Imposing an every-22-episodes tradition, Zack and Peterson are back this week to continue the open conversation about religion that began in Ep. 22, Reeking of Faith. This week, the conversation revolves around the idea of truth and knowledge and the motivations for good deeds. The goal of these episodes is to generate discussion, so please leave your thoughts and ideas in the comments or on our Facebook page. We were able to play nice this week, so you all should too. Enjoy!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Go back and listen to Episode 22 – Reeking of Faith

» This week’s possibly-erotic poem: “I Am and I Am Not” by Rumi.

» Sign the petition against the ex-gay therapy iPhone app.

» Read Peterson’s post on “Straight Supremacy.”

» Huffington Post: Congress Considers “In God We Trust”… But Who Is This God?

Okay, I confess.

I’m the one who caused the earthquake in Japan. All the radiation from the nuclear power plant explosions and possible meltdowns? That’ll be my fault too.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP-sSeqPywI

I’m very, very evil. All we atheists are. I’m going to go be evil right now… by taking a shower. That’s right: an atheist cleansing in water. And that water is going to go back out into the world, and anyone who comes in contact with it is going to absorb my atheism and be tainted by my evil. (And thanks to homeopathy, the more my atheist cooties get diluted, the more potent they’ll become.)

You know what, tamtampamela? Keep on praying. In fact, spend every waking hour just cloistered away in prayer. I think the more time you spend praying and not communicating with any real people or having any real interaction the world, the better off we’ll all be. And you just keep on being joyful about people dying by God’s wrath like a good Christian should be.

Zack and Peterson are back in person with each other, but it might be the last time for a while, as Zack has accepted a job in the DC area! But don’t worry, the podcast isn’t going anywhere! This week we take a trip to Harding University in Arkansas, Flour Bluff School District in Texas, and even Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas! The topic? Free speech and queer identities in education. Take a listen to learn all the latest happenings about how queer people are being erased!

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» This week’s erotic poem: Episode of Hands by Hart Crane.

» Read the Harding University Queer Press, follow them on Twitter, Like them on Facebook, and watch the President’s scathing speech.

» Learn more about the decision to prevent the GSA in Corpus Christi.

» Zack’s response to the Westboro SCOTUS decision and Bill O’Reilley’s discussion with Megyn Kelly.

» Learn more about the “Be Happy, Not Gay” t-shirt controversy.

» OUTspoken 2011

» True Colors 2011

» Adelina Anthony

» Jade Esteban Estrada

I still feel that my post, “I Don’t Want You To Pray For Me,” is one of the most important posts I’ve written. I refer people back to it often and often reread it myself. Folks regularly criticize prayer’s ineffectiveness, but I take the argument a step further and call it selfish (i.e. its first priority is self-reinforcement of beliefs). This argument is compelling because it’s much harder to debate and is actually proven further true by any attempt to argue the effectiveness of prayer. In a comment left today, “Sister Denise” demonstrates this perfectly.

By the way, why don’t these evangelical commenters ever know how to use multiple paragraphs?

Wow…this is an OLD interesting talk, but I just wanted to say…PRAYER does work, but for only those that TRULY walk righteously. It is VERY FEW, but it is done. When you are in RIGHT standing, meaning, a sin free (unwicked) life you will have POWER to pray and see someone healed, lame walk and blind see. But the weakness and wickedness of human beings destroys their own ability to live as God intended. God the creater and Jesus is ONE, and Jesus say if you except Him and keep HIS doing/saying/commandment like He did God the Father/Creator…the SAME power and MORE you could have. Humans and their doubts and DISOBEDIENCE keep that POWER from working in them so the world don’t see nor comprehend the TRUE POWER OF GOD. My brother, whether you want me to or not….God COMMANDED me to pray for you as I pray for myself….I WILL OBEY, because I know the POWER.

In Love, Sister Denise

That’s a whole lot of caps lock. I wondered at first if it was a secret code.

What’s obviously most annoying about comments like these is that the comment does not actually address any of the arguments I make in my post. Denise’s goal was not a dialogue, but a soliloquy. This, alone, confirms my argument about selfishness, in that she is writing only to reinforce her own beliefs (and, I’m assuming, to perpetuate them).

Let’s see how it plays out.

PRAYER does work, but for only those that TRULY walk righteously. It is VERY FEW, but it is done. When you are in RIGHT standing, meaning, a sin free (unwicked) life you will have POWER to pray and see someone healed, lame walk and blind see. But the weakness and wickedness of human beings destroys their own ability to live as God intended.

This first chunk is committed to disparaging. She’s calling prayer-deniers naive. She’s calling the life I live wicked. And, like most evangelism, there’s some fear-mongering too.

Frankly, if God’s omnipotent, he should be able to make me live however he intends. And if I’m to be punished for exercising the free choice he gave me, then he’s selfish and cruel. Why would I want to ask him for anything? If what Sister Denise says here (“in love”) is true, then God’s an asshole.

God the creater and Jesus is ONE, and Jesus say if you except Him and keep HIS doing/saying/commandment like He did God the Father/Creator…the SAME power and MORE you could have. Humans and their doubts and DISOBEDIENCE keep that POWER from working in them so the world don’t see nor comprehend the TRUE POWER OF GOD.

Except him? No. I make no exceptions in my nonbelief.

Grammar and spelling errors aside, this still makes no sense. It sounds like she’s tempting me with power. That doesn’t sound very virtuous. It sounds like she wants the power too. Maybe she thinks she already has it? I would not sacrifice my basic language skills for this supposed power—I wonder if that’s the deal she made.

My brother, whether you want me to or not….God COMMANDED me to pray for you as I pray for myself….I WILL OBEY, because I know the POWER.

In Love, Sister Denise

So yeah, she cares more about her own belief in God than my personal wishes. She knows the POWER.

Great.

Now, there’s some woman out there who’s going to waste a couple minutes a day to use me as the target for reinforcing her own belief in the power of prayer.

I feel so affirmed.

Thanks for actually reading my post and thinking about what I had to say, Denise. I hope you’re pleased I returned the favor.

[The Friday Fundamentalist Farce File is a week's worth of "news" clippings from conservative hubs like WorldNetDaily and the American Family Association's OneNewsNow. Millions of Americans absorb these messages as gospel truth—literally—on a daily basis.]

In case the comments of Indiana’s Ryan McCann were not grating enough, here is a week’s worth of birthers, CPAC, racism, anti-atheism, and complaints about the gays destroying society. Enjoy!

2/12/11 -- California wants lesbians as mandatory ‘role’ models

Don’t worry, those dirty homosexuals are still the scariest thing around. As fun as it is to have that kind of intimidating power, I’d trade it in an instant to be treated as a respectable human being.

California Sen. Mark Leno wants LGBT history included “accurately and fairly” in California’s text books. Here’s how he sees it:

Our collective silence on this issue perpetuates negative stereotypes of LGBT people and leads to increased bullying of young people. We can’t simultaneously tell youth that it’s OK to be yourself and live an honest, open life when we aren’t even teaching students about historical LGBT figures or the LGBT equal rights movement.

WorldNetDaily, on the other hand, thinks this is about role models, words they introduced to the discussion themselves. Amazingly, you can barely distinguish their response to this from the Briggs Initiative 30 years ago.

The Democrat state legislators pushing this radical bill want to recruit boys and girls to support the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, personally and publicly. They want them to become ‘LGBTIQ’ activists [and] help trample religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, business-owner rights, private property rights, the Boy Scouts, and everything else you hold dear.

Yep, recruit.

Children will be enticed into political activism in support of everything pushed by ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning’ political groups, as the bill requires ‘particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.

See what they did there? They took “role in society” and made it “role models.” Those sneaky little devils.

By the way… are there questioning political groups? As soon as they figured anything out they’d have to disband.

2/13/11 -- Despite egging on by NBC, Boehner won’t slam birthers

These birthers are pretty insecure. Even though House Speaker Boehner is not a birther, WorldNetDaily is still proud of the fact he didn’t condemn them. He’s so sweet. Said Boehner:

It’s not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me. The president says he’s a Christian. I accept him at his word.

Also, Majority Leader Eric Cantor said last month that it’s not nice to call birthers “crazy.” Isn’t he a peach?

Honestly, I don’t know if I have a long-form birth certificate, either. I’ll worry about that ten years from now when I’m eligible to run for President.

2/14/11 -- ‘Gay conservative’ is oxymoron

You might think, at first glance, I’m going to agree with Star Parker. But actually, when I wrote about GOProud last September, I said it’s not hypocritical.

