religion

LGBT Link Round Up 10.22.14

Tony Thompson, , ,

Top anti-LGBT crusader wanted his wife to stay in a marriage where she wasn’t happy

Jonathan Saenz, the leader of the top anti-LGBT groups in Texas, complained recently that it should have been much harder for his lesbian ex-wife to get out of the marriage.

Earlier this year, court documents showed that Corrine Morris Rodriguez Saenz was dating another woman when she filed for a divorce from Saenz, who became the president of Texas Values six months later.

What is up with these conservative nincompoops being members of organizations with such positive sounding names like Focus on the Family, National Organization for Marriage, or Texas Values? On the surface they sound all wholesome and gosh darn nice. It doesn’t take much digging to see that they endorse a conservative viewpoint that is at odds with progressive, Humanist views that call for equality for everyone. I suppose they’re self-aware enough to know they would be ridiculed and mocked for calling themselves something honest like the National Organization for the Advancement of Homophobia or the Texas Evangelical Asshole Party (oh, darn…that’s right, there’s already a TEA Party). I’m not giving them props for that. In fact, if they were more honest about their motives…well I still wouldn’t like them, but at least they wouldn’t be hiding behind a pretense of being concerned about values and morality.

On Monday, Lone Star Q published video of Saenz discussing his divorce last month while participating in a panel on same-sex marriage at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin.

The Texas Values president explained that he had always held anti-LGBT views.

“There’s no question that the beliefs I have when it comes to marriage, when it comes to the importance of marriage, to the impact it has on public policy and society, there’s a long history of me being involved in that,” he told moderator Emily Ramshaw. “I’ve always had these strong beliefs.”

Ah yes, those sterling values that lead you to believe that your wife should stay married, whether she wants to or not. Clearly, you view her as a human being with rights that should not be infringed just because you don’t want a divorce. See this is problem #395 of the Republican Agenda against marriage. They hold marriage up as this sacred institution that is more important than people. They are openly dismissive and disdainful of marriage equality, bc in their eyes, marriage is one thing and one thing only and everyone, including all citizens, as well as the government, should be bound by that same definition. Because the happiness and desires of the individuals getting married are secondary to the sacred institution of marriage. Viewing a marriage as a divine relationship inspired by a deity divorces it from the very human world, where it is about two people coming together in love. What’s the benefit of that? I guess it means that Christians get to claim that marriage is “theirs”, but other than that, I see nothing to be gained by elevating marriage beyond a human institution.

But he didn’t hold back when it came to the “negative impact” of no-fault divorce.

“These polices that we have, particularly some that deal with divorce, no-fault divorce, things of this nature, that I think could have an impact of encouraging people to giving up on permanency, giving up on monogamy, fidelity, and thinking that the answer is to move on to another relationship,” Saenz insisted. “So these are real, important issues that we deal with.”

“No fault divorce… has had a very negative impact, I think, on marriage, on people’s lives, because I think it some ways it encourages people to just get out way too soon.”

Yes, divorce (of any kind), affects people–most notably those who are/were married (and any offspring). People are more important than the institution of marriage dude. Get it through your head.

But what’s his problem with his ex-wife not wanting to remain married? Shouldn’t she have the freedom to enter or exit relationships as she desires? Isn’t this a human right? Not to this self-centered assclam.  I guess to him, the feelings of his ex-wife mean nothing. His wishes are paramount (probably bc god says so, too). Again, because of his views on marriage, he shows greater concern for the abstract idea of marriage (a Christian version to boot) than for the concerns of [one of] the people in the relationship. I hope that the campaign for marriage equality leads to a greater understanding that marriage should be about the wishes and desires of the people involved, and no one else.

* * * *

Top VA GOP adviser unhinged on Facebook: Gay sex leaves men in diapers, ‘pooping their pants’

Steve Waters, an advI’miser to Republican congressional candidate Dave Brat in Virginia, argued this week that homosexuality was not “normal” because it caused cancer, and it would eventually force gay men to wear diapers by destroying their rectal muscles.

On Wednesday, blogger Benjamin Tribbett called out Waters for several anti-LGBT messages that he had written on Facebook earlier in the day.

“I will say this, if homosexuality is so normal, how come the diseases, illnesses and cancers connected with it are so abnormal?” he wrote. “Even the CDC recognizes this.”

A second posting by Waters was more graphic: “Is it normal for adult males to have to wear diapers because their rectal muscles have been abused so badly they can no longer control or tighten them to avoid pooping their pants.”

After Tribbett re-posted the remarks on his Facebook page, Waters defended himself.

“I’ve got history, natural law and biology on my side on this one,” he insisted. “What do you guys have, emotion. You should know emotion doesn’t work well in public policy. But I’ll concede one accusation, I’m not normal-my wife would agree with on some days, lol!”

When pressed for evidence on his diaper theory, Waters produced a link to a Christian website that claims homosexuality is “brimming with disease,” but does not mention anything about abused rectal muscles or diapering.

I’m sure that Christian website is a resource on human biology.  ::eye roll::

* * * *

Talk Show Inspires 1 Million+ Callers to Protest India’s Anti-Gay Law

A recent episode of an Indian talk show aired to more than 100 million viewers has had a massive impact on the country’s perception of LGBT people. More than one million calls were made to a toll free hotline set up by the show to protest Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which stigmatises the LGBT community by criminalising homosexual sex.

On 19 October, an episode of Indian television talk show “Satyamev Jayate” (Truth Alone Prevails) titled “Accepting Alternative Sexualities” attempted to break a lot of misconceptions surrounding the ostracised LGBT community by answering a number of questions on the issue.

The guests included transgender woman Gazal Dhaliwal (@gazalstune) and her parents, popular psychologist Deepak Kashyap and other LGBT activists. Dhaliwal, a film writer, described her traumatic childhood as a girl trapped in a boy’s body, and her journey from self-discovery to the decision to undergo a sex change operation.

* * * *

WATCH: Bystanders at Dallas Airport stop antigay attack by piling on drunk bully

 

(via Raw Story)

* * * *

Cory Booker Targeted By Hate Group For Being Pro-Gay

Cory Booker made a name for himself by hands-on care his constituents. As mayor of Newark, he could regularly be found at the center of relief efforts wherever disaster or mother nature struck his community – everything from shoveling snow to risking his life in a memorable fire rescue. As a senator, he survived a dinner with Ted Cruz. Enough said?

Eugene Delguadio is not even in the same weight class as Cory Booker.

Cory has always been a steadfast advocate for LGBT equality. In the 2013 special election to fill the Senate seat held by the late Frank Lautenberg, Cory answered questions about his own sexuality with a shug and a “what does it matter?”  Now, Cory is running for re-election against Republican Jeff Bell, (that’s them in the photo above at last night’s debate,) and The Public Advocate has decided if they can just get the word out that Cory Booker supports gay equality, the voters will turn on him.

So Delgaudio, in an effort to help Jeff Bell, who Bloomberg reports is trailing Cory by 13 points, sent out this mailer. You will notice he spelled Cory’s name “Brooker”, but that isn’t his biggest mistake:

Given Cory Booker’s support for LGBT people, I don’t doubt that his plan is to fight for their right to be recognized by the government as citizens who should have all the same rights as other Americans.

LGBT Link Round Up 10.22.14
{advertisement}

The baggage of religious belief

Tony Thompson,

Over at En Tequila es Verdad, Dana wrote (in response to this post):

Getting over gods is a great start, but it’s only a beginning. Once the gods are gone, we’re left with people, and civilization, and all of the imperfections that plague both. I’m sorry, but losing religion doesn’t mean all problems are solved. Religion amplifies some of our worst qualities, but those are still human qualities, and they remain once religion is gone.

I used to think it would be easier to fix things like sexism and homophobia and racism once religion was gone. But looking at how so many of our atheist celebrities and their fans have reacted to even the most mild requests to please not make sexist assumptions or do sexist things, I’ve realized it can actually be harder. The men (and some women) who have let go of gods seem so assured of their own rightness that they refuse to listen to the people affected by their words and actions. They sneer at the evidence presented, although they pretend that evidence is important to them. They don’t question their assumptions. They don’t do the hard work, but worse, don’t believe they need to. They got what they feel is the most important question right. They coast on that. And when people don’t go along for the ride, they get pissed.

