MAJeff here, getting all gay and stuff. It’s been a pretty big year for LGBT folks in the U.S. A couple weeks ago, the state in which I live repealed a law enacted during the height of anti-miscegination activity, and is now allowing same-sex couples from anywhere to marry here. Prior to that, California joined us in offering full equality to same-sex couples. That victory may be short-lived, though. There is an effort underway to take away the right to marry. Folks here can help out by contributing to Equality California who are leading the NO ON 8 campaign.

I had to chuckle the other day when I came across this post at an LA Times blog about their meeting with the folks trying to make life worse for queer people:

The measure’s supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people…until the talk went deeper.

Wait, you mean they’re lying when they say they have no problems with gay people? I’m shocked! Shocked, I say!

The LA Times writer continues:

one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children’s rights, and it’s obvious that same-sex couples who married would “recruit” their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments

Ah, the recruitment line, code for “They’re coming to rape your children.”

The Times blogger is right: the anti-gay folks are careful to avoid showing their true colors; they work very hard to hide the anti-gay animus that drives them. But, lurking beneath the surface of their “We only want to protect marriage” lie is a deep and abiding hatred of queer folks and our communities. Their problem isn’t that we want equal access to the same rights our heterosexual counterparts have. No, their problem is that we exist at all.

That was brought home pretty clearly in a recentletter-to-the-editor in the Boston Globe:

ENOUGH ALREADY with the Globe’s gay agenda. How many front-page stories do we have to see to know that your agenda is to promote the gay/lesbian lifestyle? The July 21 article “Bloom’s off the brick row house: Buyers picking modern high-rise over classic style” could and should have been written from the heterosexual perspective. What you’re writing about is not a gay issue, it’s a human issue, and casting the story in a manner to feature gays is inappropriate. It’s time to straighten out, and I mean that in all senses of the word.

I have my own problems with such stories–namely that they continue to put forth an image of gay men as wealthier than the general public, when there’s actually a wage-penalty attached to those of us who aren’t hetero, and, regarding marriage issues, gay parents are getting by with fewer resources than their straight counterparts (that report is specifically for CA)–but that’s not the point. The bigoted letter writer isn’t concerned with accurate presentations, he’s concerned that there are gay presentations at all. Housing issues may be universal, but the universal is particular–and it’s straight.

I’m sure some folks will trot out the, “Just because I’m against gay marriage doesn’t mean I’m anti-gay” or “just because I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle doesn’t make me a bigot.” Well, it does. What they’re saying is that they want us gone. They want us to disappear. They want gay life to cease.

When folks come out and say they’re opposed to discrimination against people but actively foster such discrimination, they’re lying. They are pro-discrimination. That goes for John McCain, too, who recently said a pro-choice running mate would be acceptable, but not a pro-gay one. He has opposed every effort at including gay people in the institutions of American life. He may not be one of the crazy-ass-type fundies, but he’s also no social moderate. He’s just a “nicer” version of the “agents of intolerance” he “denounced” 8 years ago. His policy preferences on issues related to sexuality are very similar to those of Pat Robertson and John Hagee and Pope Nazinger.

McCain, Robertson, Hagge, Nazinger, McConnell…. These folks and the organizations they lead aren’t just opponents of gay rights, but enemies of gay people. They are all pushing for a return of the institutional closet. They want us neither seen nor heard. And, as ACT-UP so accurately put it, Silence=Death. They may not always want individual gay people to die, but they want our communities to do so.

I take that back, by attempting to push us back into the closet, they do want us to die. There is no life in that miserable space.

Sastra here.

I’m about halfway through, and really enjoying, Robert Price’s new book, Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today’s Pop Mysticisms.

Bob Price has an interesting background: he started out as a roaring Pentacostal Minister, gradually grew into a high-end Christian theologian, and eventually evolved to his present form as secular humanist. He’s currently teaching classes in comparative religion — and also happens to be an expert on HP Lovecraft and science fiction. I think this wide-ranging perspective gives him a particular advantage when dealing with religious topics. He’s been into almost everything, and can compare, contrast, and understand different mindsets with apparent ease. His analogies are often original, and spot on.

Even atheists are still influenced by the religious beliefs they once held. I was raised “freethinker.” Nobody at school knew what that meant, and I had a hard time explaining it, since I wasn’t sure what the alternative was. I wasn’t taught any particular religion, but it seemed to be a cultural prerequisite for having a “meaning,” so I would pick up bits and strands of things that seemed interesting to me, and try them on. I remember deciding in 5th grade to worship the Greek gods, since they would clearly be available, and very grateful for the attention. It seemed odd that they had so few current fans. But, by the time I was a teenager, I became enamored of the “psychic sciences,” and got into New Age.

Having since gotten myself OUT of New Age, I am particularly interested in books and articles that address and critique these self-proclaimed more enlightened, sophisticated, “holistic” forms of spirituality. My interest is not merely personal: such views are still held by many intelligent, well-educated, liberal-thinking people – and many of them take it all very seriously, and yield the power to have it taken seriously in secular arenas. These are not really marginal beliefs. As Price writes:

[Read more…]

I regret to report that Blue Collar Scientist has lost his struggle with cancer and that he died last night.

An organization of the Catholic leadership has now condemned my actions. This is sad news: it’s clear that at least this tier of the Catholic hierarchy is as deranged as the wackaloons flooding my mailbox.

We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.