Star normally goes to CPAC, but this year she joined the boycott because GOProud was there. After spouting a predictable narrative about her conversion to the Right, she decides that “‘Gay’ is everything that ‘conservative’ is not.”

Basically, she wastes 637 words to say that being gay is a sin, without actually using the words, “Christian,” “sin,” or “abomination.”

I included it just in case you wanted to follow the whole CPAC/GOProud nonsense. I have nothing else to say about it.

2/15/11 -- Bryan Fischer: Pocahontas shows what could have been

Good old Bryan Fischer. Just in case you think he says all the vile nonsense he says just for media attention, he made it quite clear this week that he means every word he says. That’s what makes this Pocahontas blog post of his even more hilarious.

In this post (which is a hilarious read if you forget for a minute that he’s serious), Fischer tells his own account of the Pocahontas story, celebrating her support of the colonists and baptism to Christianity.

Basically, he thinks things would have gone a whole lot better if more Native Americans had just followed in her example! You just have to read this.

It’s arresting to think of how different the history of the American settlement and expansion could have been if the other indigenous peoples had followed Pocahontas’s example. She not only recognized the superiority of the God whom the colonists worshipped over the gods of her native people, she recognized the superiority (not the perfection) of their culture and adopted its patterns and language as her own.

In other words, she both converted and assimilated. She became both a Christian and an American (technically, of course, an Englishman). She melded into European and Christian civilization and made her identity as a Christian and an Englishman her primary identity. She was the first manifestation of what became our national slogan, “E Pluribus Unum,” “Out of many, one.”

Had the other indigenous people followed her example, their assimilation into what became America could have been seamless and bloodless. Sadly, it was not to be.

You know, if they just hadn’t tried to hold on to their own culture, we wouldn’t have had to slaughter them all!

I also love the part how she wasn’t an American until she became an Englishman.

Just a reminder: Bryan Fischer is the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association. I know nothing says family values to me like assimilation. Just ask the Borg!

2/16/11 -- Atheists blinded to ‘big picture’

Since OneNewsNow refused to link to the video the whole article is about, I will open with it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM5n8jESUEk

There’s not much substance to this article, but it’s delightfully ironic.

First, Phil Burress doesn’t seem to understand why a group of people would try to convince others about what they believe.

But then, Burress admits to being Suzie!

Burress explains that suffering and God’s role in it are often misunderstood. God, he argues, cannot be held responsible for the choices and actions of humanity.

“[Those who don't believe in God] can see the harm and they can see the hurt, but they can’t see the big picture,” says Burress.

Pssst… I think you missed the point, Phil.

2/17/11 -- School yanks religious discrimination definition

This is a story about Christians not understanding Christian privilege. It seems that UC Davis has offered to revise its policy, but I’m kind of disappointed they caved.

Their language was about how “religious/spiritual discrimination” is “the loss of power and privilege to those who do not practice the dominant culture’s religion.” That’s actually true. But it would be true in any space, so it would seem to me it would protect everyone at all times.

But no, Christians are the victims, of course. And the hypothetical examples they use are bogus, of course. Being kicked out of class by an atheist professor who doesn’t like you? I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be relying on a community principle to fight that.

Given that, as far as I can tell, these principles of community had no enforcement on campus, I think it’s preposterous that the Alliance Defense Fund had to get involved. They will pick any fight. Here’s a laugh line, though:

French goes on to note that evangelical Christians are usually the ones who face discrimination, as his group deals with a number of those cases on a regular basis.

Umm.. the ADF is an evangelical Christian legal fund; I’m pretty sure all of their cases are evangelical Christians. I think David French’s perspective is just a bit skewed.

Oh! And we could not leave out this insightful survey:

2/18/11 -- Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look / Americans’ questions about Obama eligibility surge / Karl Rove: Birther rumors discredit GOP / Palin distances herself from ‘birthers’ / Rep. Jeff Flake: ‘Obama born in the U.S.’

Every single headline on WorldNetDaily is a story about whether our President is an American citizen. They even link to the stories of people who disagree, just because they’re glad it’s being talked about.

…just in case you weren’t sure conservatives are attention whores.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Z: Ummm…. hi?

P: Yes, it’s me, Pope Benedict.

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

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

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

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

Z: Not likely.

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

Z: What are you even talking about?

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

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

P: Actually, it will be in Paris.

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

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

Z: *sigh* Ah, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Z: So where does the dialogue come in?

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

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

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

Z: That’s a no.

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

Z: This is like inviting vegetarians to a slaughterhouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

P: Like what?

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

P: Nazism was not very Christian behavior—

Z: You were a member of the Hitler youth.

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

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

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

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

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

Z: Do you like atheists?

P: Not really.

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

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

Z: I’m flattered.

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

Z: You paying?

P: Sorry, times are tight.

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

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

Z: Too late.

THE END.

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

(Whoops.)

[The Friday Fundamentalist Farce File is a week's worth of "news" clippings from conservative hubs like WorldNetDaily and the American Family Association's OneNewsNow. Millions of Americans absorb these messages as gospel truth—literally—on a daily basis.]

1/22/11 – Kids put on ‘hate crimes’ list for schoolyard taunts

Great Britain decided it was a good idea to keep track of racist and homophobic incidents that occur at schools. Doing so gives the government a sense of how prevalent such incidents are and to make sure that schools are actually addressing bullying as they are expected to. Of course, WND thinks this is a problem.

Following last year’s publicized case of 10-year-old Peter Drury – who was added to his school’s hate register for calling his friend “gay boy” – Dr. Michele Elliott of the charity Kidscape told the Mail, “Children are being criminalized and singled out here from a very early age when they don’t know what they’re doing.”

“It must be explained that [this behavior] is wrong,” added Margaret Morrissey, founder of the campaign group Parents Outloud. “But to keep a register that will haunt them for years to come is going far too far and is against all rights.”

Drury’s mother told the paper of her son, “He doesn’t even understand about the birds and the bees, so how can he be homophobic?”

Oh, Mrs. Drury, let me count the ways.

Here’s a quick lesson how to be productive: Identify a problem. Address the problem. Assess whether the solution has successfully addressed the problem. Continue developing solutions to address the problem. If you don’t continue to identity and assess the problem, the problem will surely persist.

Of course, the real issue here is not that anybody thinks the actual reporting is a problem. They don’t think that there’s really anything wrong at all, and they don’t like it being called out:

Adrian Hart, the report’s author, told the Mail, “I feel that childhood itself is under attack. It’s absolutely the case that these policies misunderstand children quite profoundly.

“Racist incident reporting generates the illusion of a problem with racism in Britain’s schools by trawling the everyday world of playground banter, teasing, childish insults – the sort of things that every teacher knows happens out there in the playground,” Hart said.

Get it? Saying racist stuff to people isn’t really racism, because children just don’t understand what they’re saying! Just let it go.

Or how about no.

1/23/11 – Genetically selecting ‘gay’ embryos?

Feel like your strategies for demonizing those dirty gays are running stale? Reboot them by making up the most absurd shit you can think of and demonize them for things they haven’t even done yet!

This article is all about how same-sex couples in the future will use “procreative liberty” to abort any babies that aren’t genetically proven to be gay like they are.

What’s great about this article is that it concedes all the legal turf conservative groups usually hold. The couple will be married and have a kid. It’s inevitable. But apparently, gays are eager to abort heterosexual babies.

I’m not going to lie, I’m a whole lot more worried about heterosexual couples trying to prevent a gay child from being born than the other way around.

1/24/11 – Gov. ran ‘head-on into political correctness’

I wrote last week about how Alabama’s new governor made it quite clear that he wasn’t interested in representing non-Christians. How did OneNewsNow spin the story to make him look like the victim?

Dr. Al Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that the governor didn’t say anything wrong. Any evangelical would understand it! Duh!

Bentley was “attempting to build bridges,” explains the seminary president. “His first statement was a very comprehensive statement of the unity of all believers in Christ — it is in Christ, due to the adoption that is ours in Christ, that we are brothers and sisters together.”

You see, the problem isn’t anything Gov. Bentley said. The problem is just that damn political correctness got in the way. If only people stopped getting so offended, it wouldn’t be a problem.

“[His remark] ran into a head-on collision with political correctness and with a secular culture that doesn’t even understand the terms in which the governor was speaking,” he says. “The governor is an experienced Sunday school teacher; he knows how to speak as a Christian to Christians — and I’m sure this was a rather bitter lesson in learning that the secular world doesn’t always hear things the same way.”

