One of the worst sides of religion is, beyond any doubt, the discrimination against minorities, and the LGBT community always suffers when a fundamentalist theist opens his mouth.

So for today, here is two bits of hope. First, one of the funniest speeches pro-gay rights I’ve ever heard from a politician. How I hope that portuguese politicians were as fun as this one politics would benifit from that.

And the second one, from a talented young girl (yes, I realized they are theists but here it isn’t the most important thing) that shows her daily routine in her unusual family. And what a pair of lovely fathers

For science’s sake, they are having dinner together (family meals really do mess up a kid ) !!!!!!!!

Outliers often wonder why atheists write so much about gay issues. Part of it is solidarity between injured minorities. Part of it is that some of us are gay or have gay friends. Part of it is that we are positive atheists that seek justice and fairness. Part of it is that we can empathize, sympathize, and understand their experiences of oppression, as atheists we are also reviled. Sometimes the crime is just so heinous and stupid that no one should be free from listening. An 18 yr old boy was set on fire at his own birthday party.

Simpson had Asperger’s syndrome, a speech impairment and epilepsy, the Yorkshire Post noted. The teen had reportedly been dared to strip down to his underpants before being doused in tanning oil, after which Sheard set him aflame at the party. Other reports said that anti-gay messages, including “gay boy” and “I love d*ck,” had been found scrawled across Simpson’s body.

The sentencing was disappointing, to say the least.

Jailing him for three years and six months, Judge Roger Keen QC told Sheard: “At his 18th birthday party you destroyed Steven’s life.”

But the judge said taunting which led up to Steven’s death had been ‘good-natured horseplay’, and that Sheard, now 20, of Darfield Road, Cudworth, was ‘egged on’ by other partygoers.

Hate taunting is good-natured horse play? You’re kidding! Attacking someone who is disabled and has emotional issues is good natured? This is stunningly stupid. It could only be said as a remnant of English culture where beating and whipping were considered normal. Boarding school abuse modernized.

But he didn’t know lighting his skin on fire would kill him? Why would that question even arise? Why should he ever be in a position to experiment and find out? He knew it would burn but just not how much? He wanted to torture but  not kill?

My 12-yr old daughter wants to quit school because the kids are so mean to each other. My other daughter works hard to be cool and fit as she knows her status and well being is dependent on her not being like an outsider.

I myself though I now gloss over it do still remember being teased horribly for being cross-eyed, being smart, and when exposed, not believing in god.

This shiytt is accepted as the normal part of growing up? That is bullshyte. Total fawckeing, gawde damned, human hating, bullshyte. Having lived in a dozen states, gone to many different schools, and lived in a variety of communities the spectrum of bullying and abuse is not in any way necessary or ubiquitous–the entire premise of the conservative community harkens back to the good old days where everyone was neighbors, Mayberry RFD, Petticoat Junction, and Father Knows Best–that it isn’t necessary even to bullying, patriarchal conservatives. That it is tolerated and condoned shows the inability of administrators to do their job  by accepting abuse as normal. Children are not  wild, angry animals that are expected to try and destroy each other–Lord of the Flies is not normative. It is always a failure of the community. In  spite of genetics and horrible things like fetal alcohol syndrome, they do not dictate destiny. Acceptance and refusal of support are the despots that encourage this vicious behavior.

My spouse started a new Jr High teaching job. She has a class that is considered to be the wildest, most dysfunctional class to date. The larger community divided the districts such that these wild kids come from mobile home parks to protect their own white-bread schools. Yet, no extra support, money, is spent in trying to help these kids succeed. The school is to survive them and let them loose on society. The kids don’t care about punishment or being kept back–they have been told and assume that they are scum and will never amount to anything or even graduate–they are fawckied so fawccke em. Her associate teachers say just punish them constantly, yell at them, and meet their anger. She refuses, meeting them with as much compassion and reason as she can muster, refusing to cuss back, refusing to yell, refusing to reactively punish. The parents also disenfranchised say they can’t do anything either. Friends outside of school bemoan the lack of legal corporal punishment. This situation is too common. This is why teaching has such a high depression and suicide rate.