I agree with her (obviously). Eliminating religion and religious belief will likely make the world a little better, but it’s not going to make the world a harmonious one because there are a host of other problems that exist. These problems are independent of religion, but they are also interconnected with religion. Religious belief helps sustain and propagate many of the social ills in the world.  As I wrote on Dana’s blog:

Continue reading “The baggage of religious belief” →

The baggage of religious belief

No, I’ll not be taking the Atheist positivity challenge

Tony Thompson, , ,

Content Note:  Long rant ahead

In an article titled ‘Cut it out, atheists! Why it’s time to stop behaving like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins’, Salon writer Steve Neumann argues that atheists need to work on our image so that we can be seen as more positive:

If you’re at all familiar with atheism in America, then the following two scenes should probably come as no surprise: Biologist Richard Dawkins exhorting his followers to mock and ridicule believers with contempt, Bill Maher telling MSNBC host Joe Scarborough that “religion is a neurological disorder.” As an atheist who grew up in a fundamentalist Christian milieu, I admit that this rhetoric is not without its appeal. But the atmosphere this kind of animus creates has become as pungent and disagreeable as the stale bread and cheap wine of the church I grew up in.

So I got to thinking: First there was the Ice Bucket Challenge, then there was the Positivity Challenge (wherein you have to write 3 or 4 positive things as your Facebook status every day for 7 days). So why not get into the act and start my own?

I’d like to challenge all atheists, myself included, to refrain from posting disparaging commentary about Christian newsmakers on Facebook and other social media sites — including blogs — for one month. Let’s call it The Atheist Positivity Challenge, or the APC for short. The purpose of this challenge is to draw attention to two things: The fact that gloating about the lunacy and misdeeds of specific Christians is not only unnecessary, but probably counterproductive; and the need to rehabilitate the reputation of atheism in America.

Let me first say that I don’t like the idea of mocking and ridiculing people for their beliefs.  As an atheist, I don’t do that. I will mock and ridicule the beliefs themselves, but I’m not going to do so for the believers. So when Richard Dawkins advocates doing so, well, I’m not going to listen to him.  As for Bill Maher, he’s neither a psychiatrist, nor a psychologist, and he has no place trying to diagnose believers with any form of mental illness. Such actions serve to do nothing other than shame his targets, and have the added “perk” of causing splash damage to those people who do suffer from mental disabilities.  Unlike Steve Neumann, such rhetoric does not appeal to me in the slightest.  That behavior attacks the people, rather than their harmful beliefs.

It may come as a shock after reaching the end of this post, but I also agree with the idea of ‘rehabilitating the reputation of atheism in America the United States’ (note to Neumann-‘America’ can mean South America, Latin America, or the United States of America). With the behavior of high profile atheists like Sam Harris (with his recent sexist comments about the lack of women in the atheist movement or his follow-up “explanation” as well as his irrational anti-Muslim bigotry), Richard Dawkins (who has diminished the harm of child sexual abuse, engaged in rape apologia, and who-along with Jerry Coyne– deploys overwrought histrionics at the very thought the he’s a sexist fuckwit, which further drives home the point of his critics-that he needs to examine his assumptions of gender), and the sexual predator and rapist Michael Shermer, it is not hard for me to see how one might view atheists as assholes.  Such an opinion-which lumps all atheists together, as if we’re one monolithic entity with no differing views-is wrong, but I understand how people can reach that conclusion.  

Even without the “helpful” assistance of asshole atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Shermer, the public perception of atheists is quite poor.  The only group viewed as untrustworthy as atheists are rapists:

According to the Vancouver Sun, University of British Columbia researchers conducted a total of six experiments on 350 Americans and 420 UBC students, of varying religions (67% of the Americans were Christian). In one experiment, they presented participants with the story of an “archetypal freerider” who cheats and steals a lot, and asked what group they thought that person might belong to. Participants were more likely to categorize the person as an atheist than as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, gay person, or feminist (some of the groups were chosen because they were “often described as threatening to majority religious values and morality”). Only rapists fared as poorly — participants were about as likely to put the “freerider” in this group. According to the study, “People did not significantly differentiate atheists from rapists.”

A 2014 Pew Research survey, the ‘Religion and Public Life Project’ further supports the idea that atheists are viewed poorly by the American public:

Jews, Catholics and evangelical Christians are viewed warmly by the American public. When asked to rate each group on a “feeling thermometer” ranging from 0 to 100 – where 0 reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating – all three groups receive an average rating of 60 or higher (63 for Jews, 62 for Catholics and 61 for evangelical Christians). And 44% of the public rates all three groups in the warmest part of the scale (67 or higher).

Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons receive neutral ratings on average, ranging from 48 for Mormons to 53 for Buddhists. The public views atheists and Muslims more coldly; atheists receive an average rating of 41, and Muslims an average rating of 40. Fully 41% of the public rates Muslims in the coldest part of the thermometer (33 or below), and 40% rate atheists in the coldest part.

All of that makes me sympathetic to Neumann’s desire to help transform the public’s view of atheists. With that said however, I don’t agree with Neumann’s challenge.  When I criticize religion or religious beliefs, I do so not to gloat or to belittle others. I do so because I genuinely believe religion and religious beliefs are a net harm to society.  While many people use their religious beliefs to justify their good deeds or moral beliefs, many others use their religious beliefs in ways that actively cause harm to others. Whether we’re discussing the Quiverfull movements use of women as little more than human incubators, the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion and contraception, the refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept blood transfusions,  or the anti-LGBT bigotry of prominent Christian organizations, religious beliefs often cause demonstrable harm, and can and DO lead to people being killed.  Even that, however is but the tip of the iceberg.  Religious beliefs are used to support policies that oppose anthropogenic global warming, healthcare reform,  and environmental regulation.  Of course it doesn’t end there either.  The Boy Scout ban on atheist members and leaders, the near impossibility of getting an open atheist elected to high office, the Christian Right’s support for corporal punishment (I initially typed ‘abuse’, then erased it, but I really should have left it-corporal punishment IS child abuse), and the discrimination faced by nonreligious students are further examples of harm done in the name of religious beliefs. I could keep going by mentioning the lies the Catholic Church has told about condom use in Africa, the child sexual abuse scandal rocking the Catholic Church, the baby trafficking scandal in Spain (where nearly 300,000 babies were stolen from their parents over a period of 5 decades), Ireland’s infamous Magdalene Laundries, and more still.  I’m not arguing that all of these are examples of harm done solely due to religious beliefs. Rather, I’m arguing that religious beliefs have been used to justify or cover up these harms and are often found, front and center, where awful shit is occurring.  

Thus, when Steve Neumann argues for us to be nicer (read: accommodate religious beliefs) to improve the image of atheists, he’s asking atheists to stop criticizing the harms done by religion. He’s asking us to not comment on the child sexual abuse, the anti-LGBT bigotry, the selling of babies, the treatment of women as human incubators, and more. “Wait”, some may argue. “He’s not saying to ignore all that stuff, he’s saying we shouldn’t criticize the small stuff”. On the surface, this does seem to be what Neumann is saying:

The idea for the APC came to me when I read a post last week from atheist blogger Libby Anne, who wrote about the continued downhill slide of mega-church pastor Mark Driscoll. In this post, Libby Anne draws our attention to something Driscoll had said on a message board in 2001, where he opined about the relationship between men and women from an allegedly biblical perspective. He wrote: “Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.” I don’t doubt that Driscoll wrote that, or even that he sincerely believes it. But the problem with focusing on clowns like Driscoll is that it’s much too easy to single out for righteous indignation the most visibly disgraceful member of a group. And the unavoidable implication that others get from this is that the entire group must hold those beliefs as well.

My first big problem is that Neumann is saying “ignore the fact that some religious leaders say harmful, misogynistic shit about women”.  Treating women as if they are nothing more than homes for a penis is deeply misogynistic. It denies the fact that women are people, and treats them as mere objects for the satisfaction of men, while dressing that satisfaction up in god talk.  That’s a problem, to say the least. One can take a look at Reddit subthreats or 4chan (neither of which will I link to, as I want nothing to do with those cesspools and I don’t want to give them any traffic) to see examples of people who think women exist to satisfy the desires of men.  Sexism pervades our society and attitudes like Driscoll’s, while perhaps not held by the mainstream, do exist on a spectrum of misogyny and sexism.  Neumann seems to be of the opinion that such beliefs should not be criticized.  I wonder if it’s because he’s a man who hasn’t had to deal with this shit.  No matter the reason, to not call out these beliefs is to give them tacit support and approval.  People need to know that sexism and misogyny are wrong and should not be tolerated.

The second problem I have is that the “unavoidable implication that the entire group must hold these beliefs” is false.  That’s not the implication. Libby Anne is quite careful to not make such a blanket generalization. She’s talking about the harmful beliefs of one individual and how those beliefs can influence others.  At no point does she hint that all Christians feel the same as Driscoll, and it’s a highly dishonest reading of her post to claim otherwise.