The only reason non-Christians thought his remarks were inappropriate is because they’re not Christian. It makes perfect sense!

1/25/11 – Hoping Christian politicians ‘will be found faithful’

This Al Mohler fellow really has nothing better to do than offer talking points to OneNewsNow (or maybe article writer Russ Jones just doesn’t know anyone else to call).

On Tuesday, he was going on about the twelve new Southern Baptists in Congress and how he prays they’ll be “faithful,” whatever that means. The language isn’t very subtle that he wants them to “bring the full wealth of conviction… the full resources of the Christian worldview” to the job of governing.

The article points out that 304 members of Congress (57%) hold Protestant beliefs. It also inaccurately points out that “no member of Congress… declares himself an atheist, agnostic, or ‘nothing in particular.” Apparently they’ve never heard of Representative Pete Stark.

1/26/11 – Planned Parenthood’s troubling ‘philosophy’

This isn’t a news story. It’s just a mom in Tennessee complaining that Planned Parenthood is actually teaching her kid about sex.

How do you teach sex without teaching how to have sex? And encouraging sex? What does that even mean?

Anything to keep people afraid of Planned Parenthood; they’re turning all of our young people into whores.

1/27/11 – Students vouch for Bible course’s benefits

It’s okay to teach the Bible in a public school if all the students say it’s great!

I actually have mixed feelings about this. I think studying the Bible as literature is worthwhile, particularly if you read all of the really dark stories that don’t come up often in Church, and not just the pretty ones. Studying literature means being critical and considering all the parts, after all.

But what the Chino Valley Unified School District is doing seems inappropriate. Using the literature course as a cover, they seem to be using the course to teach Christianity as well. The Board president is not so subtle about it.

Board president James Na, who envisioned the course, says that he was “highly impressed” by students and board members who voiced their support of the Bible course in the community’s classrooms. He is convinced that young people need the Word of God to direct their lives.

“And these young people should be not only taught but nurtured to be our future face of this nation, with understanding of our foundation as a Christian nation,” he comments.

Na also mentioned how the class discusses how the Bible relates to American historical heritage. Sounds more like a Texas State Board of Education “history” class than a literature class.  We should be highly dubious.

1/28/11 – Debt-limit vote ‘opportunity’ for House Repubs

Just when you thought they couldn’t get any crazier (we are talking about birther central here), WorldNetDaily showed today just how off the deep end they really are.

They are organizing a campaign to urge Republicans to oppose raising the debt ceiling. By threatening to vote “no,” they can force the Democrats to cut the budget in an historic way.

What Joseph Farah doesn’t point out is that if the debt ceiling is not raised by that particular deadline, the entire U.S. government will shut down (i.e. no salaries for federal employees until the problem is fixed), which could also spark financial disaster the world over.

But hey, destroying the world economy is a good plan if it means the Republicans get a little more power over the government, right? Priorities, priorities.

I think any plan that involves these names should be particularly avoided:

Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., are already on record as opposing an increase in the debt limit. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., has also advocated the plan.

Oh, Farah also said that Obama and the Democrats “keep bailing out the wealthy.” I’m sure all the blue-collar workers whose jobs and pensions were saved by the bailouts feel exactly the same way.

Feel free to go and sign the petition. It’s not Faustian at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And who says “daddy”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are PFOX families?

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

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

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

Aren’t some people born gay?

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkB8isr3bZQ

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

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

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

Let’s look at the fetus first.

Gus, The Little Jelly Fetus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender Policing and Sex “Education” Chastity Policing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about masturbation, Christine O’Donnell asks?

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

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

Is homosexuality a sin?

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

Hey! That’s true! Alright! Oh wait…

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

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

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

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

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

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

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

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

Right, because women are insecure!

She should also order first, and you should pay.

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong, wrong wrong. Such horrible lies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Halloween!

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life wanted to know how much Americans know about religion and who knows what. Sampling 3, 412 people with 32 questions, they found results that in some ways are not at all surprising, but in some ways are.

Atheists, unsurprisingly, scored the highest. I shouldn’t generalize (given there is no research on atheist identity development, there is little alternative), but it would seem to me the reason a lot of atheists are atheists is because they know a lot about religion. The more you know, the more it doesn’t make sense.

I found it interesting that Jews scored so high, but I wonder how many of those Jews are actually practicing Jews? Judaism is as much a cultural identifier as a religious one. There’s no evidence to speculate, but it seems a worthwhile question to investigate.

I was not surprised that Mormons also scored relatively high, because it makes sense. They spend so much time preparing for and embarking on missionary work that I’m sure they have to prepare themselves to respond to what non-Mormon Christians and other religions might say in response to their evangelism. Just like atheists see how nonsensical other religions can be so they abandon them, perhaps Mormons see how nonsensical other religions can be as some sort of strange cognitive reinforcement for how bizarre Joseph Smith’s teachings were.

What should also be alarming is the lowest scores. Black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics scored lower than individuals who are apathetic about religion. What does this say about what they are being taught (and not taught) in their communities? Perhaps this finding helps make more sense about the Prop 8 vote. It’s not that people of color were responsible for Prop 8 passing (that’s an awfully untrue myth), but perhaps there is some real concern about how indoctrinated they are or how narrow their understandings are outside their religious communities. Given that those two groups also scored considerably lower on the questions about religion in public life, this makes some sense.

I wish there had been more than just four questions about religion in public life, because I would think that would be the most interesting result. It’s certainly the one with the most implications for our society. Given the prevalence of Christian privilege in our country, it makes sense that Jews and Atheists would make it a priority to know more about religion in public life so they can counter the abuses of that Christian Privilege. I have to say I’m a little disappointed in my fellow atheists that they didn’t know more about Christianity. They need to get on that.

I found this the most interesting though:

This survey and previous Pew Forum studies have shown that Jews and atheists/agnostics have high levels of educational attainment on average, which partially explains their performance on the religious knowledge survey. However, even after controlling for levels of education and other key demographic traits (race, age, gender and region), significant differences in religious knowledge persist among adherents of various faith traditions. Atheists/agnostics, Jews and Mormons still have the highest levels of religious knowledge, followed by evangelical Protestants, then those whose religion is nothing in particular, mainline Protestants and Catholics. Atheists/agnostics and Jews stand out for high levels of knowledge about world religions other than Christianity, though they also score at or above the national average on questions about the Bible and Christianity.

It’s amazing to me that higher education has such an impact on religious knowledge despite the fact that conversations around “spiritual development” generally involve a focus on keeping students on the same track they’re already on. I can only imagine how much bigger the difference would be if all college students were given the opportunity to think critically about their religious beliefs.

I think more atheists should be religious leaders. I mean, they know the most; isn’t that the most important qualification? Maybe then religious followers would learn all the awful things that are in the Bible and how nonsensical their beliefs actually are.

(I haven’t written about atheism too much lately so I’m all snarky and fired up. Apologies to those who are sensitive about their beliefs being challenged. The apology isn’t for challenging, though.)

And my last thought on this study? Everyone should study religion more. It is the framework of our society, you know.

In a world where Google has put every bit of information at our fingertips, some people are now demanding less information when they surf the Internet.

Some Jews, Muslims and Christians are abandoning Yahoo and Google and turning to search engines with results that meet their religious standards.

Now let’s be very specific about the function these search engines serve.

Let’s say you’re a whackadoodle Christian from—I don’t know—let’s say Montana so as not to further negative sentiment about the South. Your worldview is very narrow. Jesus Christ is your savior, and that’s the only thing you need to know in life. You believe with such fervor that to even encounter an idea that is contrary to what you believe would automatically condemn you to Hell. How in the world will you ever navigate the internet and learn about the world outside Montana?

Well, since you’re so ridiculously naive and paranoid that you can’t use a regular search engine and just sort through the results for the answers you seek like a normal person, you might need to rely on a search engine that blocks out all that yucky content that goes against what Jesus taught. (Of course, you’re trusting that the programmer’s interpretation of what Jesus taught matches your own, but you know that the engine was made just for people like you, so any distinctions will be negligible.)

Enter Christian search engines like SeekFind. (Note: Due to the NPR story, SeekFind is currently down because it couldn’t handle the new surge of users. (Subnote: Prayer requests can similarly overload Jesus’s programming.))

Shea Houdmann runs SeekFind, a Colorado Springs-based Christian search engine that only returns results from websites that are consistent with the Bible. He says SeekFind is designed “to promote what we believe to be biblical truth” and excludes sites that don’t meet that standard.

