing and to not believe is often seen in a negative light.

This leads us to several questions that can help us understand different terms regarding belief and why people might choose to identify with them.

Firstly: Do you believe? (And if so, what?)

Secondly: Are you willing to believe in a higher power? And/or… do you see value in believing in a higher power? (This is the tricky one.)

Thirdly: Are you committed to working against religious privilege?

Let’s start with the first one. If somebody answers “Yes, I do believe,” there are two possible identities I will entertain in this post.

Theist/Believer – Someone who actively believes that there is a higher power.

Contratheist – Someone who actively believes that there is NOT a higher power (i.e. denies the existence of a higher power).

Personally, I reject both forms of belief. Heck, I coined “contratheist” just to distinguish myself from it. There is no evidence for God and there is no evidence against God. Both of these identities require conviction without evidence, and I argue both lack any intellectual merit. I think it’s really important to see the denial of a higher power as a belief, an act of holding truth without evidence, and to separate it from the nonbelief community.

Answering “No” to the first question moves us on to number 2. Another way of asking this question is: “Which do you value more, probability or possibility?” Someone who is willing to believe or who sees value in believing is agnostic (thus valuing possibility), while someone who doesn’t is an atheist (thus valuing probability). (Kudos to commentor Matt M for this distinction.)

Agnostic – Someone who might not actively believe, but still sees value in beliefs and in the most improbable possibilities.

Atheist/Nonbeliever – Someone who does not believe and does not see value in believing or supporting improbable claims.

An atheist is truly without belief and measures things critically through probability assessment. If it’s improbable, then it isn’t worth considering. Someone agnostic might see things a bit more black and white; if something is possible, then it’s worth considering. This translates into a sort of uncommitted belief, a 50/50 conjecture that there is just as good a chance that there is a higher power as the chance that there isn’t.

The problem I see, as many pointed out on the discussion thread, is that there is no distinction between these possibilities. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, and leprechauns are all just as probable as the Christian God, but agnostics tend not to be as agnostic about those other things. They are more interested in showing support for popular deities.

This reflects a sense among many atheists that agnostics are cowards afraid to come the whole way out as atheists. As someone who once identified as agnostic for specifically that reason, I can tell you there there is at least some truth to it. One of the Cectic comics that Francesc linked to illustrates this well:

If you’re not convinced that there is privilege for religion, all you have to do is look at President Obama’s National Day of Prayer proclamation today:

I call upon the citizens of our nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God’s continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us.

This is a Presidential endorsement of an unabashedly religious practice.

So, perhaps some agnostics are holding out so they continue to benefit from religious privilege rather than be labeled as an atheist, “the godless other.” Other agnostics might just be completely uncommitted in their thinking about these kinds of ideas. Still, they wouldn’t be lost in that uncommitted territory if they had not been influenced by religious privilege in society. Whatever a person’s reason to identify as agnostic, I think they ought to continue to be challenged so that they do not continue to reinforce the privilege they benefit from.

The third question is sort of a bonus for atheists. Once you’re an atheist, do you work toward dismantling religious privilege? Christopher Hitchens does, which is how we got this term:

Antitheist – Someone who actively works against religious belief.

I identify as an antitheist, because I speak openly about atheism, I challenge religious beliefs, and I work against the power that religious organizations have developed over thousands of years.

Others might not identify as an athitheist. They might instead identify as an apatheist (apathy toward religion), a nontheist, or simply an atheist without further title.

While it’s nice to argue philosophically about “knowing” vs. “believing,” this doesn’t seem to be helpful in moving forward as a nonbelieving community. Recognizing the impact of religious privilege is crucial to understanding why we even have debates over language like this.

Some may strongly disagree with my interpretation of this language, and that’s fine. Language is fluid. I think, though, that these identities are best understood in this context. I hope this post has been helpful and enlightening!

For more on how I think about language and use it on this blog, check out the ZFb Terminology page.

This “circle of stupidity,” as the comic is called, is exactly why I write this blog. It is exactly why I unabashedly challenge religion at every opportunity. Critical thinking is sorely lacking in our society on all fronts, and it is the same thinking that keeps people buying into religious beliefs, superstition, astrology, homeopathy, and all the other bunk that’s out there.

The end result, as the comic demonstrates, is injustice. The only way to move forward is to force people to think for themselves instead of mindlessly accepting what they’ve been spoon-fed since birth for generations.

If this comic or the things I write on this blog offend you or if you vehemently object, please read it anyway and share your objections. Let’s at least have some healthy dialogue so that together, we can break the cycle.

Click to embiggen:

Check out more from Jen Sorensen at Slowpoke Comics.

The first Circle of Stupidity can be found here.

Believe them now?

You shouldn’t, even though all of a sudden Christians were buying into carbon dating. In fact, as if you needed it, PZ reported today that the researchers were duped. Imagine my surprise.

I want to take this moment to meditate for a moment on the concept of religious thinking. So often, religion is defended by personal experience. People have heard God speak to them (or through them?). People have felt God protect them in a car accident. People give God credit for winning the big game or race or whatever. None of these stories have anything to do with God. They’re about people wanting to believe in God.

Religious thinking is inherently biased. It puts the answer out before the evidence and then only looks for the answer it wants to see. So, of course, it sees that answer EVERYWHERE. We are familiar with the concept of pareidolia, seeing religious imagery in mundane things, like Jesus in a toasted cheese sandwich or Noah’s Ark in a mountain range. People flock to these images because they want them to be true. They worship these items. They pay stupid-loads of money on eBay to obtain these items. They waste hours, dollars, and brain cells fawning over discoveries that they see as evidence for their beliefs.

But think about it. Beliefs, by definition, are unsubstantiated. Beliefs are beliefs specifically because they are not facts. If they could be proven, they wouldn’t even be interesting anymore. I don’t believe the sky is blue; I understand it. I don’t believe the Earth revolves around the Sun; I understand it. I don’t believe in evolution; I understand it. I don’t believe, because I don’t “have faith.” So here are people who hold these beliefs (for which they have no reason to hold) squandering their lives looking for reason to substantiate the unsubstantiatable! It’s the ultimate dupe—and look how religious organizations profit from it!

People believe God can speak to them, so he does. They believe God sends signs, so they see them. They believe in religious ecstasy, so they experience it. The mind is a powerful thing, and so is the placebo effect. Take a look at this poor girl giving the benediction at Texas’s Midwestern State University’s commencement (hat-tip PZ, again):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqLvV21tsdw

Her mind has so been twisted by what she has been taught to believe that it takes over her physical health. She trembled, convulsed, spoke in tongues a bit, and then fainted! But this does not speak at all to the power of God, only to the dangers of submitting to belief.

Testimony is not evidence. Personal experience is not evidence. Optical illusion is not evidence. These all work against critical thinking. They all work against scientific literacy. We really should not tolerate it.

Our universities should be working against this kind of irrational thinking. We should be outright criticizing religious beliefs and we should be discouraging students from buying into such nonsense. We are so quick to humor the myth, the fantasy, the urban legend—without recognizing the harm they are all having on our capacity to think.

So let me say it here: No, God didn’t talk to you; you just thought to yourself. No, God didn’t protect you in the car crash; you just happened to have an accident without getting hurt (and I’m glad you’re okay). No, God didn’t help you win the big game; your skills and teamwork served you well on the field. No, there is no Jesus in your anything; your brain just tries to make meaning of patterns that resemble faces. No, God is not making you shake or speak in tongues or pass out; you just need to eat something and get some psychological help.

And if you have used any of these experiences to make life-changing decisions, that is both laughable and pitiable.

I do not care how significant these experiences have been for you personally; I will not respect you for these beliefs. I will not silently humor these beliefs. These beliefs hurt you, they hurt me, and they hurt our society. They are absolute bollocks, and we should have no tolerance or respect for them.

We’re alone in this universe and that’s cool. It just means we have to work harder to take care of each other. One of my ways of helping is to discourage you from living your life around delusions.

Dr. Omi Osun Joni L. Jones gives 6 rules for allies (cross race/gender/sexuality/nationality/religion etc) in her keynote speech given 2/19/10 at a luncheon sponsored by Abriendo Brecha Vll Conference and The Seventeenth Annual Emerging Scholarship In Women’s and Gender Studies Conference UT Austin (hat tip: Sharon Bridgforth):

Being an ally is a very challenging thing. It’s easy to say, “I’m an ally, I support you.” It’s very difficult to follow through on that. There are many ways I try to be an ally and often feel I fall short. I also get easily frustrated with alleged allies who choose not to measure up to the title.

I’d like to highlight Dr. Jones’s six rules with some of my own thoughts as well as some current events from as early as a few hours ago. You can read the full text of her speech here (PDF).

Rule #1: Allies know that it is not sufficient to be liberal. In fact, the liberal position is actually a walk backwards.

This is probably the hardest one. It’s a challenge both for allies as well as for those in-movement. I think today we saw an interesting juxtaposition between the HRC rally and the GetEqual direct action. HRC had Kathy Griffin who was taping for My Life on the D-List, and really, who cares? Lt. Dan Choi showed up and was like we can do better than a rally and went over and chained himself to the White House fence. He and two others were arrested (Towleroad has updated coverage here). The difference between the two is striking.