Hmmm. Who is the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy to decide the limits of freedom? Flagrant irreverence towards a cracker ought to be fair game, I should think…and that’s all this action was: irreverence. You cannot demand that all members of a pluralist society be reverent towards any random humdrum article that a guy in a dress declares holy.

The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation’s constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few.

Man, that is a tired old argument — usually you see that fine-grained parsing of the words of the bill of rights from right-wing sources, trying to distort the meaning. Do they really think a bunch of high-minded Enlightenment dudes dedicated to the principle of liberty were thinking, “We need a clause here that could be used to compel people to be a member of a church—we’ll just give them the freedom to choose which church they’ll be forced to join”? That’s insane. I am free of religion. I am free to make that choice, just as everyone is free to choose to be Catholic.

And my personal choice not to believe in the silliness of religion is not an infringement on the rights of any religion.

The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.

This is the funniest statement in the whole declaration.

Freedom of speech means I do have the right to malign and make fun of any religion I want. I can’t interfere with your right to practice your religion, but that hasn’t happened — all I’ve done is laugh at you.

That last clause, though…do they seriously believe that only Catholics are allowed to criticize Catholics, and that this restriction is enshrined in the constitution? That’s a fine catch, that catch-22. So only Catholics can malign the faith, but if they do, then they can be kicked out of the faith, which means they can’t criticize it anymore. That sounds like a ripe piece of theological logic to me.

The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor. One fails to see the relevance of the desecration of a Catholic sacrament to the science of Biology. Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom. Yet, for a scientist to ridicule and show utter contempt for the most sacred and precious article of a major world religion, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous.

Ummm, I don’t discuss religion in the classroom. I teach biology. My ‘desecration’ was performed at home, on my own time. There’s nothing ironic about the fact that I’m a biologist, nor did I claim my profession gave me special qualifications to see through the foolishness of faith. Go ahead, any of you can do it — you don’t need to be a theologian to see that it is just a cracker.

A biologist has no business ‘dissing’ any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach. Tolerating such behavior by university officials is equally repugnant as it lends credibility to the act of religious hatred. We also pray that Professor Myers contritely repent and apologize.

Wait, what? This is another attempt to shield a ridiculous religion, by declaring that members of certain professions are not allowed to criticize — that only Catholic theologians are permitted to rebuke the absurdities in their faith.

As for the idea that I’m supposed to be teaching biology 24-7…what, I can’t have a hobby? I can tell you that when I try to tell my wife late evening on Wednesday night that I can’t take out the trash because I’m too busy teaching biology, well, that excuse won’t fly very far.

I am not contrite, I will not repent, and I’m certainly not going to apologize for tossing a cracker in the garbage. All the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy will get from me is laughter.

The History Channel program, EVOLVE: Eyes that I mentioned before but then disappeared has reappeared — it was delayed, but is now scheduled for broadcast on 29 July.

I’m going to be tied up in work and meetings most of today, yet there are all these new people still flooding the site, begging for entertainment and objects to rage against. Since many of them can’t seem to get beyond the first article at the top of the page, and since, judging by my most recent email (come on, people…do you have to stoop to insulting my mother?) we’re getting down to the dregs, I think we need some more distractions for them. So here’s a little collection of past articles that will serve to infuriate and enlighten. Have fun!

Idiot America

Planet of the Hats

The proper reverence due those who have gone before

Niobrara

Why the wingnuts hate Plan B

What should a scientist think about religion?

A godless ramble against the ditherings of theologians

The Wall: A Sunday morning story

We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

The hopeless inanity of Egnor

Sanctimonious monsters

Theology is a deceitful strategy

The Courtier’s Reply

The Geoffrey Simmons “debate”

Tune in to Atheists Talk radio this morning at 9am Central — the ever-entertaining Robert Price will be on to talk about pop mysticism. If you will it, it will be so.

In a great big ugly oops, the A/V geeks at TAM6 were not true geeks in that they screwed up and lost all the audio of an entire day’s worth of recordings at the meeting. This is bad, because it means all the clever slams and insults given to Phil Plait will not be passed down to posterity. If you’ve got recordings of the event, contact the skeptics and help them out.

(I suppose we could all just call in and make fresh new jokes at Phil’s expense, but they wouldn’t sync with our lip movements as well.)

A major institution supporting the conflation of ‘spirituality’ and science, the Templeton Foundation, has lost its founder. Sir John Templeton is now cooling meat, his mind stilled, his ‘spirit’, whatever the heck that is, missing. This is a sad event, since from all I’ve heard from those who met him, he was a very nice fellow. It’s just too bad that he threw so much money away into a fruitless and pointless endeavor that does nothing but prop up belief in unreality.

Now the question becomes one of the direction the Templeton Foundation will take in the future. I’ve also heard that his son and successor is not such a nice fellow, and leans more towards evangelical Christianity than to spiritual nebulosity.

Next week at this time I’ll be in lovely downtown Atlanta, staying at the Renaissance Atlanta Hotel. If we’re going to have a Pharyngufest, probably the best time would be Saturday, 12 July, and somewhere not too far away from the hotel. Anyone interested? Any locals want to make suggestions for good meeting places? We need something that isn’t too noisy, that serves good refreshments, and offers exemplary Southern hospitality, ’cause that’s what I expect when I go to Georgia. If nothing else, the hotel has two bars, and I suppose we could hit one of those.

If anyone wants to suggest better days, I could probably make it either Sunday the 13th or Tuesday the 15th.