A recent story notes how picky-eating in children is genetic but rather than giving up and saying let them eat to ill health to rather spend more time, more gentle time, getting them to eat other foods, being careful not to establish an adversarial relation. It is not that parents should give up or accept it. It is that different people need different levels of support. Smart kids need more support as well or they go sour and satisfy their intelligence elsewhere, usually antisocially, dangerously and illegally. I was lucky in that I had a loving family, lived away from most kids, and was project oriented. George Carlin’s personal  history is a litany of how to fail a child. Luckily, he found comedy as a means to deal with himself and society.

Jail is full of stupid kids that are blamed for their parent’s, school’s, and community’s mistakes. It’s easy to insist responsibility is personal and then turn and say it takes a community to raise a child. Which is it?

The judge should be fired and put in jail. The community that voted or assigned such a judge should be taught mediation, restorative justice, and compassion–aaah, put em in jail too. How many other kids have they fawckied up.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.frontiersofreason.com

The Church of England has decided it’s OK to serve and be gay as long as you’re not gay!

“The House has confirmed that clergy in civil partnerships, and living in accordance with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, can be considered as candidates for the episcopate. There had been a moratorium on such candidates for the past year and a half while the working party completed its task.

Yeah, whoopee! Wait, huh? “…living in accordance with the teaching of the church on human sexuality…” Wait, this is a repeat of what was stated in 2005. What’s new here?

The move represents a major shift for the mother church of the worldwide Anglican Communion, which had already weathered a major schism when Anglicanism’s American branch, the Episcopal Church, consecrated openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire in 2003.

Evangelical Anglicans said that they would fight the move to let gay clergy become bishops.

There is something really odd about this. A gay person can become gay as long as s/he doesn’t practice being gay? S/he can have a civil marriage, not sanctified, and still be elected to serve? The history here:

The issue of gay bishops has split the Church of England since 2003 amid a row over gay cleric Jeffrey John becoming the Bishop of Reading, about 58 miles west of London.

Presently, John is dean of St. Albans Cathedral in Hertfordshire and is registered in a same-sex civil partnership with his longtime partner. Under the new rules, he would be eligible to become a bishop as long as he maintains his commitment to celibacy.

Is this the big tent issue? For Anglicans that don’t like gays at all, or is that evangelicals that think Anglicanism is too soft and people joined mistakenly that could be lured back if the church were more pure? They would like to split from the Church of England since it is even considering gay inclusion. Anglicans and Episcopalians tend to leave gay issues to the pope and evangelicals. Hence, Evangelical Episcopalians founded in 1995 by the convergence movement which combined charismatic and evangelical elements with the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer. Does the C of E really think this satisfies their homophobia?

Being Episcopalian or Anglican doesn’t by definition make you religiously liberal though it formally has the greatest latitude of the big churches.

So, the compromise is to save the Church of England by saying it’s OK to serve if you’re gay as long as you’re celibate. Now, it’s not that celibacy is a general requirement it’s that the gay act is so sinful as to prevent you from serving, and you should repent as well, and don’t act gay. How is this moving forward? You’re not gay unless you prefer to have sex with the same gender. If you’re not having sex or haven’t had sex how do you even know if you’re gay. I guess there is the exploration part where one is figuring out one’s sexuality but that’s different for people at different times. Not every gay person wakes up one day and says hey I’m gay. And once you do it doesn’t mean you will or will not be gay for life. Maybe we’re all bisexual and some just lean a little more on one side or the other. Maybe being gay is a choice for some and more genetic for others.