The third problem I have with Neumann’s comments is that he ignores how much influence Driscoll has. As Avicenna writes at A Million Gods:

By contrast? Mark Driscoll has millions of fans. I repeat. Millions of people listen to this douche. Calling out his bullshit is quite necessary particularly in a movement that struggles to treat women better within its own ranks. We can’t just say “sorry Libby! You got to be nicer to Mark Driscoll! You are making us look like angry harridans!”. I say  “goddamn Mark Driscoll! This kind of stuff is precisely why young men grow up to be young douchebags like Mark Driscoll who think women were put on this earth for the fucking penises to live in”.

The fourth problem I have with Neumann is his use of Libby Anne’s post as an example of what atheists need to not do, which is call out sexism and misogyny.  He’s effectively telling women in general, and Libby Anne specifically, to sit down and shut up.  Sure he’s couching it in civil terms, but he’s saying her comments are not helpful. He’s saying that it is more important to be nice to theists than to call out their harmful bullshit, and he’s doing it as a member of a movement which has a big problem with sexism and misogyny.  Dude, you’re not helping.  Some of us want an atheist movement that is welcoming to women and other oppressed groups.  Telling them to sit down, shut up, and not complain is not the way to go.  In fact, it treats their concerns as if the’re unimportant.  Here’s both middle fingers to you for that.

One might say “Mark Driscoll is merely one example Neumann uses. He’s talking about individual Christians. He’s saying that we shouldn’t criticize them.”  To which I’d say “Duh. I know that.”  That’s part of my point.  Neumann is asking atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, Humanists, and secularists to not criticize the harmful beliefs of religious people (though he limits it to Christians).  Given the plethora of examples I gave above concerning the harm done in the name of religion and religious beliefs, I find Neumann’s suggestion to be laden with privilege.  He doesn’t seem to see much of the harm done in the name of religious beliefs, whether that harm is on an individual level or national level (if he is aware of the harm, he minimizes it greatly).

In the end, Steve Neumann is sounding a call to civility. He wants nonbelievers and their allies to not be so mean to religion and religious beliefs.  He thinks that is important.  As I said above, that is important, but it is NOT more important than criticizing the injustices done to human beings in the name of religion and religious beliefs.  As long as he is asking for that, my response is “Fuck your Atheist Positivity Challenge”.

No, I’ll not be taking the Atheist positivity challenge

No, I'll not be taking the Atheist positivity challenge

Tony Thompson, , ,

Content Note:  Long rant ahead

In an article titled ‘Cut it out, atheists! Why it’s time to stop behaving like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins’, Salon writer Steve Neumann argues that atheists need to work on our image so that we can be seen as more positive:

If you’re at all familiar with atheism in America, then the following two scenes should probably come as no surprise: Biologist Richard Dawkins exhorting his followers to mock and ridicule believers with contempt, Bill Maher telling MSNBC host Joe Scarborough that “religion is a neurological disorder.” As an atheist who grew up in a fundamentalist Christian milieu, I admit that this rhetoric is not without its appeal. But the atmosphere this kind of animus creates has become as pungent and disagreeable as the stale bread and cheap wine of the church I grew up in.

So I got to thinking: First there was the Ice Bucket Challenge, then there was the Positivity Challenge (wherein you have to write 3 or 4 positive things as your Facebook status every day for 7 days). So why not get into the act and start my own?

I’d like to challenge all atheists, myself included, to refrain from posting disparaging commentary about Christian newsmakers on Facebook and other social media sites — including blogs — for one month. Let’s call it The Atheist Positivity Challenge, or the APC for short. The purpose of this challenge is to draw attention to two things: The fact that gloating about the lunacy and misdeeds of specific Christians is not only unnecessary, but probably counterproductive; and the need to rehabilitate the reputation of atheism in America.

Let me first say that I don’t like the idea of mocking and ridiculing people for their beliefs.  As an atheist, I don’t do that. I will mock and ridicule the beliefs themselves, but I’m not going to do so for the believers. So when Richard Dawkins advocates doing so, well, I’m not going to listen to him.  As for Bill Maher, he’s neither a psychiatrist, nor a psychologist, and he has no place trying to diagnose believers with any form of mental illness. Such actions serve to do nothing other than shame his targets, and have the added “perk” of causing splash damage to those people who do suffer from mental disabilities.  Unlike Steve Neumann, such rhetoric does not appeal to me in the slightest.  That behavior attacks the people, rather than their harmful beliefs.

It may come as a shock after reaching the end of this post, but I also agree with the idea of ‘rehabilitating the reputation of atheism in America the United States’ (note to Neumann-‘America’ can mean South America, Latin America, or the United States of America). With the behavior of high profile atheists like Sam Harris (with his recent sexist comments about the lack of women in the atheist movement or his follow-up “explanation” as well as his irrational anti-Muslim bigotry), Richard Dawkins (who has diminished the harm of child sexual abuse, engaged in rape apologia, and who-along with Jerry Coyne– deploys overwrought histrionics at the very thought the he’s a sexist fuckwit, which further drives home the point of his critics-that he needs to examine his assumptions of gender), and the sexual predator and rapist Michael Shermer, it is not hard for me to see how one might view atheists as assholes.  Such an opinion-which lumps all atheists together, as if we’re one monolithic entity with no differing views-is wrong, but I understand how people can reach that conclusion.  

Even without the “helpful” assistance of asshole atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Shermer, the public perception of atheists is quite poor.  The only group viewed as untrustworthy as atheists are rapists:

According to the Vancouver Sun, University of British Columbia researchers conducted a total of six experiments on 350 Americans and 420 UBC students, of varying religions (67% of the Americans were Christian). In one experiment, they presented participants with the story of an “archetypal freerider” who cheats and steals a lot, and asked what group they thought that person might belong to. Participants were more likely to categorize the person as an atheist than as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, gay person, or feminist (some of the groups were chosen because they were “often described as threatening to majority religious values and morality”). Only rapists fared as poorly — participants were about as likely to put the “freerider” in this group. According to the study, “People did not significantly differentiate atheists from rapists.”

A 2014 Pew Research survey, the ‘Religion and Public Life Project’ further supports the idea that atheists are viewed poorly by the American public:

Jews, Catholics and evangelical Christians are viewed warmly by the American public. When asked to rate each group on a “feeling thermometer” ranging from 0 to 100 – where 0 reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating – all three groups receive an average rating of 60 or higher (63 for Jews, 62 for Catholics and 61 for evangelical Christians). And 44% of the public rates all three groups in the warmest part of the scale (67 or higher).

Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons receive neutral ratings on average, ranging from 48 for Mormons to 53 for Buddhists. The public views atheists and Muslims more coldly; atheists receive an average rating of 41, and Muslims an average rating of 40. Fully 41% of the public rates Muslims in the coldest part of the thermometer (33 or below), and 40% rate atheists in the coldest part.

All of that makes me sympathetic to Neumann’s desire to help transform the public’s view of atheists. With that said however, I don’t agree with Neumann’s challenge.  When I criticize religion or religious beliefs, I do so not to gloat or to belittle others. I do so because I genuinely believe religion and religious beliefs are a net harm to society.  While many people use their religious beliefs to justify their good deeds or moral beliefs, many others use their religious beliefs in ways that actively cause harm to others. Whether we’re discussing the Quiverfull movements use of women as little more than human incubators, the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion and contraception, the refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept blood transfusions,  or the anti-LGBT bigotry of prominent Christian organizations, religious beliefs often cause demonstrable harm, and can and DO lead to people being killed.  Even that, however is but the tip of the iceberg.  Religious beliefs are used to support policies that oppose anthropogenic global warming, healthcare reform,  and environmental regulation.  Of course it doesn’t end there either.  The Boy Scout ban on atheist members and leaders, the near impossibility of getting an open atheist elected to high office, the Christian Right’s support for corporal punishment (I initially typed ‘abuse’, then erased it, but I really should have left it-corporal punishment IS child abuse), and the discrimination faced by nonreligious students are further examples of harm done in the name of religious beliefs. I could keep going by mentioning the lies the Catholic Church has told about condom use in Africa, the child sexual abuse scandal rocking the Catholic Church, the baby trafficking scandal in Spain (where nearly 300,000 babies were stolen from their parents over a period of 5 decades), Ireland’s infamous Magdalene Laundries, and more still.  I’m not arguing that all of these are examples of harm done solely due to religious beliefs. Rather, I’m arguing that religious beliefs have been used to justify or cover up these harms and are often found, front and center, where awful shit is occurring.  