Houdmann says a search on his site would not turn up pornography. If you search “gay marriage,” you would get results that argue against gay marriage. And if you type in “Democratic Party,” your first search result is a site on Marxism.

Yeah, because Jesus never said a word about social change or egalitarianism. Ever.

But Christians aren’t the only ones who need specific search results! There is also Jewogle for Jews and I’mHalal for Muslims.

Now, I’m going to argue here that from what I can see, only I’mHalal actually does what it claims to, in that it searches the whole internet and excludes results that might not be appropriate. Both SeekFind and Jewogle seem to operate by searching only a limited number of included sites. This means that neither are actually internet search engines. SeekFind kept sending me to weird little Christianist sites that claim to have definite answers on worldviews (from a weird first-person perspective) and sites like ApologeticsPress and ChristianAnswers. You’d think a search for “ketchup” would take you to Heinz.com, but you’d be wrong. And Jewogle is more like a Wikipedia for Jews.

I’m proud to say that I’mHalal will actually pick up ZackFord Blogs in a search result, despite the presence of the words “gay” and “atheist.” Maybe that’ll change, but I’m actually impressed that it actually functions like an internet search engine should. There’s something deceptive about suggesting the others do the same. (It’s not the best journalism here, NPR; you can do better.)

Don’t get me wrong, folks. I certainly understand the challenge of trying to keep kids from finding explicit content. But that’s not what SeekFind accomplishes. In fact, if you’re sending kids to SeekFind, they’re going to find a lot of explicit, hurtful content about their sexuality that is just as damaging as porn, if not viciously moreso. Their science education will also be compromised.

I don’t think the NPR story quite parses out the distinctions:

But not everyone has been supportive of the idea. Some people call it censorship. SeekFind’s Houdmann disagrees.

“In a sense, I guess kind of what SeekFind does is a form of censorship, but I would more describe it as selective inclusion,” he says.

Houdmann’s quote didn’t make sense to me when I heard it on the radio, but it does now that I’ve tried SeekFind. Based on how SeekFind actually works, he’s not wrong in his description, forgiving the oxymoronic way that “selective inclusion” sounds in this context (as if it is anything different than censorship—it is the very definition of censorship).

Some who oppose such search engines argue that allowing people to only access material that they already agree with will lead to an intolerant society. But Gartenberg says he does not see it that way.

“It’s no more censorship than if I find something on television that I find offensive to me and I could change the channel,” he says.

Here is the big distinction, and Gartenberg’s comparison does not work. If I were to Google, Yahoo, or Bing, I would find a lot of results that were not helpful and probably some that were offensive to my own sensitivities. (LOS LINKS!) Like the TV, I could “change the channel” by ignoring those results. But there’s something important about understanding that content exists. It’s about exposure to the world. Religious search engines eliminate all the other channels. There’s no chance for escape; there’s no room for ideas. These are just tools to continue suppressing scientific literacy. (Top SeekFind result for “evolution”? AllAboutCreation.org.)

And let’s not ignore the fact that the Muslim search engine is incredibly more inclusive and uncensored than its Christian alternative. This could be because certain terms have not been tweaked yet, but at face value, it’s an interesting juxtaposition. I don’t think most Americans would expect something Muslim to be more open-minded than something Christian. Food for thought.

NPR seems to think these search engines are here to stay (no thanks to NPR for giving them a wide audience with very uncritical reporting). If all Christians are going to be told that being gay is a sin and Democrats are Marxists, we’re going to have a serious problem on our hands with how people are treated in this country.

Oh wait, we already do.

Zack talked about atheism with Marvin back in Episode 6, and now it’s Peterson’s turn to talk about faith as a Christian and a Quaker. Then, the two delve into the muck in this extended episode! The Zack-Peterson rapport’s gotten particularly spicy! In this exciting discussion, Zack challenges Peterson about faith and Peterson challenges Zack about his (lack of) faith. Of course it goes unresolved… to be continued another day. Share your own thoughts about faith on the Queer and Queerer post or on the Queer and Queerer Facebook page!

Who are Christians?

This drives me crazy, because it makes it hard to blog about Christians. It’s a word that means so many different things to so many people, and for some people, it’s the only word that describes them. In reality, there is nothing I can say to generalize Christians as a group except that they believe Jesus Christ is their savior, and in some cases, even that might not be true.

This makes it very hard to write about Christianity. There are a lot of Christians who say a lot on behalf of Christianity (or some vague sense of Judeo-Christianity), such as Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Rick Warren, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson. Glenn Beck certainly made it quite clear that his 8/28 rally was all about God (and I doubt he meant Allah). I take responsibility from time to time to call these people out (I quickly realized it was foolish to try to cover them all), and then I have to say, “This is what Christian leaders are saying.” There are surely many Christians who do not agree, but these individuals and their groups still unabashedly claim to speak on behalf of (all) Christians.

Catholicism doesn’t have this problem. It’s a specifically defined institution with a very clear hierarchy. And whether all followers buy into it or not, the Catholic Church has very clear specifications for who IS a Catholic and who ISN’T. And given that the Catholic Church is pretty regularly deciding what’s best for other people in a very public and powerful way (or demonizing gays as the scapegoat for all their internal problems), it’s not surprising I end up writing more about them. It becomes all too easy to point at Catholics and say, “Look at what your Church is doing. You realize you’re still supporting that?”

The Mormon Church is similar, but doesn’t face the same challenges. When you’re no longer a Mormon, the good folks at LDS make it quite clear. They’ve been surprisingly quiet since the Prop 8 mess, so there hasn’t been as much to say about them lately. Even when they are in the news, there’s little finger-pointing to be done. Mormons who go against their Church are excommunicated pretty expressly; they very much take accountability for their institution’s actions in ways many Catholics blithely avoid.

But then there are those Christians. There are Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals, Quakers, and Mennonites, to name a few. I’m usually not too interested in what each of those groups do internally, because I see no point in trying to change the nature of individual religions. My goal is just to diminish the obscene privileges they have in society. Given that atheism defines the purview of this blog, I don’t think my time would be well spent arguing whether there is one better way to worship God or another. As a recent example: I feel bad that Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr was rebuked by the Presbyterian Church for presiding over same-sex marriages, but I’m not going to write about it extensively here. While I do care about the visibility of pro-gay messages as an LGBT activist, I’m more concerned here on the blog with the volume of religious voices, regardless of their content. I want to dismantle religious privilege and disempower faith. To chime in regarding an internal religious debate would suggest I think one religious explanation has more intellectual merit than another, when my actual point of view is that they all are equally lacking.

And so I’m left to write about Christians who are trying to control or manipulate the lives of people beyond their Church walls. So often, there is no other moniker to describe who these people are. They are Christians. This summer alone, I’ve written about local Christian organizations trying to evangelize through church camp and VBS (here and here), I wrote about the Christian Legal Society at Hastings School of Law (here), I’ve responded to WorldNetDaily’s Christian evangelism to its followers (here and here), I’ve responded to groups who privilege Christian beliefs about LGBT people over the science like AFTAH (here) and NARTH (here), I’ve responded to Christian counselors who think they know best (here, here, and by the way, the second girl also lost), and I also responded to a Christian evangelist who commented on the blog (here). I could have probably written even more, but Prop 8 and Netroots Nation swayed a lot of my focus toward LGBT activism. Still, I think I called out a lot of “Christians.”

If you, my reader, are a Christian, what should be your take-away? Many might say, “Well, I’m not that kind of Christian.” Great! I’m sure there are a ton of live-and-let-live Christians out there and even some who are very passionate allies of social justice. Unfortunately, there is a divide between the proactive and the reactive. In the United States, those who are proactive have a much louder megaphone, and arguably the most followers. These are the Christians who think it’s their mission to spread their faith and dictate that others abide by it. These are the individuals who claim that we are a “Christian Nation.” We’re talking about the AFA, FRC, WND, NOM, the Tea Party, and frankly the whole “religious right.” They define Christianity in this nation. They harness the privilege that religion has in our nation in ways no group ever has.

If you’re not that kind of Christian, I’m glad. But if you call yourself a Christian or you defend Christianity, know that those groups claim you and speak on your behalf. If you’re not happy with how they’ve defined what it means for you to be a Christian, you have a responsibility to stand up and correct them. As someone speaking out on the harm religion does to society, I cannot make exception for “all those other Christians” who don’t stand up for themselves when they are not pleased with what is said about Christianity. I’m not a Christian. It is that group of “Christians” who have to make an example of themselves.