Allies who really care about standing up for oppressed groups have to do more than vote for democrats. Sometimes it takes more than just showing up at the rally! Action has to be taken. (Photo courtesy @piconico).

Rule #2: Be loud and crazy so _____ folks won’t have to be!

This is so true. I think many allies simply wait to be told by the oppressed group what they should do. What a difference it would make if groups didn’t always have to advocate just for themselves. In a way, this should be kind of obvious. Allies should care at least as much as any member of the group they are trying to be an ally to.

I was excited to see a Bilerico-led blog swarm today calling for passage of ENDA. Despite my impatience at employment inequality though, I have my reservations about the effectiveness of such a swarm when Congress is already being inundated with feedback on healthcare reform, which is why I haven’t actively participated. I did try calling Speaker Pelosi’s office, only to get a busy signal and then no answer.

But look at the participants in the blogswarm. It’s almost all the LGBT blogs you’d expect, which is great, but where are our allies? Daily Kos is apparently participating, but you can’t even find the swarm on the homepage! It shouldn’t be up to just the same old folks to be advocating against the same old inequality.

Rule #3: Do not tell anyone in any oppressed group to be patient. Doing so is a sign of your own privilege and unconscious though absolute disregard for the person with whom you are speaking.

I couldn’t agree more. And the cry of “wait!” takes many forms! The waffling and call for more studies on repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a great example. Anytime you hear “We’re not ready yet” or “We have to study this more” is just an excuse to delay justice. I’ve written on this one before, so I think we can move on.

Rule #4: Recognize the new racism, the new sexism, the old homophobia. It is institutional and structural… The absence of ____ in any space cannot be accounted for by chance or accident… Allies know that racism, sexism, and homophobia are real and NEVER tell people, “You could be wrong, you know.” Such a statement presumes that you have greater insights than those with lived experience inside of multiple oppressions.

This is also a difficult one, and one that I know I’ve definitely struggled with as a white man working to be a better ally. I think back to my recent outcry about the way my identity was edited out of my local newspaper. It really doesn’t matter if I’m wrong, I can’t change that the way my identity was edited out is only one of many microaggressions I have experienced for being gay. Seeing that incident as an attack on my identity is the only way I can see it, because I have to constantly be on guard for such attacks.

Rule #5: When called out about your racism, sexism or homophobia, don’t cower in embarrassment, don’t cry, and don’t silently think “she’s crazy” and vow never to interact with her again… Be grateful that someone took the time to expose yours—remember, exposure allows the wind to whip away isolation and fear. Exposure is a step toward freedom. Allies welcome an opportunity to see how their choices, ideas, words may be erasing those around them… Allies want to know when they have been contributed to the very oppressions they oppose. Allies know they are not above reproach.

I try to relish opportunities to admit that I’m wrong. That’s why I’m so willing to put myself out there. I can’t be afraid to be wrong, because then I will never learn and grow.

For example, I was totally against the National Equality March as it was getting organized. It seemed like it was not actually organized at all, I bought into what a lot of the big groups were saying about it, and it just didn’t seem like it would be effective. As it came together and I chose to participate, I saw just how important this new way of thinking about activism was. I saw how my socioeconomic privilege was actually clouding my ability to truly appreciate the importance of grassroots efforts toward queer equality. I was wrong for opposing it, and I’m glad I figured that out before it was too late.

There’s a reason I always encourage people to comment on my blog. I like to hear when people disagree with me! I like to argue and work through new understandings. I hope that as an activist and ally, I am not above reproach.

Rule #6: Allies actively support alternative possibilities… because allies believe “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” allies consider the transgressive power in alternative academic strategies, a power that works to undo patriarchy, white supremacy, the insatiability of capitalism, and heterosexism. Supporting alternative possibilities is the only way we can all dream ourselves into the world in which we want to live.

This is another one of the reasons I was mad about my newspaper’s censorship. I knew that my opportunity to perform was an opportunity to offer a liberated message, as it was for my graduate capstone. At the performance last night, I successfully did it again. My opening monologue included some vague allusions to my gay identity and I also sang “Maybe This Time,” complete with male pronouns, and people left the event asking if I was gay or not, because they weren’t sure. That was specifically my intent, and I was successful, but it would have made a lot more sense if the proper context had been set up in the article.

This also makes me think about how the rest of my professional field might feel about my blogging, as I wrote about last October. For higher education, blogging is still a unique medium. It’s not an academic journal, nor should it be read as one. There are surely folks who do not appreciate what I write, because it is not their tactic. Similarly, I disagree with the way social justice education is so focused within the academy and our professional organizations rarely speak outwardly about the values they claim to uphold. I’m proud I have this venue to creatively share some fresh points of view and get people thinking in new ways, as well as to push myself to continue to learn and think in new ways!

Being an ally is tough, and I know I feel very refreshed by Dr. Jones’s words. They present new challenges for moving forward, but I’d rather struggle toward liberation than settle for oppression.

Today we’re looking at “Why Don’t We Practice What We Preach? A Meta-Analytic Review of Religious Racism” by Hall, Matz, & Wood, published December 16, 2009 in Personality and Social Psychology Review (hat tip: Joe.My.God.). The goal of this study is to look at how religiosity impacts racism. The results may or may not be surprising, but they’re certainly interesting.

Before we even look at the abstract, I just want to clarify what a meta-analysis is. In this study, the researchers looked at 55 studies conducted between 1964 (when the Civil Rights Act passed) and 2008 and developed measures to synthesize the results of all of those different studies into one cohesive report of conclusions. In other words, the report we’re reading today tells us what we can learn from 40 years of studies on the topic of religious racism.

The Abstract

Here’s the gist:

A meta-analytic review of past research evaluated the link between religiosity and racism in the United States since the Civil Rights Act. Religious racism partly reflects intergroup dynamics. That is, a strong religious in-group identity was associated with derogation of racial out-groups. Other races might be treated as out-groups because religion is practiced largely within race, because training in a religious in-group identity promotes general ethnocentrism, and because different others appear to be in competition for resources. In addition, religious racism is tied to basic life values of social conformity and respect for tradition. In support, individuals who were religious for reasons of conformity and tradition expressed racism that declined in recent years with the decreased societal acceptance of overt racial discrimination. The authors failed to find that racial tolerance arises from humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members. Only religious agnostics were racially tolerant.

Basically, religious people see other races as other religions. Because they see their own religion as morally superior, they are more likely to see other races (religions) as morally inferior. Also, the more likely people are to conform and uphold tradition, the more likely they are to be racist. As we know from recent disaster relief efforts in Haiti, religious groups are more concerned with helping (or converting and then helping) members of their own religion, which reflects what the researchers found that humanitarian values do not motivate racial tolerance.

And yeah, did you see that last little part? The only group who was found to be consistently racially tolerant was the group that regularly questioned religion. Huh.

Read on for more detailed excerpts from the study!

Considering Religious Identity

First, consider the ways that simply identifying with a religious group might motivate racism (p. 3, emphases added):

To the extent that religion tends to be practiced within race, people of other races may appear to belong to religious out-groups. Thus, one basis for the religious identity–racism link is that race serves as a proxy for religious affiliation. Another reason for this link is that people who strongly identify with a religion may be ethnocentric in general. Especially when people undergo early socialization into a particular religion, they might develop a strong tendency to differentiate their own faith from others, and social categorization that contrasts an “us” as opposed to “them” might generalize to other social distinctions including race (Altemeyer, 2003). Further supporting race distinctions, people who appear to be different from the self may be judged to hold different values, perhaps values that are in competition for resources such as political representation or even religious converts. Such perceived competition promotes intergroup prejudice (Sherif, 1966). For example, religious fundamentalists discriminated against homosexuals and single mothers to the extent that these groups were judged to threaten their personally important values (Jackson & Esses, 1997).

It seems as though subscribing to religious belief motivates a characterization of “other” as “bad.” This fits with what Dahlia Lithwick wrote in Slate today about how people’s disgust with homosexuality leads them to condemn it (a worthwhile read itself).

Religious racism also correlates with fundamentalist religious beliefs as well as extrinsic religiosity (religion motivated by social status, security, and acceptance from others) (p.3, emphases added):

Like religion, racism is a set of beliefs that explain societal traditions, especially those associated with social hierarchies involving White dominance in America. Consistent with this reasoning, stronger values of social conformity and traditionalism are associated with greater intergroup prejudice (Schwartz, 1996). Similarly, political conservatives in the United States are more likely than liberals to endorse ethnocentrism and racism (Federico & Sidanius, 2002; Napier & Jost, 2008). Also relevant, the traditional values associated with the Protestant work ethic are central components of ambivalent racism (I. Katz & Hass, 1988) and have been linked with the expression of modern racism (McConahay, 1986) and symbolic racism (Tarman & Sears, 2005).

Studies have also shown that highly religious people “endorse benevolent values of humanitarianism, which reflect selflessness in relations with close others…but not universalism, which involves accepting diversity and expressing concern for the welfare of all people and nature” (p. 4). In other words, humanitarianism itself does not promote racial tolerance because it does not explicitly address out-groups.