Thus, when Steve Neumann argues for us to be nicer (read: accommodate religious beliefs) to improve the image of atheists, he’s asking atheists to stop criticizing the harms done by religion. He’s asking us to not comment on the child sexual abuse, the anti-LGBT bigotry, the selling of babies, the treatment of women as human incubators, and more. “Wait”, some may argue. “He’s not saying to ignore all that stuff, he’s saying we shouldn’t criticize the small stuff”. On the surface, this does seem to be what Neumann is saying:

The idea for the APC came to me when I read a post last week from atheist blogger Libby Anne, who wrote about the continued downhill slide of mega-church pastor Mark Driscoll. In this post, Libby Anne draws our attention to something Driscoll had said on a message board in 2001, where he opined about the relationship between men and women from an allegedly biblical perspective. He wrote: “Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.” I don’t doubt that Driscoll wrote that, or even that he sincerely believes it. But the problem with focusing on clowns like Driscoll is that it’s much too easy to single out for righteous indignation the most visibly disgraceful member of a group. And the unavoidable implication that others get from this is that the entire group must hold those beliefs as well.

My first big problem is that Neumann is saying “ignore the fact that some religious leaders say harmful, misogynistic shit about women”.  Treating women as if they are nothing more than homes for a penis is deeply misogynistic. It denies the fact that women are people, and treats them as mere objects for the satisfaction of men, while dressing that satisfaction up in god talk.  That’s a problem, to say the least. One can take a look at Reddit subthreats or 4chan (neither of which will I link to, as I want nothing to do with those cesspools and I don’t want to give them any traffic) to see examples of people who think women exist to satisfy the desires of men.  Sexism pervades our society and attitudes like Driscoll’s, while perhaps not held by the mainstream, do exist on a spectrum of misogyny and sexism.  Neumann seems to be of the opinion that such beliefs should not be criticized.  I wonder if it’s because he’s a man who hasn’t had to deal with this shit.  No matter the reason, to not call out these beliefs is to give them tacit support and approval.  People need to know that sexism and misogyny are wrong and should not be tolerated.

The second problem I have is that the “unavoidable implication that the entire group must hold these beliefs” is false.  That’s not the implication. Libby Anne is quite careful to not make such a blanket generalization. She’s talking about the harmful beliefs of one individual and how those beliefs can influence others.  At no point does she hint that all Christians feel the same as Driscoll, and it’s a highly dishonest reading of her post to claim otherwise.

The third problem I have with Neumann’s comments is that he ignores how much influence Driscoll has. As Avicenna writes at A Million Gods:

By contrast? Mark Driscoll has millions of fans. I repeat. Millions of people listen to this douche. Calling out his bullshit is quite necessary particularly in a movement that struggles to treat women better within its own ranks. We can’t just say “sorry Libby! You got to be nicer to Mark Driscoll! You are making us look like angry harridans!”. I say  “goddamn Mark Driscoll! This kind of stuff is precisely why young men grow up to be young douchebags like Mark Driscoll who think women were put on this earth for the fucking penises to live in”.

The fourth problem I have with Neumann is his use of Libby Anne’s post as an example of what atheists need to not do, which is call out sexism and misogyny.  He’s effectively telling women in general, and Libby Anne specifically, to sit down and shut up.  Sure he’s couching it in civil terms, but he’s saying her comments are not helpful. He’s saying that it is more important to be nice to theists than to call out their harmful bullshit, and he’s doing it as a member of a movement which has a big problem with sexism and misogyny.  Dude, you’re not helping.  Some of us want an atheist movement that is welcoming to women and other oppressed groups.  Telling them to sit down, shut up, and not complain is not the way to go.  In fact, it treats their concerns as if the’re unimportant.  Here’s both middle fingers to you for that.

One might say “Mark Driscoll is merely one example Neumann uses. He’s talking about individual Christians. He’s saying that we shouldn’t criticize them.”  To which I’d say “Duh. I know that.”  That’s part of my point.  Neumann is asking atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, Humanists, and secularists to not criticize the harmful beliefs of religious people (though he limits it to Christians).  Given the plethora of examples I gave above concerning the harm done in the name of religion and religious beliefs, I find Neumann’s suggestion to be laden with privilege.  He doesn’t seem to see much of the harm done in the name of religious beliefs, whether that harm is on an individual level or national level (if he is aware of the harm, he minimizes it greatly).

In the end, Steve Neumann is sounding a call to civility. He wants nonbelievers and their allies to not be so mean to religion and religious beliefs.  He thinks that is important.  As I said above, that is important, but it is NOT more important than criticizing the injustices done to human beings in the name of religion and religious beliefs.  As long as he is asking for that, my response is “Fuck your Atheist Positivity Challenge”.

No, I'll not be taking the Atheist positivity challenge

Gay couple goes for pizza, is brutally beaten

Tony Thompson,

On September 11, 2014, a group of 20-something year olds brutally beat a gay couple in downtown Philadelphia, PA (PA’s laws don’t include sexual orientation in its hate crimes statutes, so even though the crime was hate based, it can’t be prosecuted as a hate crime).

The attack happened at 10:45 p.m. on Thursday, September 11th near Rittenhouse Square.

Investigators say the victims, a 28-year-old man and a 27-year-old man, were in the 1600 block of Chancellor Street when police say they were approached by a group of ‘unknown males and females.’

The attack left both victims with multiple injuries.  One of the men has had his jaw wired shut and will have to drink through a straw for months.

Let that sink through your head:  a group of men and women brutally beat two human beings because they were gay.  They violated their human and civil rights.  They treated them as things.  Things to exert their power over.  They terrorized these two young men because they did not like their sexuality. This is 2014, and there are still plenty of people who view LGBT people as second class citizens and will freely terrorize them simply for expressing their sexuality or gender identity.  This both disgusts me and worries me.

On September 12, the Philly Police Department released this video of the attackers:

Central Detective Division is looking to identify and locate the suspects wanted for Hate Crime/Assault and Robbery in Rittenhouse.

On September 11, 2014, at 10:45 pm, the complainant, a 28 year-old male, along with a friend, a 27 year-old male, were on the 1600 block of Chancellor Street when they were approached by a group of unknown white males and females. As the group approached the complainants they made disparaging remarks about their sexual orientation. The group then attacked the complainants holding them while other members of the group punched them in the face, head and chest. During the assault one of the complainants dropped his bag containing his cell phone, wallet and credit cards. When police approached one of the suspects picked the bag up from the ground. The group then fled and were last seen north on 16th Street towards Walnut Street. Both complainants were transported to Hahnemann Hospital for multiple injuries. One complainant was treated for fractures and deep lacerations to his face requiring surgery and his jaw wired shut.

  • Suspect Description: A group of approximately 10-12 white male and females all in their early 20′s “clean cut” and well dressed. One suspect was described as having a husky build, brown hair, wearing a brown shirt and shorts.

[interlude:  for people who are heterosexual-this is an example of straight privilege.  You don’t have to worry about walking down the street with your partner and be worried about being attacked because of who you love.  You don’t have to worry about people hurling bigoted epithets that denigrate your sexuality.]

The couple was on their way out for pizza when a group of a dozen well-dressed men and women in their 20’s approached them about 10:30 p.m. Thursday night.

“Somebody says as we cross 16th. Is that your f-ing boyfriend? And I looked at him, and said that is my f-ing boyfriend. He goes you are a dirty (bleep). And I said yes I am a dirty (bleep) and he punched me int he face,” said the victim.

The victims say the group of attackers were yelling homophobic slurs during the beating. Then, they took off leaving one of the men in a pool of his own blood.

“When I saw 3 or 4 of these guys on me, I turned around and saw his head hit the ground like hard and didn’t come up and I was horrified. I thought he was dead,” said the victim.

In no time at all, concerned citizens took to social media to search online for the identities of the attackers.

Hours after authorities released surveillance video, Twitter users were credited by Philadelphia Police for searching online for the identities of people from a group seen in the video.

Twitter user fansince09 told Action News he was disgusted by the attack. Apparently many of his followers were, too, and they joined in the effort.

Fansince09 tweeted the video to his thousands of followers, and soon re-tweeted a picture apparently taken of this group at a nearby restaurant.

He looked on Facebook to see who had checked into that restaurant, and started clicking links, matching pictures to the video.

His effort resulted in a picture of a large party dining at a Center City restaurant. Police sources say that photograph is now part of the investigation.

Fansince09 got a shout-out on Twitter from police for his detective work.

Thanks to the efforts of citizens on social media, the gang of attackers were identified:

Philly.com is reporting that one of suspects identified through the video is Fran McGlinn, a former student and assistant basketball coach for Archbishop Wood Catholic High School. (Photo above) Kenneth Gavin, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia confirmed earlier today that McGlinn has been fired for his role in the incident:

“He was terminated this evening and will not be permitted to coach in any archdiocesan school,” Gavin said. “We expect all those who work with students in our schools to model appropriate Christian behavior at all times.”

Like McGlinn, several of the young men who turned themselves are reported to be former students of Archbishop Wood Catholic High School.

Once again, the claim that religiosity leads to morality is shown as the lie it is.

