Consequences of Gay Marriage according to Tony Perkins

Decided to go through my email wingnut folder and right on top was this GEM from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC). (Emphasis mine)

Dear Collin,
This year the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases that will also have a lasting impact on the very soul of our nation.

Windsor v. United States could overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that codifies the traditional, historic definition of marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. 

Likewise, Hollingsworth v. Perry could permanently overturn California's amendment to preserve traditional marriage under Proposition 8.

If the Supreme Court does not uphold the constitutionality of these two laws, it will not only lead to the destruction of traditional marriage as we know it, but subvert our American democratic process and force people like you and me to affirm counterfeit matrimony or face punishment by the federal government. 

We simply cannot let this happen! 

Hollywood, the education establishment, and even the Obama administration are working overtime to indoctrinate you, me, and other Americans into thinking that same-sex "marriage" is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage,

 Both my laughter and tears are locked in battle trying to outdo each other. Gay marriage will not lead to the destruction of a single "traditional" marriage. You know what it will lead too? Gay people getting married.

That's it! Full stop! Case closed! Can we get back to work now?

But according to Tony, there's a lot more we should be worried about should the Supreme court overturn DOMA. Lets see if I can help him answer some of his pressing concerns about the future.

And if they succeed, what will ultimately happen to those of us who rely on Scripture as a guide to life and refuse to "change our politically incorrect views?"

• Will the federal government now tell pastors what they can and cannot preach from the pulpit so it conforms to approved government speech?

Ummm..no. 1st amendment makes that illegal. Next?

• Will pastors who preach against same-sex "marriage" and homosexual behavior be prosecuted for hate speech?

Only if they are actually spewing hate speech from the pulpit.

• Will churches that refuse to host same-sex "weddings" lose their tax exemptions?

Probably not, which is a crying shame.

And there are other very serious consequences:

• The military will have to provide "married" housing to same-sex couples at taxpayer expense.

 They damn well better. All the best for our fabulous men and women in uniform right? Also, why are you so concerned about the taxpayer expense of military spouse housing and not, say, the military?

• Christian adoption agencies will be forced to place children with same-sex couples or close their doors.

Only if they take government money. If they are discriminating for any reason, the government can have no part in it. Really! It's in that constitution you wave around when we try to take away your guns!

• Christian-owned companies and even para-church ministries will be coerced to extend married benefits to same-sex couples.

If by "coerced" you mean dragged kicking and screaming into the next century (in your case probably the 19th) by social progress, then yes you will definitely be coerced. If you mean the government will be interfering with your ministries or private businesses, then no. 1st amendment.

• And children who won't affirm the legitimacy of the homosexual "lifestyle" choice will be forced to undergo psychological counseling.

First of all, no they won't go through psychological counseling. If they're bullying kids based on their sexuality  they'll be treated the same as any other bully.

But secondly, how is it okay, Tony Perkins, to approve of putting gay youth through traumatic, damaging, and ineffective camps that purport to change their sexual orientation, but not okay to change kids' minds about the legitimacy of being gay through counseling?

And you are worried about the damage gays are doing to society?

Uganda "Kill the Gays" Bill Removes Death Penalty

The so-called "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda has had some teeth removed this week.  Just last month, Ugandan Speaker Rebecca Kadaga announced that the bill would be passed in December as "A Christmas gift to the Ugandan people."

However, under a mix of largely international and some internal pressure, MP David Bahati announced that the charge of "aggravated homosexuality" will no longer carry the death penalty. This is progress of a kind, but nothing to cheer over. Nothing that was considered criminal in the original law has been legalized, nor has the intent of the bill or the will of the people changed.

Bahati said the bill now focuses on protecting children from gay pornography, banning gay marriage, counseling gays, as well as punishing those who promote gay culture. Jail terms are prescribed for various offenses, he said, offering no details. The most recent version of the bill hasn't been publicly released. 

In 2009, when Bahati first introduced the bill, he charged that homosexuals threatened family values in Uganda and that gays from the West were recruiting poor Ugandan children into gay lifestyles with promises of money and a better life. He said a tough new law was needed because a colonial-era law against sodomy was not strong enough.
(Via Associated Press)

Note the extreme amount of overlap between Bahati's rhetoric and that of the religious right here in America.  The similarity is startling but not surprising, as the Ugandans adopted almost all of it from western Evangelical Christians working in the country.

Both claim that homosexuals "threaten family values" and that gays are "recruiting children into gay lifestyles."  Both seek to ban gay marriage, seek ineffective and harmful reparative therapy for homosexuality, and introduce or maintain sodomy laws.

