Dehumanizing ...

Over at No Apologies, we find one of the usual suspects wringing their hands over how a gay teen's suicide is going to be "used against" christianists.

... If the storyline is correct, however, we must assume that Tyler killed himself out of shame over his lifestyle and behaviour. If this is the case, he will – courtesy of the media – be forever remembered as the gay kid who killed himself after a video of the embarrassing act became public. The victimization of Tyler Clementi and the Christian community has only begun. Tyler’s choice has been warped into a weapon and planted in the hands of those the media likes to tarnish with the sobriquet “homophobe”.

Yes, someone who commits suicide makes a choice. No question about it. But to claim that such a choice occurs in a vacuum is an attempt at dissociation - especially coming from the denizens of "No Apologies".

Here's why. GLBT youth suicides are more often than not a result of continuous harassment at the hands of others. Often their tormentors are other youth, but not always - it's not unusual for GLBT folk (youth and adult) to be harassed by adults as well.

One might want to begin by asking just where youth get the idea that it's acceptable to be abusive of GLBT people in the first place? Much less how they justify carrying such behaviours forward into their adult lives.

The short answer is that there is a very vocal, if marginal, population that is vehemently opposed to GLBT people having any rights at all in society. Whether you look at postings on No Apologies, Lifesite News, One News Now or the frothing insanity of Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth Against Homosexuality (AKA "AFTAH"), there are lots of sources spewing a constant message that GLBT people don't deserve to be equals in society.

The messages themselves are nothing new - it's the usual moralizing drivel derived from a flawed understanding of scripture; accusation of mental or physical illness, licentiousness and so on.

However, when these messages are out in the public sphere for all to see, it doesn't exactly take a lot to understand that youth pick up on the underlying themes and act out on them. Youth, in general, will tend to act out in a much more visceral manner than adults will for a variety of reasons.

Combine this with the fact that teenagers will generally torment the hell out of anyone who is different - visibly or behaviourally, and you have an unsurprising reality that GLBT people end up on the receiving end of some pretty vicious bullying.

Whether we are talking about the events around Tyler Clementi's suicide, Chloe Lacey, Stacy Lee or Angie Zapata it doesn't matter. All of these cases have their roots in a constant message that being GLBT is "wrong", and therefore these people are disposable.

So, where does this leave the hard-line christianists that continue to perpetuate a hostile message in society? With a shared responsibility. Individually, none of them can be held directly responsible in these situations. However, they have an indirect responsibility because it is their teachings which contribute to the atmosphere that allows for bullying and violence to be done to GLBT people in the first place.

Borrowing from a propaganda tactic that the Nazis perfected in the lead-up to WWII, the language used is designed to render an entire population of people as "the Other" - removing from them any vestiges of being human. Replacing individual humanity with a shared "evilness" makes it very easy to justify mistreating individuals.

GLBT people have an immense struggle to come to terms with themselves simply because their sexual and gender identities fall outside the normative status that the majority fall into naturally. When we combine this with a social environment where harassment is encouraged (sometimes tacitly, sometimes explicitly), it is no real surprise that some give up hope entirely and take their own lives.

While we cannot hold the christianists wholly responsible in these tragedies, like the bystander in a beating who cheers on the thugs, they hold a certain degree of culpability. Theirs is the repeated message of hostility and dehumanization aimed at GLBT people, and the implications and impact of those messages cannot be overlooked.

Note: I use the term "christianist" not as a broad reference to all who profess to be Christian, but as an explicit reference to those whose persistent distortion and misrepresentation of others is used as a political argument for denying legitimate rights, freedoms and protections in law for people.

How Absolutism Breeds Insecurity

Religion in the modern era is turning out to be something of a 'social petri dish' these days for studying what happens when any one ideology starts to think that they have 'all the answers'.

For your consideration, Malaysia has outlawed yoga for Muslims:

Malaysia's National Fatwa Council said it goes further than that and that elements of the Indian religion are inherent in yoga.