This is one of many burdens Christians carry. Yes, you have an obligation to speak up for yourself and to repudiate and disavow those who try to define not just your faith but your place in society. I don’t care if you live in Washington, DC, or Coudersport, PA (I’m in probably a very small minority of Pennsylvanians who even know where Coudersport is); when people use your faith to foment their hate or discrimination, it is your responsibility to correct them, not mine. My job is simply to let you know that you’re still way behind.

This week, a group called Catholics for Equality officially launched.

Catholics for Equality empowers pro-equality Catholics to put our faith into ethical and effective political action on behalf of the LGBT community and their families.

Something about “pro-equality Catholic” just doesn’t sit right with me. There’s very little in Catholicism that in any way resembles “equality” and Catholicism has never been known for being pro-anything. Let’s hear a little bit more from their website:

Drawing on the rich tradition of Catholic social justice teachings, grounded in the Gospel message of Love, American Catholics are among the strongest supporters of equality for LGBT people of any religious group in the U.S.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HE HE HE HE HE HE HE!! WHOO! I’m rolling around on the floor. Seriously ROTFLMFAO!!! That’s the best joke I’ve heard all day. You can’t be serious, right? I mean, the Catholics come close, but it’s definitely the Mormons who are the strongest supporters of LGBT equality, by far. Oh, that’s rich, or it would be if it weren’t so offensive to all the religious groups who do actually support LGBT equality.

Now, mocking aside, what they’re talking about is that there is a rift between congregants and the leadership. Catholics for Equality is a group designed to oppose the bishops. The Catholic Church isn’t exactly democratic or egalitarian in any conceivable way, so if congregants don’t want to accept what the leadership is spoon-feeding, they have to form a separate group to represent their point of view, and this is such a group.

The question here is: what does it mean to be “Catholic?” Is it anyone who maintains belief in the holy trinity? Is it anybody who just chooses it as a cultural identifier regardless of belief? There are a lot of folks in these categories who can be heard to say, “Well, I was raised Catholic.” Is it anyone who is technically still on the books as Catholic? If that’s the case, then I’m Catholic too.

When I think of people who openly identify as Catholic, I think of people who are still actively participating in the Catholic Church. This seems a fitting assumption for Catholics for Equality; they want to mobilize Catholic voters, influence legislation, and even get some pro-equality Catholics into office. I don’t think a lapsed Catholic (and flagrant atheist) like me would count as a victory for them.

Let’s grant the premise that there is a difference between Catholics and the Catholic Church. I despise the Catholic Church, and without writing an extensive rant, I think it’s safe to say that centuries of oppression of women and children, hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of anti-gay ballot measures, and the withholding of safe-sex education that would slow the spread of HIV in Africa are plenty of leg to stand on. (The fact that I was involuntarily assumed into Catholic membership is just icing on the cake for my unabashed bias.) I don’t despise Catholics, but if someone is going to identify as a Catholic for Equality, that person must convince me that they are actively working against all the injustice the Catholic Church stands for. And it does; platitudes about social justice teachings in Catholicism do nothing to excuse the behemoth of bigotry that was and is the institution of the Catholic Church.

So if there are several key points in Catholic dogma you don’t agree with, what does it say if you still identify as Catholic? That sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. I would ask such a person, “Why do you still identify as Catholic?” Sure, it could be for reasons I mentioned above, like it’s the term that still best resonates with a person’s personal religious belief or it’s an ethnocultural marker (like Irish Catholic or Italian Catholic). But if you’re actively participating in the Catholic Church or any of its ministries, that strikes me as a huge conflict.

The bottom line, I think, is whether or not a person contributes any money to the Catholic Church. I can get past a person identifying with the word “Catholic” and I can even keep my cool with people enjoying Mass. I think it’s boring as hell (and I’m still going to challenge you on your religious beliefs), but I can at least appreciate how someone might like the pageantry and ritual. However, if you allow a single penny from your pocket to make it into that offering basket or tithing envelope, we have a problem.

Giving the Church money is giving the Church your blessing. It’s enabling the Church to continue doing what the Church does. It’s an investment. It’s an assumption of accountability for the Church’s actions. And honestly, if you give to the Church and then tell me you support LGBT equality, I will probably just laugh, because knowingly or unknowingly, you are participating in hypocrisy.

That’s why I really struggle with Catholics for Equality. I want to support them; I really do. I am sure that they will educate some Catholics and make some positive change. I also truly appreciate the way they stand for separation of church (Church) and state. But ultimately, it’s just political masturbation. More Catholic influence on our culture is not going to do anything to help me in my life as a gay man. I don’t want more Catholics in power. As it is, I have to worry that the Supreme Court won’t uphold my right to equal protection specifically because it’s got so many Catholics on it. If you’re supporting the Church and working against the Church at the same time, are you actually making any progress?

The whole reason I started blogging is because I saw beliefs to be the problem. The intellectual fallacies I could understand as a freethinker were the same ones I saw oppressing me as a gay man. We wouldn’t have a problem with homophobia and transphobia (or heck, even patriarchy) if religious organizations did not continually push negative beliefs that ignore our modern-day understandings of sex, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Why should we applaud members of an organization hell-bent on resisting social justice for trying to support social justice without disavowing the very group they’re working against?

Were this group Ex-Catholics for Equality or even Lapsed Catholics for Equality, I’d applaud them for organizing. But Catholics for Equality? That sounds about as absurd as Quakers for War, Jehovah’s Witnesses for Blood Transfusions, or Muslims for Female Immodesty. If you want to support equality, take responsibility for resisting it in the first place.

Now, I could do the same thing. I could make shit up about what the religious right is going to do to your secular-minded gay-friendly progressive kids to scare you! But I don’t have to make anything up. The religious right sends it right to my email!

Get ready for WorldNetDaily back to school essentials! (Nope, not making any of this up.)

I’m sure the photographer thought, “Oh, we only need one black kid to look diverse; it doesn’t matter how white the rest of them are. Besides, the flag is a great excuse to keep the rest of the kids from making eye contact with him. Also, we’ll put him in yellow next to the girl grabbing her boob in green to help our readers remember which Metro lines to avoid when they come to DC. Ooh, and we can’t let those colors be in order!”

Yeah, that was incredibly snarky, but that kind of snark is the only that’s going to get us through the rest of this WND promo email. I’m going to go ahead and leave in the links, but just be wary of what you’ll find on WorldNetDaily… they’re a bit wacko.

It’s back-to-school time, whether your children go to public or private schools or you’re their teacher at home.

Either way, your kids need the essentials of a classical education – one they surely won’t get in a traditional school.

You know this already isn’t boding well. The “back to school” catalog isn’t notebooks and pencils for when they get to class. It’s all propaganda that students won’t get in school.

The WND Superstore has many of the essential resources you and your kids need.

It starts with the Bible – and there’s a great selection of low-cost choices.

Then there are great Bible study resources.

See, there are all these different versions of the Bible, and then a whole bunch of different ways to interpret each of the versions. (It’s not unlike the recent Indexed comic…) How do you know which is right for you? Well, with all the audio and video versions available, you’ll never have to actually parent or teach your kid a thing! Leave it all to the theological experts. Just point at whichever one you’ve been scared into thinking is most important and it’s yours!

Here’s something your kids won’t get for sure in a traditional school – “Nothing From Everything: The Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution” by Ray Comfort. You don’t want your kids believing they are the products of random chance and millions of years of evolution.

*Takes long deep breath.* Yes. WND wants your kids reading Ray Comfort. And they’re telling you want you want and don’t want. Random chance? Evolution? Malarkey! This isn’t stuff to help kids learn better at school; it’s stuff to help them unlearn when they get home.

The Constitution of the United States! Every child, no matter what age, should be grounded in the Constitution. Make sure your child has a pocket copy for only 99 cents.

I’m actually okay with that. And it doesn’t even seem to have one of those Ray Comfort “forwards of undoing,” if you will. It’s just the Constitution. I got my pocket constitution for free from the ACLU. (They actually know how to defend it.)

Here are some products that make politically incorrect learning fun:

• “Help! Mom! Hollywood’s in My Hamper”
• “Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed”
• “Help! Mom! The 9^th Circuit Nabbed the Nativity”

Wow. These books are ridiculous. Here’s a description of the “…Under My Bed” which was the first in the series.

This full-color illustrated book is a fun way for parents to teach young children the valuable lessons of conservatism. Written in simple text, readers can follow along with Tommy and Lou as they open a lemonade stand to earn money for a swing set. But when liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes, take down their picture of Jesus, and serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade, the young brothers experience the downside to living in Liberaland.