With the death penalty removed, Ugandan sentiment has only been brought closer in line with the religious right of America, and even then there are influential American evangelical preachers who still seek to kill or eliminate gays from the population in one way or another.  The fact that they cannot hope to implement such a law here is the only discernible difference.

Still, the Ugandan bill does have one unique element that makes it infinitely worse than anything being proposed in America. By "punishing those who promote gay culture," the act of questioning the law or speaking out in favor of gay rights has been warped into an act of sedition.  This affront to free speech serves not only to eliminate a right essential to a well-functioning democracy but also to criminalize all efforts to ever remove this law.  Within this clause lies the power to charge any parliamentarian proposing a repeal of the anti-gay bill with "promoting gay culture."

We should be thankful that the death penalty has been removed from the pending legislation but terrified of the staying power the current language imparts to the law. If this law passes, the bigotry it contains will be nearly intractable.

This is not a battle we can afford to lose in the fight for LGBT rights abroad. If we fail now, Uganda may be locked into a cycle of self sustaining hatred for a generation.

University of Pennsylvania Chaplaincy Nice to Work With

I've been working as a board member for the University of Pennsylvania's secular group Rekindle Reason for a couple months now, and I have to say I've been pleasantly surprised by the cooperation and encouragement we've received from the Office of the Chaplaincy on campus.

Unlike the campus religious organizations that I'm used to dealing with, the chaplains are there to promote coexistence and cooperation between people of different belief sets rather than push any one of them.  The chaplains I've met with have been very kind and pretty liberal.  They've helped us navigate the religious environment at Penn and my job would be a lot harder without them.

So a big thank you to the Chaplain's Office and their staff.

As an example of the good work they do, here's an excerpt from their web page about avoiding high-pressure religious groups. This is a list of ways to avoid being snatched up by extreme religious groups that pray on the homesick, lonely, and overwhelmed students.

In most instances you can expect a good experience with most religious groups at Penn. However, at these times of stress and uncertainty high-pressure religious groups may seek you out and try and recruit you.
Some ways to identify high-pressure groups:
Observe the group’s responses to you and how you feel. If you can answer “yes” to three or more of these statements, you should seriously reconsider your involvement.

• The group seems to be perfect. Everyone agrees and follows all orders cheerfully.

• The group claims to have “all the answers” to your problems.

• The group offers “instant friendship.” They will not take “no” for an answer; invitations are impossible to refuse without feeling guilty and/or ungrateful.

• You are asked to recruit new members soon after joining.

• The group insists on total obedience to their leaders and discourages questions or doubts as signs of weak faith. You may be rejected or shunned if you persist in asking questions.

• Your parents and friends are described as being “unable to understand or help you” with religious matters.

• The group encourages you to put their meetings and activities before all other commitments, including studying.

• The group puts down your past religious, social or political affiliation.

If you can answer “YES” to any three of these questions, you should consider talking to a University staff member or administrator. Remember…

• Your mind is a gift! Don’t waste it, use it!

• You don’t have to be manipulated!

I am in full agreement with this advice. Religious groups that use such recruiting tactics should be avoided at all costs by religious and non-religious students alike.  It's refreshing to see religious leaders speaking out on the issue, and again I thank the chaplains for their support.

In Defense of Blasphemy

Today Sept 30, 2012 is International Blasphemy Day.  This is a day dedicated to raising awareness about the encroachment upon free speech rights by anti-blasphemy laws around the world.  Generally there are two reactions that I hear against Blasphemy Day: "We don't want to be offensive.  Free speech is about being respectful of diverse ideas and opinions." and "You are just using the banner of free speech to disguise your hatred and mockery of God."

As I've explained before, the second response is just nonsensical, since I can't hate something I don't believe in.  However, the first response does give me pause and I'm very sympathetic to that attitude.  I would consider myself to be a first amendment absolutist in the sense that I believe all people should have the right to have their voices heard, but that also means that all people must have a right to voice a contrary opinion.  Free speech means nothing if people are not free to say things that may offend us.  That is why I am diametrically opposed to any legislation that would seek to curtail our most important right, whether domestic or international.

I recognize though that not everyone shares my views on the centrality of the first amendment to our democracy.  And while I think we should apply the principles behind this critical right around the world, it has no legal authority beyond our borders.  As such, I would like to put forward a laundry list of reasons that I support Blasphemy Day (and why you should too).