Announcing the decision, the council chairman Abdul Shukor Husin said practices like chanting and what he called worshipping were inappropriate and they could "destroy the faith of a Muslim".

The ruling is not legally binding but many of Malaysia's Muslims abide by fatwas.

But, before you go off thinking this is a unique to a country ruled by Islam, let me show you the Christian side of the same debate:

From Westminster's Exorcist: Yoga is equivalent to soft drugs and worse:

"The thin end of the wedge (soft drugs, yoga for relaxation, horoscopes just for fun and so on) is more dangerous than the thick end because it is more deceptive - an evil spirit tries to make his entry as unobtrusively as possible."

Our friends over at Wingnut Daily have been hard at work on the subject as well. They are also "documenting" the spiritual dangers of the practice.

What does this all boil down to? Fear. Not really fear of the activity itself, but rather a fear of losing control over the members of the religion. Instead of looking at it in a practical, rational sense, we see all sorts of oogedy-boogedy accusations made:

...America has more than 70,000 yoga teachers working in 20,000 locations. Although viewed primarily as fitness instructors, these trainers are in reality the leading missionaries of eastern religion in the west.

Ummm...no...not so much. Most people who practice yoga do so for the exercise benefits - if it has any other benefits for them, they are more in the 'head clearing' that good exercise brings to all of us. Perhaps that is one thing Hinduism has right - you cannot look after your mind and spirit adequately if you are not also looking after your body at the same time.

But both fundamentalist Christianity and Islam appear to have missed a key point in their responses to Yoga - namely the challenge of adapting to something new. Christianity in particular spent most of its first centuries absorbing and adapting the customs of the cultures it encountered, making it easier for them to accept Christianity as equivalent to their faith. In this case, it is time to absorb some aspects of Yoga.

McVety's Moralizing on the Arts

Remember Bill C-10 - and more specifically McVety bragging about his influence in it?.

Well, take a read through this little turdgem that he plopped onto the "Christian Government" website.

Following the October 14th vote, Canada’s representative of the Queen will conduct the ceremony inaugurating the nation’s next Government Representatives, Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. This official ceremony will be conducted with the backdrop of a large homosexual mural called "Androgyny", which means being both male and female.

Huh? Since when was androgyny even remotely related to homosexuality? My goodness, but McVety's reaching here...but wait, it gets better:

The homosexual lobby group EGALE, has pushed this issue for years. During the 2004 election they circulated a questionnaire to all federal candidates asking the question, "will you commit to fighting the discriminatory practice of labeling children male or female at birth?

Ummm...actually, this is a very real problem for Intersex individuals. The real problem is not assigning a gender role to the child, but the common practice of doing "corrective" surgery on the child which they may well choose quite differently when they are older.

However, it is not McVety's ludicrous attempt to tie Intersex and homosexuality together that is most disappointing, it is his statements about the picture's backstory itself:

The Governor General’s website describes the giant 20 foot mural as follows: "In the Okanagan, as in many Native tribes, the order of life learning is that you are born without sex and as a child, through learning, you move toward full capacity as either male or female. Only when appropriately prepared for the role do you become a man or woman. The natural progression into parenthood provides immense learning from each other, the love, compassion and cooperation necessary to maintain family and community. Finally as an elder you emerge as both male and female, a complete human, with all skills and capacities complete." Does the Governor General actually believe that in order to be a complete human you must be both male and female?

So, the painting itself is based not upon themes of sexuality at all. It is in fact a reflection of spirituality of some of Canada's First Nations.

McVety's whining because that spirituality doesn't align with his precious "Christianity". I don't know what notion of Christianity McVety subscribes to, but I do know it's a nasty, small-minded worldview when he cannot even find it in his heart to honor the spirituality of those who occupied this land so long before his ancestors took up residence in the early colonies.

McVety is, essentially, a cultural imperialist - as long as it is his particular notion of "Christian". What a drab world we would live in with he and his ilk dictating what is "culturally acceptable". How many voices filled with beauty would he silence? One can only imagine.