Individuals who were intrinsically religious (i.e. “committed to religion as an end in itself”) were more overtly racially tolerant, but were not necessarily less racist (p. 4):

…intrinsically religious people may report racial tolerance largely because of a desire to appear nonracist (Batson & Stocks, 2005) but nevertheless may show racial prejudice when it is indirectly measured.

They talk the talk of tolerance, but they don’t walk the walk of tolerance.

The study also looked at agnosticism, or what they call a quest motivation (a spiritual quest or readiness to face existential questions,  acknowledge religious doubts, and accept change). This definition totally confirms my point of view that some clear distinctions can be made between agnosticism and atheism, though the study found that “quest and racial tolerance in the general population are best understood in terms of a lack of religiosity” (p. 4). The important piece here though is that there were positive associations between quest and racial tolerance.

Some Interesting Findings – Imagery, Cognitive Style, Doubt, and Sex Differences

Here are some of the other interesting ideas from the discussion and conclusion (p. 10, emphasis added):

A related reason why religious in-groups may be prejudiced toward dissimilar others is that the divine in religious worship is often imbued with in-group attributes. That is, religious figures are constructed in believers’ own images. As Xenophanes in the sixth century B.C. noted, “Greek gods were invariably fair skinned and blue-eyed whereas African gods were invariably dark skinned and dark-eyed (joking that cows would surely worship gods that were strikingly cowlike)” (quoted in Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007, p. 865).

This discussion point reminds me so much of the movie Dogma (the linked clips have spoilers!). How different would Catholicism be with “Buddy Christ” instead of a crucifix? What if Jesus was black? What if God really was a woman? Imagery reflects and impacts believers in profound ways.

Here we see the way dualistic thinking or belief in one truth over other ways of thinking has profoundly negative consequences (p. 10):

Religious fundamentalism is associated with a rigid, dogmatic cognitive style that preferences one truth and way of being over others and thereby promotes in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. In support, the positive correlation between fundamentalism and prejudice disappeared after controlling for authoritarianism. Thus, the religious fundamentalism–racism relation plausibly was because of authoritarian beliefs as well as conformity values.

In other words, if you don’t believe that there is only one true set of answers to life’s questions, you’re less likely to be racist.

Their research found that “quest” more often reflected agnostic doubt about religion than it did a type of religion itself. Since it was the questioning agnostics who were more likely to express racial tolerance, this added to their conclusion that “religiosity is not associated with racial tolerance” (p. 11).

Another interesting metaregression used distinctions between men and women’s motivations for religiosity to confirm the way values and prejudice are related (p. 11, emphases added):

Additional support for our inference that basic life values underlie religious racism comes from supplementary analyses on the sex composition of the samples. Religious racism should vary with sex because women, compared with men, tend to hold stronger benevolent values that promote religiosity and stronger universalist values that promote tolerance toward out-group members (Schwartz & Rubel, 2005). ….

…studies with higher percentages of women were more likely to report that religiosity promoted racial tolerance. In summary, analyses on the attributes of the participants in the original studies were consistent with our claim that basic life values underlie the religion–prejudice relation.

Conclusion

In addition to concluding that “the intergroup dynamics established by religious identification along with conventional life values appeared to drive religious racism” (p. 11), the researchers also defend the generalizability of their findings (p. 11, emphases added):

The participants in the studies we reviewed were predominantly White Christians in the United States. To what extent can our conclusions about religiosity and prejudice be generalized to other cultures and religious faiths? Given that divinities are accorded attributes of the religious groups and that all religions teach moral superiority, we anticipate that religious group identification is typically associated with out-group derogation. An additional reason to suspect that our findings hold across world religions comes from evidence that the conservative values that promote both religiosity and racism are stable across cultures and across religious faiths. …

Moreover, we found no relation between the endorsement of religious doctrine specific to the Christian faith and racial prejudice. It thus seems that the motives to be religious also are a motivator of racism, and these motives appear to be broadly applicable as a framework for understanding religious racism.

So, next time you hear someone arguing that religion can be a force for good in the world, ask them, “at what cost?” and use this study to support your argument. If we want to have a real conversation about “Science vs. Religion,” we can just look at the mounting evidence confirming the negative impacts of religion on society. It’s disturbing and alarming, but honestly, it’s not that surprising.

Some related posts:

» Society Is Better Off Without Religion: The Supporting Research (12/7/09)
» We Have To Stop Letting God Be A Crutch For Hate (11/6/09)

Yes, the intent of this post is to defend Valentine’s Day, but in the interest of pathos, allow me to share all the many reasons I have to not like it.

I am single. I do not have love. I do not have someone to share V-Day with. It is a reminder of the fact I am alone, and at times, lonely.

I am gay. Even if I can appreciate the huge visibility of romance, I still rarely see my kind of romance represented.

I’m actually relationship-oriented. If the dating pool weren’t narrow enough being gay, being a gay man who values love, romance, and commitment makes it even smaller.

I despise capitalism. It’s too easy to see February 14 as an exploitative holiday for the economic benefit of florists, chocolatiers, candlemakers, fancy restaurants, and of course, greeting cards.

I’m an atheist. If all of the above weren’t enough, I have to be reminded of a holiday that has a name derived from a saint that nobody even knows anything about. Not only am I single, but religious privilege continues to dominate my life!

Is that enough pathos for you all? Don’t worry, “Singles Appreciation Day” folks, I’m SAD with you.

Still, I’d like to offer a defense for Valentine’s Day.

Two words: love and hope.

Love is an amazing sensation. Even though it hasn’t panned out for me, I can at least say that I’ve experienced love. Love can be wonderful and love can be dangerous. For all its pros and cons, it sort of represents a pinnacle of the human experience. It is arguably the most powerful emotion we can experience. Wouldn’t we be doing our existence a disservice to not recognize the influence of this impactful human experience?

It’s true, the day kind of divides us. There are those of us who have love and love having love and those of us who do not have love and resent not having love. If you think about it though, that’s not really a divide. It means we all respect love; we all aspire to it.

So even if we don’t have a romantic, sexual love to celebrate, Valentine’s Day can be a day to celebrate love itself. We can celebrate the family we love, the friends we love, past love, and future love.

And that brings me to hope! Hope is one of the most influential self-motivators. We all supported Obama when he campaigned because he truly inspired hope, and we’ve criticized him since his election because he hasn’t followed through and our hope has diminished. Hope is the mere idea that things can be better. Though faith and spiritual belief often try to hijack it, hope is an emotion and an attitude.

So on Valentine’s Day, hope is an important thing to keep in mind. For those of us with a Valentine to call our own, we have the hope of our future with that partner. We rekindle that flame of love and look forward to it lasting well into the future.

For those of us on the SAD side of February 14, we have to keep our heads up. It’s too easy to say, “I give up on love.” But who hasn’t said that at some point in their lives? It’s impossible to say today whether we will know “true love” or not, but we should let Valentine’s Day inspire us and give us hope. Look at all the people who have found it and can find such happiness in celebrating it! Yes, we might not have it, but there’s nothing to be gained by being petty about it.

We should all be hopeful about love in our lives. We should celebrate being human and knowing that we are even capable of such a thing. We can’t make it happen, and we can’t guarantee that it will, but it should give us something to look forward to, something to live for.

Fellow SADders, don’t let the day get you down! Don’t be jealous or bitter of the love you don’t yet know. Just be happy for those who have Valentines and look forward to the day you too will have someone to share your love with. Feel free to criticize certain aspects of the holiday, but don’t trash it entirely. Someday you’ll appreciate it.

…

Last year I shared a clip from out musician (and friend of the blog) Tom Goss. This year I’ll showcase another wonderful out artist, Matt Alber. His song and video for “End of the World” are nothing short of lovely. Happy Valentine’s Day from ZackFord Blogs!

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

To the credit of the first two groups, they actually do have over one million members, while the other group has a long way to go to 10 million.

There is also an epic race between a dung beetle and a poodle wearing a tinfoil hat to outfan Glenn Beck. The poodle has a strong lead, but also a long way to go to catch up with America’s favorite conspiracy theorist.

I am not a member of any of these groups nor fan of any of these pages. Upon looking, I found many of them sitting in my groups and pages and have removed myself from them. I am a strong supporter of marriage equality and think Glenn Beck is a righteous fool, and I don’t think any of my readers would doubt me on that. The thing is, I hate Facebook populism and won’t waste my time or reputation with it any longer.

Why? It accomplishes nothing.

I shouldn’t say it accomplishes nothing, but the net effect is actually negative.

Take all these marriage equality groups. Everyone’s joining, so you’re either getting an invitation or seeing it on your newsfeed. You want your friends to know you support the same causes, so you join too. Great! What a wonderful display of support for an important issue! I’m not really surprised that my friends support marriage equality (or else they might not be my friends), but it’s nice to see lots of other people do too! That’s just swell.

Now what?

The poodle page is full of pictures of cute dogs and posts from people reminding us they’re smart enough to not watch FOX news. The dung beetle group has lots of dung beetle-cheerleaders (Go, dung beetle, go!). The marriage groups are just full of lots of platitudes. For pages with administrators, the pages themselves offer little content except recruitment plugs for the group. There is no movement, there is no planning, there is no rallying. The groups and pages exist solely to be numbers.