1. There is no clear line between religious dissent and blasphemy.
A Christian who denies that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet blasphemes Islam by her very existence.  A Jew denies the divinity of Jesus, and hence blasphemes against Christianity.  Every single one of you reading this post is a blasphemer or a heretic to someone's religion.  By following a different religion than your neighbor (or by following none) you are blaspheming against other religions.  The right to blaspheme other religions underlies religious liberty, as we see in countless cases around the globe.

In Saudi Arabia, people voicing religious opinions not sanctioned by the government (including Shi'a Muslims) are being tortured, beaten, detained, deported, persecuted, and sometimes even sentenced to death for professing or even secretly holding a faith other than the Saudi's narrow interpretation of Sunni Islam.  Hamza Kashgari has been charged with blasphemy over 3 very mild tweets that he made earlier this year and under current law could face a death sentence.

According to a 2009 report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, "The government of Iran continues to engage in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention, torture, and executions based primarily or entirely upon the religion of the accused."

In Ireland, the constitution requires a blasphemy law to be on the books and in 2009 such a law was passed stating that: "A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding 25,000 euro."

An 11 year old Christian girl in Pakistan was accused of burning pages from the Koran.  A mob wanted to burn her alive, citing Pakistan's blasphemy laws as legal justification.

The list goes on and on, and that's just in the past decade.  Think of all the books that have been burned, people executed, and religious groups persecuted throughout the millennia all for the victim-less crime of blasphemy.

The freedom to disagree on which religion to practice or not to practice is in jeopardy around the world and blasphemy laws like these are appearing with increased frequency all over the globe.  The freedom of religion depends on the freedom to disagree with other religions, and blasphemy laws disallow that freedom.

2. Opponents of free speech have learned to use the language of religious tolerance against us.

I have no desire to go out of the way to offend people and never do anything with offense being the central goal.  But opponents of free speech have learned to speak the language of tolerance and mutual respect and turn it against that attitude.

Every year since 1999, a group of UN member countries has put a resolution "Combating defamation of religions" before the Human Rights Council.  Here are some excerpts from the March 2008 incarnation of the resolution that actually passed:

"Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;"

Sounds reasonable right? I want to respect everyone and don't like hatred and intolerance and it makes sense to encourage their protection right?  Well let's read a little further:

"Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;"

Note that they are again talking about the freedom of thought and conscience, but what does protection from contempt mean?  Protection from people disagreeing?  Let's read on:

"Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions"

Subject to certain restrictions? What restrictions are those?

"...prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred...the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;"

So it starts by telling us that we have to be tolerant and respectful of all religions but ends with telling us what we can and cannot say about them and limiting our free expression.

If you still think that this resolution has good intentions behind it and is promoting an agenda of tolerance and free expression, take a look at who voted for the resolution, who thought this resolution aligned with their goals and ideals:

China, Cuba, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and others.
All countries with great records on freedom of expression

The United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Switzerland all voted against the resolution.  40 human rights groups petitioned against the motion because they saw through it.

They were trying to put a blasphemy law at the heart of the UN.  If you're wondering why you've never heard about it on ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, or any other major news network it's because they didn't cover it.  That's why blasphemy day is so important. It draws attention to and starts a conversation about the slow and steady erosion of free speech rights around the world.

Just this year, the European Union made a joint statement with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League and the Commission of the African Union which contains even stronger language than the UN resolution.  Michael Nugent summed up the situation perfectly:

We are in danger of conceding the step between the state respecting somebody’s right to believe what they want, and the state automatically respecting the content of the belief itself – and insisting by law that citizens do so also. - Link

3. Blasphemy laws are an appeal to force that limit our ability to question religious ideas

Blasphemy laws spread the idea that it is OK to allow ideas to be defended by laws prohibiting their critique than allowing them to stand or fall on arguments and evidence.  The moment you make an idea illegal to criticize you remove all accountability from its adherents.  Religion is already uniquely armored against criticism because it lacks a reality check.  Adding legal protection from reproach only increases their resistance to new evidence and ideas.  It sends the message that censorship and intimidation is a valid and effective way to win an argument.

And it is effective.  Think back to the infamous danish cartoons of Muhammad.  The fear of reprisal from the extremist Muslim community was so widespread that Yale University press censored the cartoons from the book The Cartoons that Shook the World.  Why? "The decision rested solely on the experts’ assessments that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims." In a media that is dominated by images, we are not being allowed the freedom to view and judge the cartoons for ourselves.

When you are dealing with people who are using the Law to force you to respect your beliefs, history has taught us not to expect respect in return.  Just as the wall of separation between church and state is not a one-way wall, tolerance is not a one-way street.