(Oh yes, just to verify that the article on "Christian Government" wasn't a forgery in McVety's name, I went over to Word.ca and looked there to verify that he was splattering the same spewage all over websites he controls directly. Sure enough.)

Like I Would Trust McVety To Sit On The Bench...

Apparently, McVety is out for blood:

A move by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin to stifle a controversy about her role in the awarding of the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler has done nothing to clear her of misconduct allegations, one of her chief critics said yesterday.

"If Canadians cannot count on non-political, non-ideological justice from the Supreme Court of Canada, it compromises the whole justice system," Charles McVety, president of the Canadian Family Action Coalition and president of the Canada Christian College in Toronto, said in an interview yesterday.

Coming from a man who is busy astroturfing his supposed support in his crusade against "evil feminist judges", it's hardly a particularly well founded complaint. First of all, McLachlin was not acting in her capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. McVety's just trying to propagate an old meme of the religious reich wing in this country - only this time he's accusing someone directly.

If I were McLachlin, I'd be busy recording every asinine word that McVety spews on the subject - There's enough fodder there for quite a libel suit.

But second and more importantly, McVety is making an accusation against Justice McLachlin that doesn't bear up under scrutiny. Essentially, he is claiming that because of her role in the OC nominations process, that her judgment in her professional role is impaired and unreasonably biased.

Coming from McVety, it's not a surprising allegation, although I think he would be hard pressed to identify any rulings that are not well grounded in law itself and existing case law that McLachlin has had a direct involvement in writing. You don't get to her position with a spotty record as a justice.

Academic Standards ... Followup

A little while ago, I commented on California Christian schools whining about how the University of California was rejecting their courses as college prep.

Well, it turns out that the case has been thrown out:

In March, Otero threw out the Christian school's broader claims that UC policies were unconstitutional on their face. Friday's ruling concerned Calvary's claims that the policies were also unconstitutional as they were applied in the review of several classes.

Otero wrote that Calvary "provided no evidence of animus" on the part of university officials, whom he said had a "rational basis" for determining that the proposed Calvary courses would not meet the UC college preparatory requirements.

For instance, a UC professor who reviewed Calvary's proposed Christianity's Influence on America class said the course used a textbook that "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events," "attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action," and "contains inadequate treatment of several major ethnic groups, women and non-Christian religious groups."

Somehow anytime you start trying to interpret history through a religious lens, things go awry - quite badly.

University officials have said they approved 43 courses from Calvary Chapel, which Tyler said Calvary students have used to gain admission to UC schools. There are other ways to be admitted, such as high test scores. However, Tyler said he fears schools will become afraid to teach from a Christian perspective.

Ah, remember how the previous articles on this subject were trying paint the situation as if all of their courses were being rejected? Reality check, please!

I find it both intriguing and worrisome that 'teaching from a Christian perspective' seems to mean bending reality and ignoring established facts - and perhaps most disturbing is the idea that one should attribute to the divine rather than thinking about situations critically.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this ruling will be appealed - so the fun isn't over yet.

H/T: Pharyngula

I Think The Correct Term is 'Standards'...

Apparently, in Outer Wingnuttia, they think that the University of California is discriminating against "Christian" courses.

As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives.

Yeah, well if the books they are talking about are as horrendously badly written as Darwin's Black Box, I'm not surprised.

"Christian schools will have to decide: teach from a Christian worldview and eliminate your student's ability to attend a UC school, or teach from a secular worldview, so that the kids can enter the UC school system," he explained.

"Essentially what's happening is the UC has to pre-approve courses taught in high school," Tyler said. "It's pretty shocking, because in depositions UC reps made it clear: whether it be English, history or science, the addition of a religious viewpoint makes it unacceptable."

Ummm...not quite. There's a couple of points to be considered here. Public school curriculum is visible to the University structure, and they know what they are getting. Many of the so-called "Christian" private schools are quite deliberately off the accreditation radar so they don't have to be accountable for their courses.

I don't know about you, but anytime someone says that they refuse to participate in the formal structures established for inter-college credit sharing, I have to be somewhat skeptical of both their motives as well as the veracity of their academic courses.