And this, I’m here to suggest, hurts our movements. Because, yes, it is nice to get lots of people to attach their names to their support, but this, in turn, gives them an out for nonparticipation!

What have you done to support marriage equality? Oh, I joined the Facebook group!

No really, what have you done? Huh? I didn’t realize I had to do anything!

Where is the education and advocacy? Where are the rallies? Where are the boycotts? Where is the civil disobedience? If we’ve got ALL THESE PEOPLE willing to support or oppose certain things, then shouldn’t that all be put to good use?

But no, that’s never what happens. People join a group then go about their lives, oblivious to the change they’re not helping make happen. The group’s potential for making a difference is lost in the group’s concern for its own self-importance. It becomes more about the group than the issue the group addresses.

Without this impetus for real action, people are left with the satisfying notion that they’ve already acted. In fact, it creates the illusion of different levels of activism, so people can feel like “Oh, I’m not up for that kind of activism, but at least I’m doing something.” Well, no, you’re not. Worse yet, this leads to a kind of support fatigue, where people actually grow tired of being asked to help even when they really haven’t done any helping! So when a real group ready to make a change comes along, like Queer Rising for example, people who might have normally considered stepping up actually step back because they feel like so much has been asked of them already.

Activism takes a lot of energy. It’s not just a choice; it’s a commitment. Even those who believe strongly in an issue must feel energized and compelled that they can make a difference in order to actually try. If you feel like lots of different folks are pulling you in different directions, you might not be inclined to move at all.

One other consequence of such passive populism is the illusion of success. This was something used a lot in the Prop 8 trial. If it looks like lots of people support marriage equality, then it’s almost like marriage inequality isn’t an issue… except that it is. This rift between reality and sentiment does little to fuel our movement toward real equality.

So to all my friends and fellow facebookers out there joining these groups: thanks for your support. I hope that you can do better than our President’s “fierce advocacy” and put real actions behind your facebook affiliations.

The main thrust (pun intended, as you’ll see) of the workshop was the way sexuality is so fluid and that the notion that we’re all just gay or straight (or even gay, straight, or bi) is a complete myth. Despite being bright and early Saturday morning, there were a ton of energetic young people there, and it was really great to see them having these conversations about how sexuality changes over time. In particular, it was striking to see the way so many aim for ambiguity, recognizing what they like but not necessarily conforming their identity to match.

I should point out that this phenomenon was evident throughout the conference. More and more people are really moving towards identifying as “queer,” as if to say I’m queer and that’s all you need to know. I kind of wish I’d gone to some of the sexual liberation workshops so I could know more! [Note: I did the following year!]

At any rate, in Robyn’s workshop we did an anonymous survey of how people define their identities, attractions, and behavior over time. After looking at identities and attractions through different lenses, we then juxtaposed those identities with actual behaviors. The results were interesting, because they didn’t always match. Some people reported engaging in sexual behavior that did not reflect their same- or opposite-sex attractions. And in some cases, there was no reported sexual behavior.

It was at this point that Robyn made the poignant point that is the title of this post:

True or false? Society makes you feel guilty for having sex. TRUE.
True or false? Society makes you feel guilty for not having sex. TRUE.

It really is true. All sexual behavior is judged. You either get chided for going for it or for not going for it. There isn’t really a “win-win.”

I don’t know if there’s any more to say about this point than just that, but I still find it amazingly compelling. Just being aware of this point I think lets us think much more openly about sex.

So many of our choices and our “standards” are influenced by the world around us. Just about every single religion has had something to say about the morality of sex, most likely because we’re all sexual beings and it’s a deeply influential method of control. When you really step back and think about it, there really can be no moral question for safe, consensual sex. Yet, we tend to be profoundly self-conscious about our sexual behavior and reputation.

There are some considerations that are important beyond consent. Obviously, sexual contact always include health risks. Trust is also fundamentally important to maintaining the consent and safety of the interaction. And if you value monogamy like I do, it’s important to honor commitments and sexual exclusivity. Lastly, we can’t ignore that for many people, sexual behavior always has an emotional component. Aspects of commitment, dependency, love, and power can affect people well beyond the physical sexual pleasure they experience.

But, if you can account for all of those factors (and I’d personally recommend that you do), is there any good reason to be inhibited as sexual beings? I would say no. This is why I was torn when I was writing that monogamy post a few weeks ago, because even though I value monogamy both sexually and emotionally, I completely understand how and why open couples make their openness work.

Sex is a great thing. I think everyone deserves the opportunity to be sexual beings. I think everyone has the right to explore their sexuality in any way they wish (that honors the values I just discussed). Hell, if we all liked the same things, life would be pretty damn boring! I’ll admit here that I have at least one fetish and that I’m also kink-curious, and honestly, I feel like it takes some courage to put that out there publicly. But really, why should it? Why should I feel embarrassed to say so? Sure, there are probably some of you out there who don’t want to think about Zack Ford as a sexual being, but get over it. You’re a sexual being too, you know.

I think life would be a lot less stressful if society didn’t make us feel so self-conscious about sex. I do think discretion is important, and sexual harassment is a very real and serious concern in our culture. But I don’t think it has to be either-or. I think we can get to a place where we don’t have to be afraid/guilty/ashamed of our sex lives without constantly making overt sexual advancements to every single person we meet. Just as “gay” does not solely define me, I can come out of the closet as “sexual” without letting sexuality control my life.

Why should sex be judged? The young people in Robyn’s session made it very clear that the last thing they want is to be boxed in. Not only do they not want their identities bound by binaries, so too do they want the opportunity to explore their sexuality beyond the “shoulds” and “should nots” that society overwhelms us with.

I feel bad for the people who have been conditioned to be ashamed of sex, one way or another. We only get one chance to explore this thing called humanity, and there seems to be no reason to make the most of it. Thanks, Robyn, and others, for helping me better understand this in my life.

I’m just going to assume you’re on my site because you have at least a passing interest in queer equality. Maybe you know the ins and outs of DOMA, DADT, and ENDA, or maybe you don’t. That’s okay, you don’t have to. In fact, all that you really need to do is care in the slightest about what’s happening right now in California and understand why it’s important.

Last week began the trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. This case is a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which ended the state’s recognition of same-sex marriages in 2008. “Perry” is Kris Perry, one of four plaintiffs (two same-sex couples, pictured at right) who are challenging the ban. “Schwarzenegger” is obviously the Governator, but he and his attorney general decided not to defend Prop 8, so the group that originally promoted Prop 8 (Yes on 8, now known as Protect Marriage) is defending in the governor’s place. (They’re called defense-intervenors for this reason.)

Now, here’s your first important point. Even though this may just look like a challenge to a state law, it’s taking place in federal court. Why is this important? Because it means the implications of the verdict would apply outside of California. Pretty much everybody expects this case to make it to the Supreme Court. The conclusion of this trial could be epic.

The main issue in the case is marriage, which means that if Proposition 8 is overturned, such a decision could overturn all bans on same-sex marriage, including the federal Defense of Marriage Act. (Even in states with marriage equality, the federal DOMA prevents same-sex couples from enjoying true marriage equality.)

But that’s not all. This trial could also lead to the classification of sexual orientation as a suspect class. Were that to happen, this proceeding would not just affect marriage equality, but would ripple out and truly open doors to full queer equality. Perry v. Schwarzenegger would stand the test of time, being remembered alongside other historic civil rights cases like Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education. Gays and lesbians would finally be legally recognized as an oppressed minority.

Now, you might be saying, “But why do I need to care? Whatever happens in the trial happens in the trial.” There is truth in the notion that none of us can actually affect the judge’s decision. We cannot participate in the trial. But this narrow view ignores the significance of these proceedings.

You see, in this trial, it’s not just Prop 8 that’s at stake. It’s our entire community—our entire movement. In order for the judge to make an informed decision, the plaintiffs have to educate the court on why Proposition 8 is bad. That means not just talking about Prop 8, but the entire history of the oppression of our community. This trial brings to light all of the ways society is miseducated about sexual orientation and all of the ways gays and lesbians have suffered as a result. The expert witnesses have given extensive testimony that amount to classroom lectures on the history, psychology, and sociology of gays and lesbians. Take a look at the topics covered in just this first week:

» The history of marriage (Dr. Nancy Cott)
» The history (and presence) of discrimination against and demonization of gays and lesbians (Dr. George Chauncey)
» Same-sex marriage would have no effect on heterosexual marriage (Dr. Letitia Peplau)
» The economic losses from banning same-sex marriage (Dr. Edmund Egan)
» The continued stigma and prejudice gays and lesbians experience (Dr. Ilan Meyer)
» Same-sex couples are just as fit to raise children as heterosexual couples (Dr. Michael Lamb)
» Same-sex couples’s well-being benefits from having marriage (Helen Zia)

And there’s more to come! You see, it’s not just about some law in some state. It’s about our lives.

This is an opportunity for us to educate others. This testimony is to educate the court, but in a public trial, there’s no reason it shouldn’t educate the public too. By taking an interest in this trial, you can share with friends and family the harsh truths of our existence and continue to rally public support.