To make matters totally not better at all, the Philadelphia Archbishop issued a statement condemning the attack, but offered no support for the couple:

“A key part of a Catholic education is forming students to respect the dignity of every human person whether we agree with them or not. What students do with that formation when they enter the adult world determines their own maturity and dignity, or their lack of it. Violence against anyone, simply because of who they are, is inexcusable and alien to what it means to be a Christian. A recent beating incident in Center City allegedly involved, in some way, a part-time coach at Archbishop Wood High School. After inquiries by school leadership, the coach was contacted regarding the matter and he resigned. Archbishop Wood’s handling of the matter was appropriate, and I support their efforts to ensure that Catholic convictions guide the behavior of their whole school community, including their staff.”

I’m sure if the victims were a heterosexual couple the Archbishop (why the fuck does that get capitalized?  These guys worship and pray to an imaginary being. There is literally nothing special about them. If someone claimed to worship invisible pink unicorns, would you need to capitalize ‘ministers of invisible pink unicorns’?) would have issued a statement expressing his sympathies for them.  I’m not surprised though. The Catholic Church hardly treats LGBT people as if they’re human.  Yes, on paper, or in the mealy-mouthed words they utter, they say LGBT people are human, but through their actions, they demonstrate their disdain, contempt, disregard, and often utter hatred, of LGBT people.  Through their actions, they demonstrate that they don’t view us as human beings.  Fuck the goddamn Catholic Church.

Gay couple goes for pizza, is brutally beaten

Daniel’s Coming Out Video

Tony Thompson, , , , , 2 Comments

Trigger Warning:  homophobia, asshole parents

Recently, I wrote about the details of my coming out.  It wasn’t easy, and the response from my parents was far from ideal.  One thing they didn’t do though-they never kicked me out of the house.  They never beat me.  They never emotionally abused me.  They never disowned me.  Their reactions, homophobic though they were, never rose to the level of treating me as if they didn’t love me.  Would that that were the case for other LGB people.  By now, the Internet is abuzz with the story of Daniel Ashley Pierce, a young gay man who recently came out to his family (and recorded it), only to face the kind of rejection that fills me with sorrow for his plight, and near blinding rage at the homophobia and utter lack of compassion demonstrated by his family.   Here is some of what was said by his family:

“You can deny it all you want to,” the woman continues, “but I believe in the word of God, and God creates nobody that way,” Daniel’s mother tells him. “It’s a path that you have chosen to choose.”

Daniel, who is 20, talks about his biology and psychology classes. He tells his family he believes that “scientific proof trumps the word of God.”

“You go by all the scientific stuff you want to,” she responds. “I’m going by the word of God.”

The woman then says, “we will not support you any longer.”

“You will need to move out, and find wherever you can to live,” she adds. “Because I will not let people believe that I condone what you do.”

As the exchange heats up, there sounds like a slap, the camera is jarred, and Daniel says, “You’re not going to fucking hit me.”

Someone else says, “Son of a bitch,” and it sounds like a physical altercation is underway.

Daniel is called “a damn queer,” “a disgrace,” and “a little piece of shit.”

Someone, likely a woman, says, “I’ll beat you…” 

Religion poisons everything.  I believe it was the late Christopher Hitchens who coined that phrase, and it is so true.  When you strip away the blind, unthinking, unquestioning obeisance given to religion and religious beliefs…when you look at the effects religious beliefs have on people around the world…that smack in the face should be enough for people to reject religion asap.  Religious belief poisons the discourse on the rights of women. Religious belief poisons the treatment of rape victims.  Religious belief poisons the attempts to seek justice for the victims of the priestly sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church.  Religious belief poisons the discourse on gun control in the US.  Religious beliefs poison the discourse on corporal punishment as well as capital punishment.  I could go on at length, but I’ll add one more:  religious beliefs are one of the biggest obstacles to equality for LGB individuals across the planet.

Religious beliefs teach that we’re immoral.  They teach that we’re bound for hell. They teach that we’re in defiance of god’s rules.  They teach that we’re sinful.  They teach that we’re to be killed.  They teach that LGB people are no better than thieves, rapists, or murderers.  These beliefs can be found in religious texts in many cases.  In other cases, they’re beliefs instilled in people by their preachers, pastors, and ministers, regardless of their presence (or lack thereof) in religious texts.

These beliefs lead far too many people to reject us  for being LGB.   We are still rejected by our families and friends.  We are still kicked out of our homes.  We still live in fear of our parents or friends finding out and disowning us, or worse, killing us.  All for the “crime” of being gay.   All because someone’s religious text is interpreted as saying “the gays are icky, immoral, bestiality-loving, child molesters“.   I’ve written before that there is no moral component to being LGB, and there isn’t.  This isn’t an issue of morality, yet so many people view homosexuality in that light because they’ve been taught that in church.  There is no connection between being LGB and bestiality.  What intolerant, hate-filled bigots cannot seem to realize is that being LGB is about finding ourselves attracted-physically, psychologically, and emotionally-to people of the same sex.   When we seek relationship, we seek consensual relationships with other human beings.  When we fight for marriage equality, we’re seeking to marry another consenting adult.  We’re not seeking to fuck animals. We’re not trying to molest children.  Every. Single. Time. I’ve heard these lies, they’ve been spewed by fundamentalist religious assholes (of the Santorum, Bachmann, Dobson, or Coulter vein), with not a shred of proof to back their assertions up.  But when you’re talking about religious beliefs, proof is rarely in the picture.  Which is one of my many problems with religious beliefs.  People have them, and far too often, they don’t care whether there is evidence to support their belief.  All that matters is that this is what their deity believes, and that’s what they have to follow.

The family of Daniel Pierce chose to adhere to the antiquated, barbaric rules of their religious text rather than love their child.  They put their affection and love of a fucking book, and an imaginary man in the sky above their own child.  I cannot stress how much I despise shit like that, especially since I’m an atheist.  I see no saving grace in religion.  All the good stuff can be had in secular form.  All the bad stuff needs to be consigned to the dustbins of history.  I believe that people ought to ditch their religious beliefs and form opinions and beliefs based on the real world.  One of the things you’ll find if you pay attention to empirical evidence is that homosexuality is a normal and positive expression of human sexuality (so says the American Psychological Association).

But even IF one is religious, one need not be so narrow minded and bigoted.  I know plenty of people who are religious and who love their LGB friends and family.  They manage to rationalize their beliefs-and let’s face it, most believers rationalize their beliefs, bc I don’t know a damn person who follows all the tenets of their religious belief system-such that they don’t reject their friends and family if they come out of the closet.  They choose to continue loving that person, because to them, that is more important. They choose love.  The parents of Daniel, sadly, chose hate and fear.  I hope for their sake (and, depending on what he wishes, Daniels’ sake) that they realize at some point in the future how wrong they were and grovel before him and beg forgiveness. 

There is a bright spot to Daniel’s story.  A lot of people have become aware of it.  

Daniel’s boyfriend 
posted the video to Reddit. A friend of Daniel’s posted it to YouTube, and Dan Savage posted it on his blog, followed by Joe.My.God. and The New Civil Rights Movement. Soon after other sites, including the Backlot and The Advocate, had published it as well.

As a result, when Daniel’s boyfriend set up a GoFundMe Page, the money came pouring in.  As of this writing, more than $90,000 has been donated to Daniel.  Despite being kicked out of his home, at least he’ll have money to find a place to live on his own.  I don’t know what his feelings on his family are, so I won’t speculate if even that amount of money is worth what he’s endured (my gut says no), but at least it makes things a little less difficult for him.  

If you’re the parent of gay, lesbian, or bisexual child, I implore you:  don’t kick them out.  Do not physically or emotionally abuse them.  Being LGB in society is hard enough as it is.  We need the love and support that every child should have from their parents.  Being LGB is not immoral, I don’t care what your archaic religious text-written at a time before people even had the word ‘sexuality’ (let alone understood its meaning)-has to say.  If you’re going to place your religious beliefs above the love for your child, you’re an abominable human being.  You’ve utterly failed at being a baseline decent human being.

Please remember, if you are an LGBT child or teen in need of help, the National Runaway Switchboard at 1-800-RUNAWAY can help you. The Ali Forney Center has a local and national LGBT youth online resource guide. In the Atlanta, Georgia area Lost-n-Found Youth serves LGBT homeless youth. They’re also on Facebook.