The second one (“…in My Hamper”) I might have a bit of tolerance for, because I’m not thrilled about the worship of celebrities either, but it has Mike Huckabee’s endorsement, which is a big red flag. The last one is about a school nativity play that gets ruined because of liberals obsessed with “diversity, global warming and stinky French cheese.” Maybe they could whip out that Constitution and read the 1st Amendment… but I’m sure that’s not the moral of the story.

Seriously, I’d be scared about my kids being read these books. Luckily, I don’t have to worry about that, for a number of obvious reasons.

Would you like to provide some historical perspective on the 20^thcentury and the battle for freedom? There’s no better way than the remarkable documentary, “In the Face of Evil.” Joseph Farah calls it one of the most important films ever made.

This film will make sure your kids are worshiping Reagan at an early age. I’m sure the portraits on the wall in every room are good clues, but the film will help seal the deal.

As for classic, don’t forget C.S. Lewis’ “Letters to Children” and “Pilgrim’s Progress” by John Bunyan.

Balance out Lewis’ apologetics for children with a century-old tome with even more religious dogma. Interestingly enough, “Pilgrim’s Progress” is listed under Fiction on the site.

Your children should be scared, very scared. The radical extremists want to circumvent science and civics to recruit their own army of brainwashed children.

Gosh, it sounds legitimately scary when it reflects reality and isn’t just a scare tactic meant to deceive.

You see, I think there is incredible importance in reacting. We need to stand up for ourselves. We need to create visibility for ourselves. We need to counter our opponents and their lie-riddled fear-mongering rhetoric at every turn. It’s a matter of integrity—a demonstration of our courage and our stamina. Alone, it’s not a winning strategy; you don’t win a game of chess if you only defend your own pieces. Still, it’s a vital part of our movement and our social well-being.

That’s why I am incredibly disappointed in Equality Pennsylvania’s cowardice in deciding not to counterprotest the NOM tour stop this Friday in Harrisburg.

The National Organization for Marriage has been driving around the US, rallying tens of people at their events, and then creating “breaking news” propaganda videos about how aggressive the counterprotesters are. It’s a devious tactic. Freedom to Marry and the Prop 8 Trial Tracker (“NOM Tour Tracker”), as well as bloggers like Jeremy Hooper at Good As You have been countering them at every turn, revealing the truths of their claims. They only have a few stops left, and on Friday they will be here in little ol’ Harrisburg, PA (it’s the capital!).

Equality PA released a statement explaining why they were not counterprotesting (emphasis in original):

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) kicked off their “One Man, One Woman” tour on July 14th. At each stop where there have been counter protests or attendance by pro-equality supporters, they have disrespected or mocked them and attempted to provoke them into screaming or yelling. Their goal in doing this is to make our side look foolish and hostile. We have also seen that they like to play a numbers game where if we have even a few less attendees than at their event, they will claim that the momentum is moving in their direction. We know from the recent polling numbers and the pathetic turnout their rallies have been recording, that this simply isn’t the case.

We are working hard to advance equality and will continue to do so long after they leave town. While we may be upset by their rhetoric, we can’t get caught up in retaliation when we need to remain focused on what needs to get done to win! Putting our energy into showing up at their event does not help to move us forward. What will help to advance equality in Pennsylvania is if we use them coming to town as an excuse to mobilize local activists and build our network.

So after NOM finishes their ranting and heads to the next town, we will be out there getting it done! We are holding a terrific event in Harrisburg on August 12, the night before they arrive, around a special showing of the movie “Stonewall Uprising” with a panel on youth activism afterward. We encourage everyone who can, to attend.

Click here for more information!

Not only is this a great movie, but this public conversation will increase our network and identify new volunteers and supporters. Please do what you can…attend, make a donation or just plain follow our activities. But please, ignore NOM when they come to town and don’t interact. Attention is exactly what they want, and why should honest people who hold equality close to their hearts be tricked into supporting their sad little charade.

This is an expression of cowardice. It buys into a “fight or flight” dichotomy that doesn’t reflect the reality of potential responses. The assumption is that we cannot respond to NOM’s rally without looking “foolish,” “hostile,” or retaliatory, ignoring the notion and potential of tact.

Is it possible to counterprotest NOM in a peaceful way? A way that creates visibility and builds unity for our community and our families? A way that makes sure that any media coverage includes stories of our experiences and our truths? A way that overshadows NOM’s message of discrimination without fueling their propaganda machine? It’s not easy to pull off, but such a way exists.

That’s why EQPA’s decision amounts to cowardice. Rather than take a risk, they’d rather not try at all. Maybe they should be ashamed, but maybe not. If they don’t think they have the resources or capacity to pull it off, I can totally understand why they wouldn’t want their stamp of approval on it. However, I resent the smugness with which they claim to rise above, ignoring the important catharsis achieved when our community rejects its own condemnation.

That’s not to say that EQPA doesn’t make some good points in their statement. It is true that NOM has been using their tour to paint a negative picture of activists, but it’s NOM. They’ll find a way to spin it their way regardless. Given that Harrisburg is the only stop that hasn’t had a major organization planning a counter response, I’d hate to see Central Pennsylvania spun as a bastion of anti-gay hate. I think EQPA is onto something with using NOM to mobilize local activists, and I think the film screening is a great idea. Educating about the movement’s history and raising the voices of queer youth is amazing, but it doesn’t undo the hurt NOM causes many by rolling into town to spout their incendiary drivel.

We have a serious problem if our movement isn’t willing to stand up to our opponents. I don’t think anything has been more compelling than the media appearances Olson and Boies have been making since last week’s Prop 8 ruling, unabashedly defending the truths of our lives and obliterating our opponents. That sort of visibility and education is exactly what many of the counterprotests have accomplished with their truth squads. It’s the kind of work an organization like Equality Pennsylvania should be prepared to handle without compromising their other proactive work.

Standing up for equality means standing up for equality whether it’s convenient or not. Even if it’s not on our playing field, we have to show.

That’s why I will be participating in a counterprotest on Friday at noon being organized by a group called Justice League – Activate. I will stand against NOM with my family, document their efforts, and speak on behalf of Pennsylvania gays and lesbians who still are subject to state-sponsored discrimination. If none of my friends will stand with me out of solidarity with Equality Pennsylvania, that’s their choice. However, I will not let preachers of discrimination control the media for the day without some visibility from the people they unflinchingly discriminate against.

While I still argue that proactive activism demands greater priority, reactive activism is important for our community’s maintenance. We have to be strong enough to rebuff our opponents AND push forward in spite of them. To ignore them is forfeit and I’m already tired of feeling like I”m on a losing team.

I hope you’ll join me Friday to show Central Pennsylvania that we are here, we are queer, and we care about marriage too. We want the same safety and security that marriage provides. We are proudly standing up for all families who just want to live their lives as happy members of their Pennsylvania communities.

DEFENDERS OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE TO APPEAL FEDERAL RULING INVALIDATING PROPOSITION 8

SACRAMENTO – Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Proposition 8, released the following statement today in response to the ruling of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pugno must have missed the part where Walker wrote, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’” We can thank the Jehovah’s Witnesses for that precedent.

It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

Actually, the court doesn’t say that. What he says is that the proponents of Prop 8 had discriminatory intent, which they spread through fear-based propaganda that fed into untrue stereotypes. The law is discriminatory, whether the voters understood it to be or not. (See Findings of Fact 45, 47, and 57-68, 79, and 80.)

But the reality is that Prop 8 was simply about restoring and strengthening the traditional definition of marriage as the unique relationship of a man and a woman, for the benefit of children, families and society.

At trial we built a solid record to show that marriage has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole, has universal functions and features attributable only to unions between a man and woman, has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman, and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children.

It’s a cute line, but it’s simply not true. The experts’ testimony showed that the “traditional definition of marriage” was quite shortsighted and that given the equality of individuals in marriages, there is no compelling interest in maintaining only opposite-sex marriages. (See Findings of Fact 21, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35, among others.)

It’s amazing (but unsurprising) that Protect Marriage continues to encourage the evil misperception that gay and lesbians put children at risk. (See  Findings of Fact 70, 71, 72, 76, and 79.)

We are confident that the trial court record we built will help us ultimately prevail on appeal and reverse today’s ruling.

You mean like how your star witness’s testimony was thrown out?

Reversing today’s decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.

Andy, did they not teach you at McGeorge School of Law that the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not the whim of a simple majority? (I’d be embarrassed to be a McGeorge alum today!)