This is probably the most important point of why you should care about the trial: Our opponents don’t want us to see it. Tell me if this makes any sense to you in the 21st Century: The trial is public. Anybody can go to San Francisco to the courthouse and watch. However, the defendants have fervently campaigned to prevent broadcast of the trial. Why are they so concerned about others seeing it?? If nothing else, this should rouse your suspicions.

Our lives are on the line and our stories are being illuminated through testimony, but our opponents are doing everything they can to extinguish that light. Unfortunately, there’s not much more they can do. We have passionate advocates spending all day in the courthouse furiously typing to make sure that we all have access to these important proceedings. How sad would it be if we were finally granted rights, but most of the public didn’t understand why?

That’s why you should care. We have a duty to join those advocates who can be in the courthouse to continue to raise awareness about these proceedings. We have friends, families, and communities in which we can share the important events taking place in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. All of us who truly have a concern for gay rights need to do everything we can to magnify the accessibility of this trial.

So, I’m glad you’re here. Like I said, you’re a week late, but that’s not a problem, because we can catch you up. It’ll take some reading on your part, but my commitment here on the blog is to provide you as much access as possible so you can peruse what’s right for you. Rather than digging through epic transcripts from the livebloggers (like I do) or trying to make some sense of the case via Twitter, you can turn to ZackFord Blogs daily for a roundup of all the news.

…

Since you might be brand new to the case, I would start by taking a look at this Prop. 8 Trial First Week Roundup courtesy of the American Foundation for Equal Rights (who are supporting the plaintiffs). This well give you a general sense of what has taken place and who the key players are.

Then, if you want a bit more candid look at some of the drama that unfolded last week, take a look at Karen Ocamb’s piece today on Huffington Post: Supreme Court Camera Ruling Continues History of Anti-Gay Discrimination. She addresses a lot of the events that have taken place outside the trial’s proceedings that are of significance.

And, if you have a little bit more time for catching up, I’d recommend you take a look at the recaps that the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Shannon Minter has been posting each day over at Pam’s House Blend. He really does a nice job summarizing each day’s proceedings while still providing a decent amount of detail. Here are those posts: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5.

I’ve been following the trial in my own unique way, by responding to each of the posts published by Protect Marriage’s Andy Pugno. Pugno has been regularly trying to spin the case to make it look like his side is winning. It’s not surprising that his posts provide limited detail about what actually is said in the courtroom and are also closed to comments. In some ways, the content of his posts actually reinforces the points the plaintiffs are trying to make about discrimination and demonization, so I hope to bring these to light.

In addition, I’ve been trying to aggregate all of the various media coverage on the case (and getting better at it by the day). So, at the end of each day, you can come to ZackFord Blogs and get linked to the liveblog transcripts, blogs and recaps about the days proceedings, mainstream news coverage, and the most popular #prop8 links being shared on Twitter. All of this can be found in my Perry v. Schwarzenegger archive:

I hope it continues to be a helpful resource for keeping up with the trial. The stakes are high, and we owe it to our communities and to ourselves to stay informed about what’s taking place.

The idea that religious condemnations of homosexuality impact criminal acts against the LGBT community has long been discussed. I’d offer that the intersections between different realms all reinforce each other. Whether it is criminal, religious, social, or legal, any words or actions the LGBT community only reinforce the idea that such attitudes are okay.

Heard about any hate crimes lately? There were two just this week in Buffalo, a man and a woman (hat tip to my friend Erin for the links). It fact, it’s starting to look like there might be an anti-gay gang in Buffalo. Towleroad also has some updates on other pending cases.

Heard any religious discrimination against gay folks lately? The role of American evangelicals in Uganda comes to mind. That’s besides the point that we hear religious leaders condemning the LGBT community on almost a daily basis…

Heard any discrimination from the entertainment industry? Perhaps the other night when the punchline on Letterman, at the expense of new Obama appointee Amanda Simpson, was the same argument most transbashers have used to get out of their hate crime charges?

And let’s talk about legal discrimination! Despite the fact that the state of New Jersey has a judicial mandate to provide equal partner rights to same-sex couples and the fact that civil unions have been proven not to work in achieving this equality, the New Jersey Senate went ahead and voted against marriage equality today (14-20). (Watching all these votes is getting draining; more on that tomorrow, methinks.)

These forms of discrimination need to be interrupted every time in every venue. They all need to be responded to with the same vigor and fortitude. Every time we just shrug off something like another failed marriage vote, we’re giving our stamp of approval for such discrimination to continue.

We need to be more comprehensive in standing up for LGBT issues. We need not tolerate any person who dares suggest we are less than or not due our turn at equality.

I’m a little too flustered from watching the New Jersey Senate all afternoon, so I’ll leave it at that for now. We will only continue to watch inequality persist if we tolerate it.

…

Some words of wisdom left to us by Jonathan Larson:

Why do we refuse to hang a light when the streets are dangerous?
Why does it take an accident before the truth gets through to us?

Why should we blaze a trail when the well worn path seems safe and so inviting?
How, as we travel, can we see the dismay and keep from fighting?

What does it take to wake up a generation?
How can you make someone take off and fly?
If we don’t wake up and shake up the nation,
We’ll eat the dust of the world wondering why.

Why do we follow leaders who never lead?
Why does it take catastrophe to start a revolution?

Cages or wings: which do you prefer? Ask the birds.
Fear or love, baby? Don’t say the answer.
Actions speak louder than words.

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

That’s really what life is all about. No matter what happens, the best thing in life is being able to appreciate the time you have with the ones you love. Everything else, if you think about it, is just means to that end.

At one point during my five-and-a-half hour drive home from an amazing New Year’s celebration, I had a good cry. I don’t just mean a hearty or effective cry, I mean a positive, uplifting cry—literally a good cry. For me, the catalyst was this song:

“Childhood Places” by Benjamin Costello

Missing people is an odd emotion. The longing and absence can be absolute torture, but if you really think about it, it’s one of the most positive and reassuring feelings. The only way you can miss someone is to love them. The absence only exists because of an amazingly strong positive emotional connection you have with the people you are missing. Recognizing you have people to miss can oddly be as sweet as missing them is bitter.

Over the past two weeks, I’ve gotten to see some of my most favorite people in the world, many of whom I haven’t seen in two-and-a-half years. And one of the ways you know you have good friends is when 30 months can pass and when you’re together, you can shoot the shit just the same as before. Let me tell you, I have some amazing friends.

When I think about the simplicity of this joy in life, it really makes me glad to be an atheist. The moments of my life that I cherish most?—I can appreciate them simply for what they are. It wasn’t God’s plan or fate or anything of the sort. There is no higher power that dictates who I am or what I will do in my life or who I will interact with. There’s just me. It’s all in my hands. And to have such amazing people in my life, whether I get to see them regularly or not, makes me really feel like I’m getting the most out of life.

I think that’s why so many people cling to God and demand their beliefs be respected. It’s all about fear. God is a crutch and a scapegoat…

God is the source of my morality, so I don’t have to take responsibility for making moral decisions for myself.

God controls the events in my life, so I’ll appeal to Him for what decisions to make.

God created me for a purpose, so if others don’t like what I’m doing in my life, they can take it up with Him.

I think that’s so sad. Yeah, sometimes it’s tough to own your life and own your decisions, but it’s so much more meaningful when you do. God just gets in the way of putting people first. When you just look around and make the most of what you have, the results can be phenomenal, and they’ll always be 100% human accomplishments.

My new year is off to a great start. I hope as Twenty-ten continues, I keep this warm beginning in mind. All of the work and blogging that I do is to allow and encourage people to appreciate interactions with fellow humans int he same way. We’re all here, and we’re all going to die, so let’s make the most of it for us all while we can.

Happy New Year!

It shouldn’t be too long before the work of evolutionary psychologists like Hank Davis and Gregory Paul are synthesized with our existing models of cognitive and moral development. These are the kinds of questions we need to be asking: Can an individual ever truly appreciate social contracts and individual rights (Kohlberg’s 5th Stage of Moral Development) if that individual still believes that a God who intercedes in the course of events is the ultimate judge of morality? Can our students ever achieve reflective thinking if they still see religious beliefs as being on-par with scientific theories? How can we help students become contextual or even independent knowers if they still believe in divine knowledge bestowed upon the Earth by a deity?

While there is a lot of identity development encapsulated in the culture of religious worldviews, I foresee a day when higher education addresses religious beliefs independently as a matter of critical thinking and cognitive development. Rather than continuing to shelter students and helping them continue on the track they were already on with their beliefs, we ought to be encouraging them to consider not just what they believe, but why they believe it, how they came to believe it, and any implications that result from their believing it.

We’ve seen some very slight movement in this direction with a few (countable on one hand) campuses offering humanist chaplains. This seems like more of a blind accommodation for atheist students because the field of student affairs has done  little to even recognize atheists on campus (ask me for the Goodman & Mueller PDF), let alone research any conception of atheist student development. The focus continues to be on “spirituality” and “spiritual development”, which by word choice alone assumes there is such a thing as spirituality and also assumes that all students experience spiritual development. The latter claim is blatantly wrong, and the former sets a foundation for enshrining religious privilege in a field that so often prides itself on supporting social justice. We have a long way to go in unraveling this mess.