(via TheNewCivilRightsMovement) 

Daniel’s Coming Out Video

Daniel's Coming Out Video

Tony Thompson, , , , , 2 Comments

Trigger Warning:  homophobia, asshole parents

Recently, I wrote about the details of my coming out.  It wasn’t easy, and the response from my parents was far from ideal.  One thing they didn’t do though-they never kicked me out of the house.  They never beat me.  They never emotionally abused me.  They never disowned me.  Their reactions, homophobic though they were, never rose to the level of treating me as if they didn’t love me.  Would that that were the case for other LGB people.  By now, the Internet is abuzz with the story of Daniel Ashley Pierce, a young gay man who recently came out to his family (and recorded it), only to face the kind of rejection that fills me with sorrow for his plight, and near blinding rage at the homophobia and utter lack of compassion demonstrated by his family.   Here is some of what was said by his family:

“You can deny it all you want to,” the woman continues, “but I believe in the word of God, and God creates nobody that way,” Daniel’s mother tells him. “It’s a path that you have chosen to choose.”

Daniel, who is 20, talks about his biology and psychology classes. He tells his family he believes that “scientific proof trumps the word of God.”

“You go by all the scientific stuff you want to,” she responds. “I’m going by the word of God.”

The woman then says, “we will not support you any longer.”

“You will need to move out, and find wherever you can to live,” she adds. “Because I will not let people believe that I condone what you do.”

As the exchange heats up, there sounds like a slap, the camera is jarred, and Daniel says, “You’re not going to fucking hit me.”

Someone else says, “Son of a bitch,” and it sounds like a physical altercation is underway.

Daniel is called “a damn queer,” “a disgrace,” and “a little piece of shit.”

Someone, likely a woman, says, “I’ll beat you…” 

Religion poisons everything.  I believe it was the late Christopher Hitchens who coined that phrase, and it is so true.  When you strip away the blind, unthinking, unquestioning obeisance given to religion and religious beliefs…when you look at the effects religious beliefs have on people around the world…that smack in the face should be enough for people to reject religion asap.  Religious belief poisons the discourse on the rights of women. Religious belief poisons the treatment of rape victims.  Religious belief poisons the attempts to seek justice for the victims of the priestly sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church.  Religious belief poisons the discourse on gun control in the US.  Religious beliefs poison the discourse on corporal punishment as well as capital punishment.  I could go on at length, but I’ll add one more:  religious beliefs are one of the biggest obstacles to equality for LGB individuals across the planet.

Religious beliefs teach that we’re immoral.  They teach that we’re bound for hell. They teach that we’re in defiance of god’s rules.  They teach that we’re sinful.  They teach that we’re to be killed.  They teach that LGB people are no better than thieves, rapists, or murderers.  These beliefs can be found in religious texts in many cases.  In other cases, they’re beliefs instilled in people by their preachers, pastors, and ministers, regardless of their presence (or lack thereof) in religious texts.

These beliefs lead far too many people to reject us  for being LGB.   We are still rejected by our families and friends.  We are still kicked out of our homes.  We still live in fear of our parents or friends finding out and disowning us, or worse, killing us.  All for the “crime” of being gay.   All because someone’s religious text is interpreted as saying “the gays are icky, immoral, bestiality-loving, child molesters“.   I’ve written before that there is no moral component to being LGB, and there isn’t.  This isn’t an issue of morality, yet so many people view homosexuality in that light because they’ve been taught that in church.  There is no connection between being LGB and bestiality.  What intolerant, hate-filled bigots cannot seem to realize is that being LGB is about finding ourselves attracted-physically, psychologically, and emotionally-to people of the same sex.   When we seek relationship, we seek consensual relationships with other human beings.  When we fight for marriage equality, we’re seeking to marry another consenting adult.  We’re not seeking to fuck animals. We’re not trying to molest children.  Every. Single. Time. I’ve heard these lies, they’ve been spewed by fundamentalist religious assholes (of the Santorum, Bachmann, Dobson, or Coulter vein), with not a shred of proof to back their assertions up.  But when you’re talking about religious beliefs, proof is rarely in the picture.  Which is one of my many problems with religious beliefs.  People have them, and far too often, they don’t care whether there is evidence to support their belief.  All that matters is that this is what their deity believes, and that’s what they have to follow.

The family of Daniel Pierce chose to adhere to the antiquated, barbaric rules of their religious text rather than love their child.  They put their affection and love of a fucking book, and an imaginary man in the sky above their own child.  I cannot stress how much I despise shit like that, especially since I’m an atheist.  I see no saving grace in religion.  All the good stuff can be had in secular form.  All the bad stuff needs to be consigned to the dustbins of history.  I believe that people ought to ditch their religious beliefs and form opinions and beliefs based on the real world.  One of the things you’ll find if you pay attention to empirical evidence is that homosexuality is a normal and positive expression of human sexuality (so says the American Psychological Association).

But even IF one is religious, one need not be so narrow minded and bigoted.  I know plenty of people who are religious and who love their LGB friends and family.  They manage to rationalize their beliefs-and let’s face it, most believers rationalize their beliefs, bc I don’t know a damn person who follows all the tenets of their religious belief system-such that they don’t reject their friends and family if they come out of the closet.  They choose to continue loving that person, because to them, that is more important. They choose love.  The parents of Daniel, sadly, chose hate and fear.  I hope for their sake (and, depending on what he wishes, Daniels’ sake) that they realize at some point in the future how wrong they were and grovel before him and beg forgiveness. 

There is a bright spot to Daniel’s story.  A lot of people have become aware of it.  

Daniel’s boyfriend 
posted the video to Reddit. A friend of Daniel’s posted it to YouTube, and Dan Savage posted it on his blog, followed by Joe.My.God. and The New Civil Rights Movement. Soon after other sites, including the Backlot and The Advocate, had published it as well.

As a result, when Daniel’s boyfriend set up a GoFundMe Page, the money came pouring in.  As of this writing, more than $90,000 has been donated to Daniel.  Despite being kicked out of his home, at least he’ll have money to find a place to live on his own.  I don’t know what his feelings on his family are, so I won’t speculate if even that amount of money is worth what he’s endured (my gut says no), but at least it makes things a little less difficult for him.  

If you’re the parent of gay, lesbian, or bisexual child, I implore you:  don’t kick them out.  Do not physically or emotionally abuse them.  Being LGB in society is hard enough as it is.  We need the love and support that every child should have from their parents.  Being LGB is not immoral, I don’t care what your archaic religious text-written at a time before people even had the word ‘sexuality’ (let alone understood its meaning)-has to say.  If you’re going to place your religious beliefs above the love for your child, you’re an abominable human being.  You’ve utterly failed at being a baseline decent human being.

Please remember, if you are an LGBT child or teen in need of help, the National Runaway Switchboard at 1-800-RUNAWAY can help you. The Ali Forney Center has a local and national LGBT youth online resource guide. In the Atlanta, Georgia area Lost-n-Found Youth serves LGBT homeless youth. They’re also on Facebook.

(via TheNewCivilRightsMovement) 

Daniel's Coming Out Video

More Ferguson, MO and militarization of the police

Tony Thompson, , , , , , , ,

One of Missouri’s top newspapers is under fire.  

The Columbia Daily Tribune recently published what many consider to be a racist cartoon:

The Columbia (MO) Daily Tribune is facing a bit of heat today after running the above cartoon by Gary McCoy on Wednesday’s editorial page, with people pointing out, “Dudes, that some real racist bullshit you got there.”

Of course it didn’t help that the Trib ran it in conjunction with the buttoned-down racism of Rich Lowry from National Review, who wants the blacks to quit making the normally super-nice police officers — who punish jaywalking with summary execution in the street — become even meaner and try to kill them in larger numbers which would be much harder for conservatives to defend.

Not that they wouldn’t try.

Yup. Racist.
It’s characterizing {largely BLACK} protesters as looters and rioters, instead of people with a long standing series of legitimate grievances against the government (this is racist for a variety of reasons, one of which is that this is a prejudicial view of black people that many Americans hold-that they’re thugs, thieves, scoundrels, and criminals with little redeeming value-this view is held not based on reality, but based on biases and prejudices held by people which they refuse to confront and examine; it’s also racist for the art-specifically the way black people are rendered in the cartoon). The cartoon makes the same mistake a lot of people have made-treating the looters (the people rioting have been the police) as if they represent the community of Ferguson, when in actuality a great many of them are from out of the St. Louis area, and there aren’t that many of them. Shifting the story to “Mike Brown stole stuff” or “Mike Brown was a threat to Officer Wilson” or “People stole tvs” moves the focus away from the violations of civil rights perpetrated against a community for a very long time, up to and including the execution of Michael Brown, and continuing through the brutal tactics of the police in response to protesters. On top of that, it ignores the role the police have played in denying reporters their constitutional rights. The people of Ferguson want, and deserve justice and accountability from the police as well as the government and they haven’t gotten that. This shit about rioting and looting is a smokescreen. A diversion from the story that matters-the denial of the constitutional and civil rights of African-Americans (and the press).