Unless everyone has to be celibate it’s just more discrimination. It’s worse since now there is a celibacy requirement which had been abandoned. Frankly, they are making the case that being gay is a choice and if you want to serve you can’t be gay, just an uncloseted but sexless gay that has repented their wicked ways. A sexless civil marriage? Please! What bullshit. It’s like saying you can be a female priest as long as you dress like a male and fuck like a man. Hasn’t there been enough sexual repression, oppression, and complete denial already, yet, so far, it’s over?

We’re supposed to worry now that gay bishops will go after girls so they can keep their status and still have some sex of some kind? Will they be fantasizing about guys when they are with girls, or vice versa? This is the new Anglican normal? If a gay bishop fantasizes and masturbates about gay men does that invalidate his bishopric? God, would know after all.

The entire move is political, repulsive, and pathetic. And irrelevant–no saving grace here.  It is a regression for the Anglican and Episcopal churches under the umbrage of the Church of England and will not prevent a schism. While the rest of the world is moving forward in civil rights the big, easy churches fight for loser throwbacks in the hopes of slowing membership decline.  They’d be better off to rise above the fray, go for the rising numbers of the unaffiliated but spiritual group, and go for the progressives. That’s where the future is.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.frontiersofreason.com

From Mormon Meme Tumblr

The second in a short series of posts about the Mormon Church and their new website “Mormons and Gays”.

I showed the new “Mormon and Gays” website to Ryan Brown, the current Co-President of The Freethinkers at Portland State University. He was a long-time Mormon who went to BYU Hawaii. He even went on his mission. Ryan can speak at length about Mormon History and Mormon Theology and he still remembers his Portuguese from his mission. He remembers most of his BYU professors very fondly. But he was gay, and he felt very alone, with no resources and very few people to turn to in the church. Ryan finally left the church when he found he no longer believed in God at all. He finds the website encouraging, but believes gay Mormons are still trapped in a Catch-22.

I think had something like this (the website) been out when I was still in the Church, my experience would have been a lot less isolating. Now to be fair, the internet wasn’t as influential then as it is now, but it shows that the Church is at least trying to have a dialog on the subject. I couldn’t get any of the videos to work, so I can’t offer my opinion on those.
While I feel that this is a good step forward, there is still the issue of what’s considered natural by god. As an atheist, this is a moot point for me.

However, for the GLBT that still cling to the teachings of the church, I wonder how they feel knowing that the love they can potentially offer isn’t “natural”. I think that is still the most damning problem that GLBT church members face. No matter what they church says or does, at the end of the day, same-sex marriage is still considered unnatural and acting on those feelings is still a sin. How do you make GLBT members feel welcome in a church that emphasizes marriage and families, when they tell a segment of the membership they can’t be part of that?

He agrees that the website is designed to reach out to the more deeply conservative members. And he think it will work.

Slap a general authorities face on something, and the sheep will follow.

Ryan also maintains a personal blog, Glacial Till, where he posts beautiful pictures of rock formations and pictures of his space rock collection.

I grew up in a small town with a lot of bible-believing religions in it, including a pretty big group of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Evangelicals. I had a lot of LDS friends growing up and it wasn’t until college that I started to realize that Mormons weren’t as common as I’d thought. The Mormons I know are pretty chill and wonderful people. They’d never abandon a gay family member and they’re usually game for any of my odd questions about Mormonism. And they like The Book of Mormon: The Musical.

In college, though, I ran into more and more people that thought all Mormons were anti gay and extremely secretive. Then Prop 8 happened and I didn’t know what was happening anymore. A couple Mormon friends and I put together a FAQ about this new website and the Mormon perspective on homosexuality. You’ll probably find the answers to be conservative, but give it a read anyway. There’s things here that you probably haven’t heard before and many news sites a

Image from Mormon Meme Tumblr

ren’t reporting on. You should always get your information from the source.