This all leads to the question I ask in the title: How long until we have campus atheist resource centers? Your first reaction to that might be to say it will never happen, because that would be “promoting religion.” Well, no, it would not be. Atheism—or perhaps more accurately skepticism—is not a belief system; it’s an approach to knowledge. Based on my understanding of skepticism juxtaposed with my understanding of student development theory, it’s quite a good approach too. In fact, many academic disciplines (the natural sciences, as an obvious example) already encourage and demand skepticism. It’s the foundation of inquiry! Why shouldn’t we promote it beyond the bounds of specific academic curricula?

Maybe the word “atheist” is making you uncomfortable. Check your religious privilege! A 2006 study from the University of Minnesota (ask me for the PDF) found that “atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority.” Just this past week, a new city councilor in North Carolina is trying to be removed from office just for being an atheist, because North Carolina is one of many states with laws still on the books prohibiting atheists from elected office. Clearly there is a case to be made that atheist students could use some support on campus. But, to be pragmatic, let’s call it a Skepticism Resource Center for now.

A model already exists for a Skepticism Resource Center. The parallels it would have with an LGBT Resource Center are uncanny. It would need to provide support for coming out (though it would probably help if we did some research on the atheist coming out process first). It would need to provide a library of resources. It would need to provide social opportunities. It would need to function as a safe space (for challenging questions!). It would need to providing enriching development opportunities for students who identify as nonbelievers (once we actually collect some research on atheist development). There would also be a need to educate the greater campus about these identities and why it’s important to respect skepticism and understand what we can all learn from it. Education and advocacy—yeah, we should know how to do that.

The only obstacle is our own unease with these issues. Education has lost its critical edge, with a recent study showing that undergrads majoring in education tend to be more religious. While the field of student affairs seems more and more eager to blindly subscribe to spiritual development, higher education takes a hands-off approach to religion in general. (The exception, of course, is religiously-affiliated universities who bend over backwards—even to the point of compromising ethical standards and academic credibility—to cater to religion.) Important opportunities for cognitive growth are lost and our own field flounders to truly understand the students we are serving and how to appropriately raise the level of challenge.

What will it take for us to recognize that atheism, skepticism, critical thinking, and cognitive development are all linked? What will it take for us to welcome such conversations at our conventions or on our campuses? Can we start to uncover the religious privilege we maintain by our silence or subscription to spirituality so that we can truly serve all of our students and maximize their potential?

How long until we have campus atheist resource centers?

Let’s start by defining the words. We’ve dealt with the beliefs in those previous posts, so let’s talk about “disrespectful,” “offensive,” and “challenge.” What does it mean to disrespect? Well, it’s about expectations, right? Usually we think about disrespect as not showing enough respect, and “enough” is determined by the Zeitgeist. It’s just a cultural expectation. It’s entirely subjective and symbolic. “Offense” adds a bit more substance, meaning to irritate, annoy, anger, or hurt. So this whole challenging beliefs thing is not just about improperly respecting; it’s also attacking, threatening, insulting, and a ton of other words that imply the recipient has to go on the defensive.

But let’s be clear about the “challenge.” A challenge is a contest to a claim, an objection to assumed validity, and a demand for explanation and justification. And the most important thing to point out is that it is the beliefs that are challenged, not the believers. A belief is just an idea; a belief doesn’t have feelings, nor could a belief ever be defensive. Every time people have disagreements, ideas are challenged in just this way. Society has determined, though, that beliefs get to be special kinds of ideas. Ideas I have about taxes, for example, are not absolute truths and they are debatable. But if I had a belief about taxes, I would get a free ride, because once something is called a belief, it’s no longer up for debate.

So let’s consider a hypothetical example. One I face often is, “I believe homosexuality is wrong/immoral/whatever.” This belief still wields quite a bit of power and popularity in our society. I would argue this belief is totally invalid, because homosexuality cannot be immoral. Sexual orientations are innate dimensions of identity and a same-sex orientation is no more a choice than an opposite-sex one. Calling homosexuality “immoral” sounds as absurd as calling brown eyes “wrong” or calling the sun “immoral” just for existing. I work really hard to debunk this belief, because it has absolutely no intellectual merit and it is incredibly hurtful to many people.

Debunking any belief is not as simple as making a good argument. What happens when I begin to challenge this belief? Facts can often be irrelevant. The replies I might get are “But this is what I believe!” or “But it says so in The Bible!” To truly address this issue, I have to work through discussions about what a belief is, why a person believes a certain belief, and then present the factual argument that debunks the belief. But merely for trying to challenge this belief, I might be seen as “rude” or “inconsiderate.” This is the very core of religious privilege. Bad ideas persist because social norms allow them to.

Believers come to the defense of their beliefs. They cry “disrespect” and “offense,” though, because there is no valid intellectual argument for their beliefs. They can’t actually defend the merit of the ideas, so they have defend their right to hold them despite this. They are upset because societal etiquette is set up so that they will never have to defend their beliefs. When suddenly “It’s my belief!” doesn’t protect them, then they take the challenge as a personal attack, because they have no other way to respond without letting go of the belief in question. Because they’ve been socialized to value beliefs more than anything, it’s very personal, and by totally shutting down, they cyclically protect beliefs in this way.

The basic principle implied here is that it is more important for people to hold to very personal ideas, even when they’re bad, than to be open to new ones. It’s easy to see how this could have helped a group of early humans survive as a cohesive unit and how narrow understandings of the universe would lead to religious beliefs being incorporated. But if we set all that aside and look just at what we know in 2009, this principle is hindering and destructive. It’s basically an agreement to resist cognitive development, a shield from cognitive dissonance. What value does clinging to personal ideas have in modern society? I would argue very little.

It is this religious privilege that maintains so much disparity in our society. If you look at any major social issue, it is this privilege of beliefs that impedes our progress. Homosexuality is immoral, there are viable alternatives to evolution, “life” starts at conception, climate change is a hoax, President Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim, and so on. All of these ideas persist because of what evolutionary psychologist Hank Davis calls, “Caveman Logic.” In the introduction of his so-titled book, he writes:

Yes, it’s true that we can fit more songs than ever on an iPod and we regularly expand the boundaries of medical knowledge. But we also show the sophistication of a Neanderthal in evaluating fragmentary evidence and are still prone to reaching conclusions about ghosts, “signs,” and magical powers in the world around us. We can design and repair rocket engines, but most humans are unable to confine that primitive part of their minds to the back burner. Caveman Logic continues to inform the most personal side of our belief systems.

I would argue that it is necessary for believers to feel “disrespected” and “offended” if we are to move forward as a society. Honestly, there is no inherent disrespect or offense in a challenge to beliefs; those are constructions of believers’ reactions. While we might think of such reactions as emotionally painful, we need to see them for what they are: cognitive dissonance. Rather than recoil and try to soothe their feelings, we should persist in helping them find coherence with new ideas. Religion should no longer be an excuse for bad ideas.

All that being said, I think the relevant example today seems that much more silly. None of those controversial issues are on the table. A billboard in New Zealand was vandalized hours after it was put up because people were so upset about this provocative message:

That’s right. People are upset because of a challenge to the virgin birth of Jesus. And what’s even better is that a church put this up (not one of those vicious atheist groups). St Matthew-in-the-City explains its decision:

It is intended to challenge stereotypes about the way that Jesus was conceived and get people talking about the Christmas story.

Hooray for those progressive Christians. They sound more like secular humanists who just use Jesus as a model. But boy are they getting attention, both on Huffington Post and in The Telegraph (and subsequently on Towleroad and Friendly Atheist; hat tips my friends)! And why all the attention? Simply because Christians are upset:

Among leading critics was Lyndsay Freer, a spokesman for the Catholic Church, who said: “This is disrespectful and offensive to all Christians.

“It’s flying in the face of our 2,000-year-old beliefs,” she said.

And guess what, Ms. Freer (anyone else think it funny the Catholic spokesman is a woman)? That’s the point. Now, how can we help you reconcile the fact your 2,000-year-old beliefs are misguided and out-of-touch with reality?

This study has the potential to be revolutionary. It certainly underscores the intention behind why I write this blog: to dismantle the privilege religion has over American society. This article is amazingly comprehensive and yet concise in its demolition of religious privilege. Having little concern for arguments over the existence of God, the study focuses on the effects of religiosity in society and implications about the nature of religious belief in humanity. The results are damning for the United States, which is far more religious than any of its fellow 1st-world countries.

It is important to note that this study has vital implications for the fate of our economy, our healthcare system, and our social policies.

If these issues are of any interest to you, I highly recommend reading the full article. (The PDF can be found at the link above; if it is no longer accessible there, please feel free to email me and I can share the file with you that way.) Knowing that many will not take that time, I want to offer a breakdown of what this study found. Below, I’ll parse out the abstract so it’s easier to follow, share some excerpts (with emphasis added for readability), and also share some of the interesting diagrams found in the study.

The Abstract

Here is a point-by-point extrapolation of the study’s abstract to help you understand the implications of the study.