 

Elementary teacher suspended for asking white student ‘cops’ to shoot black ‘Michael Browns’

A Gun Happy toon:

The case of Michael Brown: Missing police reports, anonymous sources and shoddy journalism

Tiffany Mitchell was a witness to the killing of Michael Brown.  

Donors Choose Drive for #Ferguson

Officer Is Suspended After Telling Media in Ferguson: ‘I Will F*cking Kill You’

A police officer has been removed from his post after he pointed his gun at a group of people documenting events in Ferguson on Tuesday night and threatened to kill them, St. Louis County Police spokesman Brian Schellman told Mashable.

“On Tuesday, August 19, 2014, shortly before midnight, an incident occurred wherein a St. Ann police officer pointed a semi-automatic assault rifle at a peaceful protestor after a verbal exchange,” Schellman wrote in an email. (St. Ann is a St. Louis suburb not far from Ferguson.) “It was at this time a St. Louis County police sergeant walked over and immediately took action, forcing the officer to lower the weapon, and escorting him away from the area.”

 

The St. Ann police officer involved in the incident has been relieved of duty and suspended indefinitely, Schellman added, satisfying a request the ACLU sent to the Missouri State Highway Patrol Wednesday afternoon requesting they do just that.

 

Facebook talk on #Ferguson, race causing a friend fallout, chilling relationships

The end of childhood: How the violence in Ferguson will change its children:

Angela Mitchell-Phillips’ predominantly white church had a “come to Jesus” moment on race last weekend.

Her minister leaned over the pulpit and said something like: As God is my witness, I better not ever hear of anybody in this parish calling another human being an animal.

The congregation turned pin-drop silent. Mitchell-Phillips looked around the pews.

“I bet somebody did it,” she thought. “I bet he saw it on Facebook. And I bet he was pissed.”

The moment points to how raw and tense the issue of race has become in St. Louis, and around the country, since Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson fatally shot 18-year-old, unarmed Michael Brown and the volatile days of protests since.

 

The end of childhood: How the violence in Ferguson will change its children

There’s a moment when a child confronts an unfairness so big it changes the way he or she looks at world.

It could be a significant trauma − abuse, a loss − or a simple awareness that the rules don’t apply to everyone the same way. There’s a moment when we question what we’ve been taught or assumed to be true in a way that shakes the ground underneath us.

For the past several days, some children in Ferguson have seen a slain teenager on the street, killed by a police officer, a childhood symbol of protection. They’ve witnessed police in riot gear in clouds of tear gas, night after night, heard barking dogs used to try to control the unrest, angry shouts from protesters and police. Th
ey have heard shots fired and seen a building burned, glass shattered.

“I know that in the coming days, weeks and months children will continue to re-experience this,” said Marva Robinson, president of the St. Louis chapter of the Association of Black Psychologists. It’s not just those living nearby, but also those who have been watching the news with their parents. Children could have nightmares for years to come. They may be hypersensitve or hypervigilant around law enforcement, Robinson said.

 

From their parents, they may be hearing about how their community is treated unfairly, targeted or hated. Instead of new backpacks, they may carry a sense of devaluation, anxiety, fear with them too as they head back to school.

What is the eventual impact of being exposed at a young age to violence and a feeling that the police can’t or won’t protect you? You build up a wall of mistrust. You are closed off to persons of authority. You find it hard to trust the guidance of school professionals or others who may want to help you. You see them as part of a system that killed someone who looks like you or doesn’t care about children who look like you.

“If they were innocent before this, the seeds are being planted in them of feeling dehumanized,” Robinson said. Those seeds bloom into a cycle that perpetuates scenes like what we are seeing in Ferguson.

Isn’t the loss of this innocence yet another injustice, which should outrage us and motivate us to do something?

<

p style=”text-align:right;”> 

Holder’s stop in Ferguson is deeply person:

Attorney General Eric Holder flew to Ferguson, Mo., on Wednesday as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer leading an investigation into a police shooting.

He also arrived as an African-American who said he understands the racial tensions that have fueled days of protests that have been marred by violence and mass arrests since the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.

“I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I am also a black man,” Holder told Ferguson residents at a community meeting. “I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over. … ‘Let me search your car’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.”

Holder was here primarily for briefings on the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation into possible civil rights violations related to the fatal shooting. He offered perhaps his most forceful and personal assessment yet of how the 18-year-old man’s shooting has reignited a long history of racial “mistrust and mutual suspicion.”

As protests unfold, dad tells son racism lives:

Darius Pikes’ 10-year-old wants to know why black men are harassed.

Pikes tells his son the answer is racism.

“My son has asked me: Why is it that black males are harassed? He’s asking why is it, the police are supposed to protect and serve the citizens, then why does it seem like they’re bullying the citizens? He actually used that word,” Pikes said. “He said, can the principals of the schools, can they come and talk to the people about bullying because they talk about it in school.”

Pikes has been teaching for 13 years, currently as a music teacher in Ferguson, Mo. The death of Michael Brown, a black teenager, has sparked protests here for more than a week. Brown, who was unarmed, was shot by white police officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9. For Pikes, the incident is a chance to have important conversations.

“A lot of the kids are confused about what’s going on, but I think this is a really good opportunity to talk to them about racism because racism is alive and well,” Pikes said.

The situation in Ferguson presents an opportunity for parents to speak with children about issues of fairness, said Jennifer Baker, director of the Robert J. Murney clinic in Springfield, Mo., which offers counseling and psychological services.

Parents should acknowledge to their children that bad things happen, but added that they should not unnecessarily expose their children to violence. Parents should also tell children they do everything they can to keep them safe.

Baker said parents can ask children questions about how they respond when they think situations are unfair or whether they have ever treated someone different because they were not like them. For children older than 10 or so, more specific conversations about racism may be appropriate, she said.

 

Petition asking cops to wear body cameras passes 100K:

A petition asking the White House to look into requiring all state, county and local police to wear lapel cameras has reached 100,000 signatures.

Obama administration officials have said they will respond to petitions that reach that threshold.

Late Tuesday, the petition, created by “J.C.” of Hephzibah, Ga., reached the required number. As of noon Wednesday, it had more than 128,000 signatures.

 

Mike Brown Law. Requires all state, county, and local police to wear a camera.

Create a bill, sign into law, and set aside funds to require all state, county and local police to wear a camera. Due to the latest accounts of deadly encounters with police, We the People, petition for the Mike Brown Law. The law shall be made in an effort to not only detour police misconduct (i.e. brutality, profiling, abuse of power) but to ensure that all police are following procedure and to remove all question from normally questionable police encounters as well as help to hold all parties within a police investigation accountable for their actions.

 

While the White House’s We the People Web page allows anyone 13 and older to create and sign a petition to the government, it doesn’t guarantee any action.

If a petition reaches 150 signatures within 30 days, it becomes searchable on the site. If it reaches 100,000 signatures within another 30 days, administration officials say they will respond to the petition. The police camera petition was created Aug. 13.

For a law to be passed, a Congress member would have to create a bill, have it pass committees within the House and Senate, have it pass votes of the full House and Senate and have the president sign it. Any initiative that has a cost associated with it would need to have a funding source.

ME:  I wish this stood a chance of becoming a reality.  Sadly, given our government,
this probably has no likelihood of passing, even if it became a bill.

St. Louis Police Release Video, Calls From City Shooting:

On Tuesday, two officers from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department shot and killed Kajieme Powell, who was 25 years old.

Powell was suspected of shoplifting energy drinks and donuts from a convenience store. The shop owner, believing that Powell was carrying a weapon, contacted police. Another witness, Ald. Dionne Flowers, who represents the area and owns a beauty salon in the same block, noticed that Powell was acting erratically and also called police. Flowers told police she saw a second knife, though only one was recovered at the scene.

Powell approached the officers when they arrived, yelling at them to shoot him already. When he ignored commands to drop the knife, the two officers fired a total of 12 shots. Chief Sam Dotson said the knife was like a steak knife.

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department said it will act with complete transparency. It has released the 911 calls, dispatch audio, video of the shoplifting, as well as cell phone video of the police shooting taken by a witness.

Documenting the Arrests of Journalists in Ferguson:

On Aug. 13, 2014, police in Ferguson, Missouri, assaulted and arrested two journalists for allegedly failing to exit a McDonald’s quickly enough while on a break from covering the protests. Since then, police actions against journalists in Ferguson have escalated in severity and frequency. Many have been tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets and at least nine more have been arrested.

It should go without saying that these arrests are a gross violation of the reporters’ First Amendment rights, and attempts to prevent journalists from lawfully doing their job on the streets of Ferguson are downright illegal. We will be documenting each journalist arrest below and are filing public records requests for the arrest records of the journalists who have been assaulted, detained, and arrested in Ferguson. All requests are publicly available on MuckRock.