And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and invent a new constitutional right.

Actually, after today’s decision, that is simply wrong. Today’s decision affirmed that marriage is a constitutional right and that to prohibit same-sex marriage is simply to discriminate based on sex and sexual orientation. There is nothing new in this decision except validation for the lives of gays and lesbians throughout time and space.

Best of luck to Andy Pugno and the Protect Marriage team. You’re going to need it.

By the way, I don’t believe in luck.

I know I’m job searching and everything, but I just want to take a brief moment to say that masturbation is a great thing.

If homosexuals were teaching high school students how to masturbate, as Brandon claimed this past May, I think it’s a wonderful thing. I don’t know why they’d be doing it in the Capitol Rotunda, but that seems beside the point.

I am skeptical that there exists a high school student who hasn’t figured out how to masturbate, and if there is, then by golly, he deserves to learn! Maybe there are some girls who don’t know, and why should they be left out? I applaud the homosexuals for spreading sexual literacy and also a very healthy alternative to unsafe sex.

Don’t you love America? Just condemn any word that relates to anything sexual and the Christians will cheer!

I haven’t written about AFTAH much on this blog, because they are so ridiculously out there that I don’t think they need to be written about to be mocked. Americans for Truth about Homosexuality is a hate group intent on preserving only the most archaic standards of sexuality. Next month, they are offering an entire “academy” to young potential haters about just how to hate on teh gays. Kids as young as 14 are welcome.

Hemant Mehta has offered to cover the costs for any young folks who want to go (and of course report on it). AFTAH requires “references” to make sure attendees aren’t undercover progays, but I’m sure some infiltrators will manage to get in.

Last week, the “academy” unveiled it’s “curriculum,” and whooee! is it a good time. Let’s take a look at the courses propaganda-fests and the wise professors known bigots who will impart their knowledge about homosexuality. (Jeremy Hooper was remarking this weekend about how just the use of the word “homosexuals” can be a big red flag for a person’s perspective on LGBT issues—not that we’re at all surprised by these clowns.)

After an opening prayer, Peter LaBarbera kicks things off with “From gay pride to gay tyranny.” This will be about the way that, after our parades are over, we go strangle teabaggers with our rainbow flags and then fist their children.

“Professor” Rena Lindevaldsen (I use quotes because she “teaches” at the Liberty University School of Law) then moves things along with “History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts.” She’ll spend the first 55 minutes bemoaning the way “gay” no longer means “happy,” and the last five minutes sharing everything she knows about courts.

Matt Barber will chime in with “Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality.” Part of his talk will explain how the best way to overcome homosexuality is through knowledge of sports and car mechanics, and then he’ll explain how folks like him started the Culture War by attacking homosexuals at every opportunity.

You’ll only get a light lunch so that you have room to stomach “The ‘born gay’ hoax,” presented by Ryan Sorba of Young Conservatives of California. This presentation should be particularly revealing, as Sorba will be sharing never-before-seen schematics of the microchips inserted in the genitalia of all future-homosexuals.

Everybody’s favorite, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, is up next. In “Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments,” she will magically not once refer to reason nor logic. She will outline all of the pro-homosexual arguments, then shrug and say, “But they’re wrong.”

Just in case you thought this was a Christian-only situation, here comes Arthur Goldberg from JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality). If you aren’t familiar with JONAH, they discourage people from having gay sex by teaching them new exercise routines and diet restrictions. No, gay men are not allowed to have any fruit. His talk will be called, “Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality.” Here’s a preview: “Yes, No, You don’t really need to read any of it.”

The day is far from over. Next, all of the presenters of the day will form a panel to discuss “Can the effort to ‘mainstream’ homosexuality in American culture be stopped?” While the panel answers questions, participants will be distributed proton packs and the sheet music to Auld Lang Syne for a future field trip to the subway system.

Grab a bite to eat for dinner then return Thursday night for a special presentation by Greg Quinlan of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). In “An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality,” Quinlan will describe how hated he was and how much he was lied to while he was homosexual. Now that he’s ex-still-gay, his life is completely delusional, but happy.

Day 2! Cliff Kincaid is ready to tell you about “The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy.” I’m not sure why he needs a whole hour to say, “Don’t let them even touch you; they all have AIDS,” but I’m sure he’ll find a way to repeat it in some interesting ways.

The “professor” is back! “The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms” is another brief lecture about how Christians are right and nothing else matters.

“Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda“: More fisting.

“The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”: “We don’t get it, so there’s nothing to get.”

Ugh, this is exhausting. Here are the rest of the lectures. You comment with your favorite ways to make fun of them:

“From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”

“The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”

“Returning the debate to behavior – getting off the ‘GLBT’ playing field”

“From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”

“But Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’”: Answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”

“Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”

“The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”/”How to lobby effectively”

“Combating pro-homosexual media bias, confronting pro-gay ‘conservatives’” – I love that they give “conservatives” the mocking quotes!

“Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”

“Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”

Have at them my readers! Mock away!

Zack and Peterson come to you with travel advice! First up: An in-depth analysis of the reactions from church groups to pro-LGBT policies in Ft. Worth, TX. Where are they coming from and how should we feel about their complaints? Then, it’s the listeners’ turn to chime in! See where Queer and Queerer listeners think are the best places to be gay, lesbian, trans, and/or queer. As episode 15 rolls on past, we still leave you with the lingering question of who is queer and who is queerer?

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» Coverage related to Ft. Worth LGBT policies:

» News report from last night’s Town Council meeting.

» Minutes and video from last night’s meeting. (Comments start at1:55:30)

» TransForm New Hampshire

» Netroots Nation

]]> http://zackfordblogs.com/2010/07/queer-and-queerer-ep-15-hottest-queer-destination-fort-worth-hell-or-other-_____/feed/ 0 http://zackfordblogs.com/2010/07/do-you-hate-atheists-too-join-an-atheist-student-group/ http://zackfordblogs.com/2010/07/do-you-hate-atheists-too-join-an-atheist-student-group/#comments Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:55:31 +0000 ZackFord http://zackfordblogs.com/?p=4341 I go through a little process when I write blog posts. Usually, I start by finding some ridiculous bullshit that someone’s spouting, then I decide whether or not it’s even worth my time. If it is, then I have to find a way to 1) make fun of the idiot without sounding unprofessional, 2) denounce the idiot so as to stand up for the individuals the idiot’s trying to hurt, and 3) make it clear that the idiot is for real and our society has a long way to go.

Are you ready? Here are just the first two sentences of Mike Adams’ piece, “An Immodest Proposal” over at conservative site, Townhall:

I can’t stand atheists. And I plan to do something about them.

Let’s take this construction and see how it might be applied to other nouns. If you can’t stand mosquitos, maybe you’ll light some citronella candles. If you can’t stand cigarettes, maybe you’ll work to pass legislation to keep them out of public venues. If you can’t stand Jews, maybe you’ll embark upon some historic genocide. The threatening potential here is of concern, and as absurd as the rest of Adams’ piece is, this is the lens we have to keep in mind.

Now, surely you remember that Supreme Court decision last week, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez? It came up enough here on the blog. A Christian student group was paranoid that it would be infiltrated by gays and was insistent that it be allowed to discriminate so that no one could come in and try to change their hateful condemnations of groups of people. There was no precedent for this fear (there never is), but that didn’t stop them from raising a ruckus.

Well, Mike Adams wants to use the freedom of this decision to attack atheist student groups and create that very precedent of student group takeover. Like a good American, when Adams gets the slightest bit concerned that he can’t defend himself to his own absurd liking, he attacks with a preemptive strike:

So, when I get back to the secular university in August, I plan to round up the students I know who are most hostile to atheism. Then I’m going to get them to help me find atheist-haters willing to join atheist student groups across the South. I plan to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.

Let’s be very clear, here: Mike Adams is encouraging hostility and hate against atheists.

Now, you might say, “But Zack, he’s clearly trying to channel Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal! This is just satire!”

Except, there was not already a context for rich people eating babies. (There is a context of atheists eating babies, which is a neat little literary overlap, I suppose.) But there is definitely a context of hostility towards atheists, so there is no element of absurdity. Perhaps Mike Adams just sucks at satire, which is possible, but I think it’s very hard to read this piece as satire at all. I’m sure there are many who haven’t, especially on a site like Townhall. The comments confirm this.

Even if Mike Adams is trying (and failing) to be satirical, his language is reckless:

If I see any words like “atheist,” agnostic”, or even “free-thinker” I will know they are a group of godless heathens. Then we’ll move in for the kill.