Better understanding the nature, origin and popularity of varying levels of popular religion versus secularism, and their impact upon socioeconomic conditions and vice versa, requires a cross national comparison of the competing factors in populations where opinions are freely chosen. Utilizing 25 indicators, the uniquely extensive Successful Societies Scale reveals that population diversity and immigration correlate weakly with 1st world socioeconomic conditions…

There is common belief among United States conservatives that diversity is a weakness and that immigration hurts our economy. Among many other findings, this study offers that population diversity and immigration are “too weak to be primary causes of the divergence in 1st world conditions” (p. 23). In other words, the United States’ low ranking on the Successful Societies Scale, or SSS (which uses “over two dozen indicators to assess and compare societal and economic indicators in the 1st world” [p.3]), cannot be blamed on its diversity or immigration. Read more discussion on this matter on p. 23.

…and high levels of income disparity, popular religiosity as measured by differing levels of beleif and activity, and rejection of evolutionary science correlate strongly negatively with improving conditions.

Take a moment and let that sink in. I’ll paraphrase it, in case that helps. Improving socioeconomic conditions are held back when there is financial inequality, religious privilege, and a denial of evolutionary science. (Needless to say, the United States features interestingly in this study as an outlier.)

The historically unprecedented socioeconomic security that results from low levels of progressive government policies appear to suppress popular religiosity and creationist opinion…

So, when progressive government policy helps foster a society where citizens feel safe and comfortable, those citizens are more likely to let go of religion.

…conservative religious ideology apparently contributes to societal dysfunction…

That’s right. There is a correlation between conservative religious ideology and societal dysfunction.

…and religious prosociality and charity are less effective at improving societal conditions than are secular government programs.

So all those “faith-based initiatives” that President Bush supported (and that President Obama continues to support) tend to actually be less effective than government run programs.  More on this point in the excerpts below.

The antagonistic relationship between better socioeconomic conditions and intense popular faith may prevent the existence of nations that combine the two factors.

The United States is perhaps a telling example of how popular faith has held back socioeconomic development, while many of our peer nations show how their better conditions lead to the abandonment of popular faith. This begs the question of whether our “great nation” can move forward (particularly in this time of economic crisis) if we still “cling to guns and religion” (Obama wasn’t wrong) the way that we do.

The nonuniversality of strong religious devotion, and the ease with [which] large populations abandon serious theism when conditions are sufficiently benign, refute hypotheses that religious belief and practice are the normal, deeply set human mental state, whether they are superficial or natural in nature.

There are many who believe that humans are designed or have evolved to believe in supernatural forces. The results of this study suggest that religion is not something ingrained, but in fact a survival mechanism:

Instead popular religion is usually a superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety produced by sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environments. Popular nontheism is a similarly casual response to superior conditions.

I think that is so revelatory. The evidence shows that religion is a self-dependent spiral. Religion holds back socioeconomic development and weak socioeconomic development helps maintain religion. With that in mind, it’s easy to see why “conservative” and “religious” are interchangeable in American society and politics. Religious groups have to be conservative to maintain their control over society.

I don’t know about you, but I find this all to be extremely validating as an atheist and compelling as a social scientist. (Relating this to “spirituality” in higher education will be a who separate post, I expect.)

Excerpts – Implications for US Policies

I don’t think I could fairly capture everything in this study in a blog post, but there are a few passages I found that I think are worth highlighting. The first I want to share is a paragraph from page 24:

Among the prosperous democracies all but the U.S. have adopted most or all of a set of pragmatic progressive governmental policies that have elevated these nations’ societal efficiency, success and security while reducing personal levels of stress and anxiety. These include reduced socioeconomic disparity and competition via targeted tax and welfare strategies, handgun control, anti-corporal punishment and anti-bullying policies, protection for women in abusive relationships, intensive sex education that emphasizes condom use, rehabilitative incarceration, increased leisure time that can be dedicated to family needs, and perhaps most importantly job security and universal health care that make it difficult for ordinary citizens to suffer catastrophic financial failure. Social ills are correspondingly suppressed. As a member of the 1st world the U.S. is an anomalous outlier not only in its religiosity, but in social economic and political policies as well. Provided with comparatively low levels of government support and protection in favor of less restrained capitalism, members of the middle class are at serious risk of financial and personal ruin if they lose their job or private health insurance; around a million go bankrupt in a year, about half due in part to often overwhelming medical bills. The need to acquire wealth as a protective buffer encourages an intense competitive race to the top, which contributes to income inequality. The latter leaves a large cohort mired in poverty. Levels of societal pathology are correspondingly high. The evidence indicates that the modulation of capitalism via progressive policies is producing superior overall national circumstances compared to the more laissez-faire capitalism favored in the U.S.

As you might expect, the article goes on to draw connections to these patterns with religiosity, not unlike the connections regularly drawn in this blog. But that paragraph alone sums up the United States well, and pretty fairly, I might add. We hold ourselves back. I am often accused by some  of only being passionate about atheism because of LGBT issues. This is really not the case. Look at all those issues listed up there affected by religiosity. Consider how our very quality of life is impacted. While I have a separate passion just for LGBT issues, my antitheism is representative of the greater gamut of implications reflected by this study.

Excerpts – The Ineffectiveness of Faith-Based Initiatives and Anti-Atheist Bigotry

The abstract touched on the notion that religious prosociality is actually less effective than government programming (despite prevalent contrary mythology here in the states). The study goes into more detail about how and why this occurs and the implications here in the U.S. (p. 26-27):

The lack of theistic membership appears to be detrimental in a faith-based culture because religious institutions provide socioeconomic benefits not available outside the association [citations]. Individuals frequently profit from being members of one or more connected groups [citations]; the last two citations show that salutary group activities can be as simple as regular family dinners. Such social “clubs” can be private or governmental, religious or secular – in other words Putman’s “social capital” is more efficacious than “spiritual capital.” This is particularly true in a nation like the United States where government support systems are relatively weak in favor of private alternatives; belonging to religious “clubs” can provide benefits not available to those who are unable (often due to cost) or unwilling to join secular private cooperatives. In the secular democracies people belong to critical support groups, including the health care club, simply by being citizens, boosting overall general societal health to higher levels. Thus theistic Americans tend to be happier than nonreligious citizens, but the populations of secular western nations are about as happy as and healthier than the citizens of more religious America. The means by which citizens of irreligious democracies are coping without the aid of faith-based clubs has received little research attention.

It’s all about access. As the previous excerpt addressed, the idea of unrestrained capitalism and minimal government intervention allows for greater disparities in access. This is only exacerbated by the privilege of membership in the organizations (often religious) responsible for compensating for the lack of governmental support. The control this gives religious groups can, at times, be insurmountable. Nothing exemplifies this control more than the recent Manhattan Declaration, paired with the Catholic Church’s threatening ultimatum to pull out of Washington, DC charity work if same-sex marriage is legalized.

The study goes on to analyze the effects of anti-atheist bigotry (p. 27):

The high level of ill will held and discrimination practiced against nontheists by most Americans [citations] is another potential explanatory factor for their relatively poor status vis-à-vis more religious citizens. If this (also) under researched possibility is correct, then the Christian majority is contributing to the societal difficulties associated with nontheism that Christian advocates offer as evidence of the social inferiority of nontheism. In more secular advanced nations nonbelievers presumably flourish because they are much more numerous, and are more in control of the cultural and political power structures, to the degree that they do not suffer from serious intolerance.

I think that is an absolutely brilliant observation, with many parallels to other social justice precedents. How often has the minority group been blamed for not advocating enough for themselves? We saw it just recently when the census official said, “gay leaders need to keep advocating if they want to be recognized.” You can just see the argument playing out in their heads… We condemn nonbelievers, we don’t want to be condemned, so we’ll continue to condemn nonbelievers. Of course, if they stopped condemning nonbelievers, nonbelievers would not be condemned by anybody. Oh, logic is fun.

Excerpts – Psychological Roots of Religion?

I wanted to provide one more excerpt, this one to expand on the abstract’s claim that religion is a “superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping.” Rather than intellectually challenging beliefs directly (a la Dawkins and Hitchens) or examining the brain’s biochemical reactions to “spirituality,” this challenges religious belief and behavior on a broader, more inductive evolutionary scale (p. 27-28):

If deep religious devotion is either genetically programmed to the same extent as language or materialism, or the result of a supernatural connection with an intelligent creator entity, then religious belief and practice should remain similarly universal in all populations regardless of the environmental conditions they dwell in, unless an atheistic authoritarian government suppresses mass religiosity. Instead, the ease and speed with which hundreds of millions of westerners have voluntarily abandoned dedicated piety in recent decades indicates that religiosity is a standard, albeit not unanimous, psychological response to sufficiently dysfunctional environmental circumstances as outlined above, and is superficial enough to be readily abandoned when conditions improve to the required degree. This sociological based conclusion is in accord with, and potentially supported by, the similar inference arrived at by Inzlicht et al. (2009) based on examination of neurological activity associated with religiosity. Equally important to understanding the origin of opinion on religious matters is that popular democratic nonreligiosity is similarly casual and cursory in most nontheists (as observed by Zuckerman, 2008).