Lessons from Ferguson: Police Militarization is Now a Press Freedom Issue:

The situation in Ferguson, Missouri—where four days ago the police killed an unarmed teenager—took another disturbing turn yesterday as cops decked out in riot gear arrested and assaulted two reporters covering the protests, Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery and Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly, as they were sitting in a McDonald’s, quietly charging their phones.

The arrests were undoubtedly a gross violation of the reporters’ First Amendment rights, and both the attempts to stop them from filming and their assault by police officers were downright illegal. But there’s another issue at play here, an issue which has led to the environment in which cops think they can get away with these acts: the militarization of local police.

The public has been gripped these last few days by disturbing photographs of police with automatic assault rifles, snipers, tear gas, body armor, tanks, LRADs(Long Range Acoustic Devices) facing peaceful, unarmed protesters in Ferguson. As managing editor Ryan Grim noted in Huffington Post’s statement their reporter’s arrest, “Police militarization has been among the most consequential and unnoticed developments of our time, and it is now beginning to affect press freedom.”

As folks who have closely followed criminal justice issues (or the Occupy Wall Street protests from two years ago) know, this is a problem that has been brewing for years. The quintessential book on the issue was written last year by journalist Radley Balko, who now covers criminal justice issues at the Washington Post. The ACLU also released a comprehensive report about police militarization earlier this year.

 

Joe Biggs, Reporter Threatened By Cop In Ferguson, Speaks Out

More Ferguson, MO and militarization of the police

The idiocy of Ken Ham

Tony Thompson

 

Are we alone in the universe?  According to NASA astronomer Kevin Hand, extraterrestrial life will likely be discovered in the next 20 years.  Whether or not you believe him, that’s a bold statement to make (I do not. However I do think it is highly like that life exists elsewhere.  The universe is just a wee bit big).  Answers in Genesis president and CEO Ken Ham had something to say about this search for extraterrestrial life:

 

I’m shocked at the countless hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent over the years in the desperate and fruitless search for extraterrestrial life. Even Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” in our recent debate, happily gloated about tax dollars being spent toward this effort. And now, secular scientists are at it again.

 

Clearly Ham is not interested in attempts to find out if we’re alone in this vast universe.  Other people disagree and think there’s value in searching.  He thinks it’s fruitless though, and offers up no proof of his opinion.  It’s fruitless? How? Oh yeah, Ken Ham is a creationist. He believes in biblical nonsense and clearly thinks life only exists on Earth.  I also love the use of “secular” to describe scientists searching for extraterrestrial life.  It’s a pointless adjective that merely highlights Ham’s disdain for the separation of church and state.

Of course, secularists are desperate to find life in outer space, as they believe that would provide evidence that life can evolve in different locations and given the supposed right conditions!  The search for extraterrestrial life is really driven by man’s rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!

No, you nitwit.  Scientists don’t need to search for life in space to find evidence for evolution. That’s already been done and there are mounds of evidence in support of evolution.  There’s no need to look off-planet for that evidence.  If you’d ditch your religion-tinged glasses for a moment, you’d see that the prospect of life in the universe aside from this pale blue dot is an idea that many find fascinating.  It’s not driven by some silly rebellion against an unproven deity that you can’t even define.  I don’t believe in your god, nor any other gods, and you, as well as the believers of every other religion that has ever existed have no evidence to prove your flavor of deity exists.  Until you provide evidence of that, the idea of “rebelling” against your god is silly.  It’s like rebelling against invisible pink unicorns that fart rainbows.

You see, according to the secular, evolutionary worldview there must be other habited worlds out there. As the head of NASA, Charles Borden, puts it, “It’s highly improbable in the limitless vastness of the universe that we humans stand alone.” Secularists cannot allow earth to be special or unique—that’s a biblical idea (Isaiah 45:18). If life evolved here, it simply must have evolved elsewhere they believe.

I don’t think scientists think there must be life out there, just that its statistically likely.  The conditions necessary for life to arise here on Earth could very well happen elsewhere.  We have no proof that life originated because of a deity, so there’s no reason to continue adhering to that unproven hypothesis.  There are naturalistic explanations offered for the origin of life, explanations that actually have a foundation in reality rather than fantasy.  Are any of these explanations “the one”?  At present, we don’t know (a phrase often found in scientific attempts to discover the origins of life, but not one found in religion).  As for not allowing Earth to be special or unique…WTF? Where is he getting that from?  Can he point to a secularist that thinks Earth is not special or unique?  Does he not realize that even if life is found on other worlds that Earth can still be special and unique (rhetorical question)?  As he did in his debate with Bill Nye, Ham falls back on the bible as “proof” for what he believes.

The Bible, in sharp contrast to the secular worldview, teaches that earth was specially created, that it is unique and the focus of God’s attention (Isaiah 66:1 and Psalm 115:16). Life did not evolve but was specially created by God, as Genesis clearly teaches. Christians certainly shouldn’t expect alien life to be cropping up across the universe.

Yes, the bible says all that, without one shred of evidence to back any of it up. Outside of the bible, there’s no verification of this version of the origin of life.  Reality does not match up to what the bible teaches as the origin of life.  There’s no reason to keep returning to the bible as a “source” for anything.  Life did evolve, and there’s plenty of evidence to prove that.

Now the Bible doesn’t say whether there is or is not animal or plant life in outer space.  I certainly suspect not. The Earth was created for human life. And the sun and moon  were created for signs and our seasons—and to declare the glory of God.

Sigh.  Dude, you don’t know that.  You’re assuming it. You think the bible is a valid source of information on the nature of reality, and yet science has shown, over and over again that it is not.  “The Earth was created for human life”? Then why the hell can we not survive on most of the planet.  We require a very specific set of conditions to survive.  Given that the majority of the planet is covered in water, and humans are not amphibious, there’s no reason to think this planet was created for us (not unless you’re engaging in a silly fine-tuning argument, which doesn’t work).  And really, this god guy (of course he’s male gendered ::eyeroll::) is incredibly vain if he created everything to glorify himself.

And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation. One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire, and there will be a new heavens and earth. God’s Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the “Godman,” to be our relative, and to be the perfect sacrifice for sin—the Savior of mankind.

The bible makes that clear?  Where? Nevermind, it doesn’t matter, because the bible is a man-made creation and there’s no reason to think it was divinely inspired (and there’s no reason to think that anything “divine” exists).  By the way, you can consider Jesus Christ to be your savior, but I don’t.  There’s no evidence for god, and there’s no evidence for any supposed divinity of Jesus Christ.  There’s no reason to believe that anything Christ did was to benefit all of mankind.  That you believe that god recreated himself in a pseudo-human form, and allowed himself to be tortured to death in some sort of sacrifice to atone for the deeds of humanity–deeds that god himself is responsible for (in your worldview)–is warped and utter nonsense.

Jesus did not become the “GodKlingon” or the “GodMartian”!  Only descendants of Adam can be saved.  God’s Son remains the “Godman” as our Savior.  In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we see the Father through the Son (and we see the Son through His Word).  To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong.

Ironically enough, if Jesus had claimed to be a GodKlingon, that might well have been some good evidence of precognition.  Seeing a Gene Roddenberry creation thousands of years before it was created?  That’d be kinda cool.

Many secularists want to discover alien life hoping that aliens can answer the deepest questions of life: “Where did we come from?” and “What is the purpose and meaning of life?” But such people are ignoring the revelation from the infinite God behind the whole universe. The Creator has told us where we came from: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1; Nehemiah 9:6). And He told us what life’s purpose is: “Fear God and keep His commandments” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

More meaningless, unsubstantiated drivel.  Since I don’t believe in any deity (there’s just as much proof of Ham’s god as there is for Odin or Hephaestus), there’s no reason to believe life has a purpose.  There’s no divine hand, no force that gives life meaning.  WE give life meaning.  WE give purpose to our lives.  I find it sad that Ham thinks the meaning of life is to be scared of his deity and do as he commands.  Ham.  Dude.  That’s slavery.

The answers to life’s questions will not be found in imaginary aliens but in the revelation of the Creator through the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ, who came to die on a Cross to redeem mankind from sin and death that our ancestor, Adam, introduced.

I pity Ken Ham. He thinks all the answers in life can be found in the bible.    There’s no need to reach for the stars and advance our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.  As sad as I am for him, he’s free to lead that life if he chooses, but he needs to quit trying to indoctrinate others into that sad, small belief system.

 

The idiocy of Ken Ham

There’s a cheaper way to have an orgasm

meshorer, , ,

…than “turning gay”.  Raging homophobic bigot Peter LaBarbera went on the air attacking gay men.  He claims that men “turn gay for the cheap orgasm”:

Continue reading “There’s a cheaper way to have an orgasm” →

There’s a cheaper way to have an orgasm