4. Not only should we be allowed to criticize religion, but religion needs to be criticized.  

Not all religious people are opposed to contraception, LGBT equality, gender equality, stem cell research, assisted suicide, the teaching of science in schools, and more.  But the driving force behind the opposition to each is overwhelmingly religious ideologies   If we as secularists, and perhaps more importantly liberal believers, are not allowed to voice contrary opinions because of deference to religious beliefs, then we will never escape the gravity well of those ideas.

5. The response to hate speech is not suppression, it's more speech.

In recent weeks a horribly produced and horribly conceived video called The Innocence of Muslims has sparked worldwide controversy and has been used as an excuse to instigate violence.  The appropriate response is not to ban the video and imprison the people who made it.  The correct response is to speak out against the video and make it clear that we don't support its content or its quality.  President Obama's address to the UN on the issue gave me hope that we can move in that direction.

"...the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech...in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.  The question, then, is how do we respond.  And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.  There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents.  There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.  There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn down a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. 

In the modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world.  We empower the worst of us, if that's how we respond." 12:50

But beyond our ideals, history should teach us that suppressing hateful ideas is a poor way of combating them.  Holocaust denial is probably one of the most pernicious and widespread negative memes still present in Europe.  Austria has actually banned the idea and recently arrested British historian David Irvine for the possibility that he would deny the holocaust.  Yet holocaust denial is more prevalent in those countries that ban it than those who allow open discussion and critique of the position.

6. Blasphemy is fun.

This reason is admittedly more self serving, but it's not hard to recognize this statement as true.  If you laughed during Monty Python's Holy Grail or Life of Brian, Dogma, Rowan Atkinson's extended version of the water to wine miracle, The Babelfish Argument from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Mr. Deity on the Naughty Bits, The Book of Mormon, George Carlin on religion, Ricky Gervais on Noah's Ark, Magic Man Done It, Touched By an Atheist, Tim Minchin, or the picture below, you acknowledge that blasphemy has some aesthetic value.

Sometimes you just have to appreciate something for itself and blasphemy can be very entertaining. To a non-believer, it's much like having a mirror-smashing party on Friday the 13th while walking under as many ladders as possible.  Blasphemy is a victim-less crime, and even if by some off chance God is real I think he could take care of himself.  Why should his followers need to step in to defend their all powerful deity?

Your thoughts?

A short rant on indestructible books.

Recently I blogged about the very successful Fiction for Fiction campaign at SDSU.  One person asked in response:

"What was done with the bibles afterwards?"

The answer?

"They'll be recycled. Or turned into mulch. Something useful." -Eric Novotny, VP of  Atheist and Agnostic Programs  for Siouxland Freethinkers

The President of SAAFE also responded on Facebook with this statement:

"Thought about giving them back to the people who handed them out...either way I think recycling in some form is good because no one wanted them to begin with. They were literally forced into people's hands"

I think this is a wonderful idea.  It's an environmentally friendly way to get rid of an unwanted set of books.
The original commenter had this to say though (emphasis added):

"[Why not donate them to] Goodwill. They would accept them. And its a good side cause even though as a non believer I would.not read the book, someone who does could get it there. Or give them back to the original person... Making them into mulch is disrespectful, ignorant and non tolerant."

Forgive me while I rant for a moment.

First of all, it's a book. A book, like an idea, does not garner automatic respect. What do I do with an unwanted book? I recycle it, because that's the responsible thing to do. Mulching a bible has no more or less moral significance than recycling Ayn Rand, Dan Brown, or any other book.

Second, all of the Bibles here are Gideon testaments, which are available for free on more campuses and schools and locations than they are legally allowed to be on. There is no shortage of this book. Even at a Goodwill I'm not sure who would buy it.

Finally, isn't insinuating that the religious text is fiction already a much more egregious disrespect to the believer by this standard? There is a significant difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate people believing that a book is the inerrant word of god, but I cannot accept their demands that I adhere to its tenants. When a book is used to prevent loving homosexual couples from getting married for example, tolerance is no longer the issue.

Why do I care so passionately about this?  Because when an 11 year old girl (reportedly with down syndrome) is threatened with being burned alive for ACCIDENTALLY burning a few PAGES from a holy book this discussion ceases to be an academic discussion. That is what is ignorant if anything here.  Every one of these holey books is available in full text online.  They cannot be destroyed by any simple act of mulching.  The ink and paper with which they are printed is just that...ink and paper.  It's not something worth burning a child over.

Rant over.  Deep breaths.