In view of the reduced levels of religiosity consistently extant in populations that enjoy secure middle class lives, it can be postulated that if socioeconomic conditions had been similarly benign since humans first appeared it is unlikely that religion would have developed to nearly the degree seen in actual human history, and atheism would have been much more widespread and possibly ubiquitous since the beginning. Materialism and language in contrast would still be omipresent. Ergo, strong religiosity has all the signs of being a natural invention of human minds in response to a defective habitat, and is neither supernatural, nor genetically preprogrammed to the same extent as are more deeply set language and material desire. Because spirituality is a relatively optional attribute more comparable to writing which is not fundamental to the human condition, it is not consistently more difficult for humans to be spiritual than nontheistic (partly contra Boyer, 2008), under certain environmental conditions the opposite can be true.

The article goes on to describe the many ways the mass loss of 1st world theism contradicts potential primary causes of popular religious devotion and offers a explanation of how humans evolved a powerful institution of religion. It is incredibly interesting reading that I encourage you to explore further!

Country-Comparison Diagrams

The study includes many charts comparing the different countries and how they rank in terms of religiosity and their score on the Successful Societies Scale (which considers, among other things, homicides, incarceration, suicides, mortality, life expectancy, sexually transmitted diseases, teenage births and abortions, relationships, drug use, and various aspects of the economy). Consult the full study to see all the various charts.

Below, I’ll close by showing how the charts that compare the prevalence of specific religious populations and practices to the countries’ SSS score. The first image shows the countries represented in the study (the capital letter is how they are represented on the chart). You’ll note that the United States is significantly lower on the SSS scale than all the other countries, and its religiosity reflects that. (Click on the images to make them bigger.)

Concluding Thoughts

I think there is so much to be said about this study. I hope, at the very least, that this post has helped you better understand the content of the study (and hopefully inspired you to read more of it). As I’ve alluded throughout the post, I think this study has profound implications for society, politics, economics, healthcare, and also the further study of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and certainly how we address “spirituality” in student affairs in higher education. I’m sure I’ll be referring back to this study often in future posts.

Doesn’t learning feel great??

Before I get into too much detail, let’s do a little thought experiment. What would sex look like if we could start society over with a clean slate (a la The Sims) with what we know now? Well, we know that sex is enjoyable and everyone is capable of it, so I think we could start by seeing it in a very positive light. Then, we’d talk about thing like consent to ensure people have ownership of their own bodies and to discourage things like rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. We know that there are possible consequences like unwanted pregnancies and STIs, so we’d probably promote using protection and frown upon having a crazy number of anonymous sexual partners. We’d recognize the deep level of emotional connection that is possible with sex and its ability to serve as a foundation for a family, so some level of commitment (though not necessarily monogamy) would be valued. And we’d also recognize that sexual relationships can be disruptive—in the workplace, for example—so there might be a certain extent to which we’d value a certain level of discretion and privacy. But I think that’d be that.

So why is sex so taboo in society? The only answer I can see is religion. I think Ian McKellen said it best in his recent interview:

Why should I take the judgment of a declared celibate about my sexual needs? He’s basing his judgment on laws that would fit life in the Bronze Age. So if I’m lost to God, organized religion is to blame.

For hundreds of years, the most holy men in society were those who were committed to celibacy. Sex had this entirely spiritual meaning that really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in a secular light. And let’s not forget that women had like no rights. They were property. Our sexual values were totally set off-course by the bizarre values of the Church, and those archaic values persist in modern America.

Take a look at some stories that I’ve written about here. Parents in Illinois protested their children reading about sexual behavior in animals in a sophomore honors class (11/3/09). Newsweek wrote recently about the future of abstinence-only sex ed, conceding, of course, that it doesn’t work (10/27/09). A study found that the most religious states have the highest teen birth rates (9/17/09). The AFA called “safe sex” a mythical message that deprives American teens of their “sexual innocence” (9/10/09). They also published a book called Truth For Youth that promotes “sexual purity” (8/28/09). And let’s not forget that Proposition 8 and Question 1 both passed because of intimidating lies about “teaching homosexuality” in our schools (11/4/09).

What are “sexual innocence” and “sexual purity” except rhetoric that paints sex as something to feel guilty and dirty about? There is nothing foul about sex (it’s pretty great, actually), and the only guilt comes from betraying the religious values that discourage any kind of sexual behavior. And this makes people so sensitive about sex that people are totally afraid of learning anything about it at all! And of course we always have to keep private parts censored because even thinking about another person in a sexual way is “unclean.” (It’s obviously impossible to be attracted to somebody or even turned on by them without “coveting” them.) This is all absurd circular reasoning that deprives many young people of the opportunity to truly learn how their own bodies work! It’s not just fear; it’s paranoia that is only driven by commitment to values preached by the church.

And then, when sex does happen, OH THE SHAME! Let’s talk about Carrie Prejean again for a little. Do we really care that she had some nude photos taken or that she made a few sex tapes (eight) for her boyfriend? I don’t think so. I mean, we live in an age where every computer and phone comes with a camera; I’m sure there are PLENTY of people out there who have taken photos or made videos intended for private viewing only. It’s not a shameful thing to do; it’s just private, so it’s embarrassing if they get out. I honestly don’t think there is anything wrong with anything she did. As my good friend (not really) actor Josh Malina tweeted recently:

Leave Sister Helen Prejean alone! The woman’s done some wonderful work. I say if she wants to diddle herself on camera, she’s earned it.

The scandal comes in when you look at her integrity. See, Prejean has made an icon of herself for preaching hateful conservative sexual values. By promoting these archaic sexual values, she set a standard for herself to meet them. Any hint that she might be a sexual being would be in complete opposition to her rhetoric. If she had been totally open and supportive of the gay community instead of walking this Christian hard line of morality, we probably wouldn’t see this documentation of her sexuality as negative or scandalous. We’d say, “Good for her! It’s probably embarrassing those got out, but she has nothing to be ashamed of!” That is not the case. And as I wrote last week, this happens time and time again with moral conservatives who talk a talk that does not match the walk they walk. (Meghan McCain sees the hypocrisy, but promotes a bit of it herself.)

So what’s the deal with sex? I think sexual liberation is still something we need to fight for. There are some people doing some amazing work at the National Sexual Resource Center to promote sexual literacy:

At NSRC, we focus on a positive, integrated and holistic view of sexuality from a social justice perspective. We believe that every person should have the knowledge, skills and resources to support healthy and pleasurable sexuality—and that these resources should be based on accurate research and facts. We examine how race, gender, culture, ability, faith and age intersect with and shape our sexual beliefs. We know that sexuality education and learning should be lifelong. We call this sexual literacy.

I think it’s admirable work that goes far beyond simple “comprehensive sex education.” We should be able to fully understand and explore our bodies without being told to feel guilty about it. Religion continues to work against this freedom in ways I think terribly damage our society. Until we recognize that there is no reason for fear, guilt, or shame, we cannot attain true sexual literacy, and I think that’s a damn shame.

Advocacy is not easy. To be successful you have to be able to absorb a lot of toxin and still present yourself as strong and confident.

That’s why I have such admiration for my fellow citizen journalists who were honored last night with Courage Awards by NYC’s Anti-Violence Project. Andy Towle, Pam Spaulding, Joe Jervis, and Bil Browning are among the leaders, in my mind, of the queer equality movement. They are the ones who keep us informed, almost up to the minute, of the issues that confront our community, and I couldn’t think of a better title for their honor.

As a relative newbie among their ranks, I know the challenge of the work. I appreciate how taxing it is to watch every hate-crime surveillance video, to read every anti-gay piece of trash the fundamentalist right publishes, or to stay up on election night just to learn of devastating results. I see religious privilege trumping knowledge and denying freedom as people turn a blind eye. We’re often the front line of processing all of this information, and then we turn around and write something we hope our readers will appreciate hearing about, each with our own approach. Whatever we absorb, we have to be strong in how we present it. As an educator, I appreciate this fully, as I often have to serve as a support structure for those who struggle with the news they hear, even as I hurt with them. And we continue to do this, day in and day out.

I can’t speak for others, but some days, it catches up to me. Today’s one of those days where the burden of inequality is just piling up and I don’t feel like I can rip the ream. It’s a very lonely feeling. It’s not just about the anguish of a defeat in Maine or another delay in the New York Senate; it’s feeling sometimes like you’re the only one who cares. Why isn’t everyone as concerned as I am? Why isn’t everyone as upset as I am? How can so many see this continued oppression and so blithely go on about their lives?

The answer of course is that not everybody’s seeing it, not everybody’s feeling it, and not everybody would even understand it if they did. And that’s where I get right back on that horse. I remind myself how much work there is for all of us to do to make a real difference in this world. I have the potential to educate, to raise awareness, to offer my own strength and support, and to hopefully inspire motivation in others to respond to these issues. That is exactly why I do what I do in my life. And it is hard. And there are bad days. And there are worse days. But we continue because we have to. Nothing is gained by giving up, but the fight makes us stronger.

I can’t rip a ream. But as a community, we can work together to overcome any challenge. The challenges keep piling up and the road is tough, but we have each other to keep us motivated. We have hope and we have a very clear vision of the change we want to see in the world. We start ripping up a whole lot of little piles and we’ll be through that ream in no time.

You have to take your breather and get right back into the game. I can’t sit around beating myself up just because the picture isn’t always pretty. Here we go, team. Our struggle continues.

…

A little musical motivation on a day that just feels a little tougher than it ought to:

Levi Kreis – Standing Tall