The kill, eh?

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito observed that the Martinez majority has provided public universities with “a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.” Alito is right as usual. After we get rid of the heathens we’ll turn our weapon on the gays, the blacks, and the feminists. We might even go after the Italians, too.

Hilarious.

Author Craig A. James (The Religion Virus), blogger Daniel Fincke (who was cool enough to link here), and I all agree:

Bring it on.

As James points out, atheist groups would love to have Christians at their meetings!

But here’s the truth: crybaby Mike Adams won’t dare do this. You see, I happen to know Hemant Mehta over at The Friendly Atheist, and Hemant is reasonable, conciliatory, smart, and he happens to be the Chair of the Board of the Secular Student Alliance. I’d be willing to bet that if Mike Adam’s Christian students start attending the Secular Student Alliance meetings, Hemant and friends would welcome the opportunity to talk to them. In fact, I’ll bet they’d organize a national campaign to welcome these Christians into their group!

James’ entire response is brilliant, and I agree this plan would totally backfire for Mike Adams, but I wonder if it hasn’t already.

Adams, apparently an ex-atheist, proudly describes himself as “vocal critic of the diversity movement in academia.” If you look through his columns, you’ll see an incredible list of petty taunts and attacks at all kinds of diversity outreach, including cultural centers, student groups, and any administrator or professor who stands up for diversity. His racism, sexism, and heterosexism are never sugar-coated. This man strives to maintain privilege and loves it.

I’m glad I’m smarter than this man. I’m glad that I support open inclusion and accessibility for education. I’m glad that I respect even the people whose ideas I have no respect for at all. I’m glad that I understand identity development and the incredible value of creating inclusive campus environments.

Mike Adams is a hate-monger. Unabashedly. Nothing strengthens the atheist message better than having unChristian vitriol like this to quote (hence this very post). If he didn’t have archives full of similarly hateful shit, I’d wonder if this is a Poe. But it’s not a Poe, it’s just dumb.

Good luck, Mike. We’ll see what kind of “warriors” your young Christians are when they actually get to listen to the ideas folks like you work so hard to shelter them from.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about evangelism in response to “Shelonda,” who had left a comment here on the blog. In the comments for that post, my friend Kevin and I discussed mission work, and I expressed my concern that mission work is inherently disingenuous. If folks depend on the selfish motive of evangelizing to motivate their good work, then their good work isn’t truly good work.

This phenomenon is just as evident on the local scale. Last week, I attended Jubilee Day, a big street fair in Mechanicsburg, PA. The one-day event was incredibly well attended, with rides, food, vendors, activities for kids, and lots of other cool stuff. Inspired by the presence of the PA Nonbelievers, I decided to see what exactly the many church groups in attendance had to offer. There were a number of tables where I voluntarily picked up some of the materials, but a few others where items were sort of forced into my hands. This post focuses mostly on the latter, and a whole separate post will be dedicated to exploring some of the resources I got from the Catholics. Yikes. (The rubber fetus alone should scare you.)

I’ll identify the churches only by their denomination and not their specific name. My goal today is to raise awareness about evangelism; not to target specific community groups.

I experienced evangelism before I even got to the fair. One of the local churches (Denomination: CMA) was offering free parking only a few blocks away, so I decided to take them up on their offer. They had a number of volunteers in bright green recognizable shirts (which read “Jesus is the Way!”) that helped people find a spot in their lot and also helped keep them comfortable while waiting for a shuttle. Unfortunately, they didn’t let you into the lot without handing you a a flier they advertised their schedule of services, ministries, and Vacation Bible School. In order to get parking, I had to get info about their church. More on this in a minute.

Later, I encountered a Baptist church booth. I have to say that their good deed was brilliant. They were handing out bags. I don’t know that anybody else was handing out bags, so kudos to them. Of course, the bag was not empty. It included the white brochure you can see peppered throughout the post (with the very trite MS Publisher theme) as well as another plug for a Vacation Bible School.

If ever there were a good argument for year-round school, I think VBS is it. It’s an excuse to get kids out of the house and it’s an opportunity to sneak Bible training on them. I actually remember going to VBS when I was little, and pretty much all I remember was being bored at Mass, being bored in classes, and generally just being bored. The Baptist Church offers two “Quest Weeks.” For Preschoolers, there’s “LifeWay‘s Saddle Ridge Range” where they’re “Roundin’ Up Questions” and “Drivin’ Home Answers.” K-5th graders get to enjoy “Answers in Genesis‘s The Egypt File: Decoding the Mystery of LIFE.” Both come with complimentary cartoon characters and a healthy dose of misinformation indoctrination. If you value your keyboard, don’t even click on Answers in Genesis.

The CMA church I mentioned earlier also plays on the Egyptian theme with, “Egypt: Joseph’s Journey from Prison to Palace.”

Imagine living in a dusty, bustling, noisy city along the Nile in ancient Egypt…you’d gossip about Pharaoh’s palace…work with people who followed countless gods…and perhaps hear about a “dreamer” that Pharaoh put in charge…

If it’s just storytelling, that’s fine, but of course it never is.

It’s too bad that these two churches couldn’t do their little good deeds without evangelizing. You might just say it’s a marketing technique. You’re not wrong, but you also ignore how dangerous it is.

Let’s look at that brochure.

Is there a church that has real answers to life’s real questions? No. No, there is not. They certainly claim that they know what God’s answers are, but no one ever seems to let God speak for himself. They also want you to think that the questions are valid and that they have the answers, but this seems incredibly deceitful. They aren’t counselors, they aren’t teachers, they aren’t accountants, and they aren’t recreational leaders, but they still advertise themselves as such. They use promises of “fun activities,” “short and sweet” services that are “relevant,” and social engagement as a mechanism for drawing people into their delusions. They can’t be all bad? They’re using Answers in Genesis to teach kids that evolution is wrong. There’s a serious problem here.

And truly, kids are who suffer from this mess. A lot of the resources I saw are geared toward the teens who make up a lot of the attendance at Jubilee Day. (Wait until you see all the fun stuff the Catholics had!) But, the scariest part is to see young people’s participation in the evangelism. I was handed the dollar bills you see by a number of young children. One of them couldn’t have been older than five. I don’t think he even knew how to speak, but he knew how to hand me the bill with puppy-dog eyes. In fact, he didn’t even care that one of his other friends had given me one, he wanted to make sure I took one from him too.

I don’t remember which denomination had this fake money, but it was near the line of Catholic and pro-life booths. If you look very carefully at the front of the bills, you can see they represent Living Waters and Way of the Master, which you’ll notice are of course the same website. This is banana-man Ray Comfort’s ministry, where he and Kirk Cameron regularly spew out their anti-evolution nonsense. Apparently the million-dollar and trillion-dollar questions are the same, and apparently the answer, as always, is “you’re going to Hell if you don’t listen to us.”

It’s incredibly sad to see people being duped into nonsense by what appear to be good deeds. It’s scary to see how intertwined these quaint local church groups are with insane ministries like Answers in Genesis and Living Waters, plus how eager they are to market these ideas to young children.

I’ll end this post by highlighting two good deeds that I think were actually genuinely good. The first was a car survival kit (or “Community Love Kit,” according to the bag) that I was handed by a Methodist mission outreach group. The bag contained a business card and a plug for a fundraiser through a local restaurant chain, but not really any evangelism about their ministries. I have to say, the kit was pretty cool, and I’ll probably use it.

As you can see, it contains a number of bandaids, soap, toothpaste, a comb, nail clippers, and two nail files, all of which fit into a nice tidy bag that’ll fit nicely in my glove compartment. This is a truly thoughtful form of outreach that didn’t require I actually learn anything about their actual ministries. Kudos to the Methodists.

Lastly, I want to highlight something I picked up from the Mennonites’ table. Now, when I saw their booth, I wasn’t optimistic about what I’d find after what I’d been handed by Mennonites in Ithaca, NY back in April. They had various information about their different beliefs, but the only thing I decided to walk away with was this pin:

I’d Rather Be Waging Piece. What a great message. It doesn’t make me want to be a Mennonite, but I certainly respect them for it. There’s a sticker on the back of the pin identifying the church it came from, but that’s it. This is a pin I can proudly wear, and it reminds me that church communities really can be forces for good, so long as they stop talking about all that religious stuff.

Stay tuned for the detailed exploration into the Catholic vision for my sex life and some other interesting learnings from the materials I picked up!