“Why are Mormons so secretive?”
They’re not secretive, they’re just uncommon. You probably just don’t know any. The next time you get some Mormon missionaries at your door, ask away. Also, the Mormon Churches (but not the temples. Temples are members-only.) are always open to the public, so feel free to drop in and get some of those questions answered. Pro-tip: don’t open with “what’s up with Magic Underwear?” or “I heard that during the temple marriage ceremonies that …” Those sorts of things either a) aren’t true or b) super holy things that aren’t proper to discuss with non-members. Do ask about polygamy though. Always ask about the polygamy. They’re very eager for that rumor to be settled down.

“Are Mormons polygamous?”
Nope. Not since the wild, wild, west days. They can tell you all about it though. (Fun side fact: one of my ancestors was Ann Eliza Webb, so I could also tell you all about it, but that’s for another time.)

“Are Mormons anti-gay?”
To Mormons, being gay isn’t a choice. You’re born that way. It can’t be helped. Homosexual urges are normal and sin-free, but acting on them is a sin because any sort of sex outside of marriage is a sin.

“Are Mormons anti-gay marriage?”
Mormons across the board are anti-gay marriage in a Mormon temple. If secular people or non-mormon people want to get gay-married outside of a Mormon temple, that’s their choice and most Mormons don’t really care. But if you want a Mormon wedding at the local temple, God says that proper Mormon weddings are between a man and a women.

“Can Mormons have gay relationships outside of marriage?”
Mormons shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage. Even though the book of Mormon doesn’t specifically talk about homosexual relations, the Book of Mormon is very clear about chastity before marriage and about fidelity to your wife.

“Mormons sound really conservative.”
Yes. Yes they are. But not as conservative as you’d might think. In the US, Mormons are about 20% Democrat and most of the rest characterize themselves as “moderate conservatives,” and don’t really identify with Glenn Beck. There’s a chunk that are very right-wing, ultra conservative, but for the most part, Mormons are moderate conservatives.

“But what about Prop 8?”
Prop 8 has been a headache for Mormons everywhere. As a group, they’re trying to move on and they don’t really like to talk about it. While a lot of Mormons support the *idea* of Prop 8, they were pretty baffled why the Church went full force into California. The Church generally isn’t particularly politically active. Because of their Church’s history, Mormons are pretty big believers in the separation of church and state. Even though the membership is pretty conservative, the Church tries to stay politically neutral.
Some of the more liberal membership flipped a lid, some of the more conservative were hard core into it. Most were a bit surprised, but ultimately were OK with it and went on with life. Within the Mormon community, the debate around Prop 8 and the new website, characterize the difference between so-called “Utah Mormons” and other Mormons.

“What’s a Utah Mormon?”
It’s a very conservative and slightly fanatical type of Mormon. It’s not an official term for an official group of Mormons. It’s just in-group jargon to refer to Mormons that are extra conservative and a little bit holier-than-thou. You don’t have to have ever lived in Utah to be considered a ‘Utah Mormon’. Also not all Mormons in Utah are “Utah Mormons”. It’s just jargon. The character “Elder Kevin Price” in the Book of Mormon Musical is a good example of a Utah Mormon.
As my friend says in their characteristically diplomatic way: “The best way to describe them is a little bit judgmental, naive, and hypocritical.”

“So what’s the deal with the website?”
Prop 8 was a public relations nightmare for the Church, but the website is only partly about reaching out to the public at large. Another reason for the website is to give Mormons a resource to go to when they have questions about their gay son or daughter, or if they have questions about their own homosexuality. But most importantly, it’s an attempt to get the “Utah Mormons” to chill out, because they’re not loving everyone like they should. The message of the website is: We’re all God’s children, so stop ostracizing people. Especially your kids. Seriously.

“Now can I ask about the Magic Underwear?”
Sure. It’s not as weird as it sounds. Mormons call them garments. The garments are a symbol of the covenants Mormons make with God in the Temple. These covenants are basic things that any good Christian should be following anyway. (chastity, etc) They are no different than other religious article of clothing. Priests have their collars, Jews have their yarmulke, other religions have their clothing. The clothes are there to remind us who we are. Mormons just wear them on the inside.