After reviewing textbooks from major Christian publishers Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book, UC officials deemed them insufficient, specifically because the books supplemented the basic material with a Christian perspective.

Burt Carney, an executive with the Association of Christian Schools International, said he's met with officials for the university system, and was told that there was no problem with the actual facts in a BJU physics textbook that was disallowed.

The question I would have to ask is just how much of that book presented the facts, but then couched them in scriptural terms or contexts that made the resulting presentation sound like the science was incomplete or otherwise ambiguous - the usual half-baked horse apples that are often used to justify the "debate" around evolution.

It may well be that the facts were fine - there just weren't enough of them to constitute an adequate text in the field.

"Here's the very university that talks about academic freedom," Carney said. "It's very discriminating. They don't rule against Muslim or Hindu or Jewish (themes) or so forth, only those with a definite Christian theme."

I don't know about anyone else, but I've never encountered science texts with religious themes except for cases where 'Christianists' pop up and start trying to spin the facts to match their scriptural interpretation.

Digging around, I found a few interesting bits and pieces on this lawsuit. First is a PDF from the Calvary school that is one of the plaintiffs, which provides some more concise insight into why some of the courses were rejected.

The second is an article published in a UC Berkely publication on the subject.

UC also disallows science courses that rely solely on BJU and A Beka Books textbooks. At issue, the fact sheet says, "is not whether they have religious content, but whether they provide a comprehensive view of the relevant subject matter...." In the BJU Press and A Beka Books science textbooks, it goes on, "the publishers themselves acknowledge that the primary goal is to teach religious doctrine rather than the scholarship that is generally accepted in the relevant fields of study."

The introduction to Biology for Christian Schools (2nd Edition, BJU Press) clearly states, for instance, that students' conclusions must conform to the Bible and that scientific material and methods are secondary: "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second.

Somehow, I think I can understand why the UC organization is hesitant to accept these books and courses as valid foundations for study in established fields. This isn't discrimination against Christianity - it's called academic standards - UC has a right to insist that its students enter their courses with a reasonably known and consistent foundation. If you want to teach a course on biology and derive it from scriptures, that's fine, but call it that (e.g. 'Scriptural Biology' or some such) and admit that outside of a very limited subset of the world, very few people are going to accept the course as being representative of modern science.

The Price "Christianity" Exacts From People

The outright abusiveness of some who profess that their actions are done in the name of "all that is holy" annoys me to no end some days.

We often hear of the horrors of so-called "reparative therapy". It's awful enough what they will attempt to tell someone who is gay or lesbian to do to themselves.

Then there is what they will do to their families. Read that link - it is heartbreaking how the writer's relatives pressured the father in all sorts of ways, ultimately separating father from his offspring - solely because of their moral objections to his partner.

I admire the writer's clarity and strength of character at such a young age, and I am appalled by the behaviour of her aunt and uncle in particular. If those are "family values", then it's time to hold these brutes up to account for what they are doing to individuals and families.

So, Just What Do They Do In The Washrooms?

[Update 11/06/08]:
I see a few of the more intelligent and self-aware side of the world are pointing out the stupidity of the religious zealots. Well done!
[/Update]

I'm becoming more and more amused by the howls of outrage coming from "Christians" over transgender equality laws, and in particular the whole bathrooms issue.

Consider the following claims:

The rationale for Senate Bill 200 is that transgenders should be able to use the restroom they feel most comfortable using. Apparently, it is not important if others feel uncomfortable having their privacy violated every time they use public facilities.

The lack of privacy is not the only problem. Nobody is going to ask a man if he is trangendered before allowing him into the ladies’ room. This means any man—including a child molester—could simply follow a little girl into the privacy of a public restroom. And, if a man decided to expose himself to a young girl there, who is she going to complain to? After all, restrooms, by definition, are places where one exposes the private parts of one’s body.

Now, this is so laughably stupid it almost makes the Simpsons look like complex humour.

I'm going to take this silliness apart one claim at a time:

1. This means any man—including a child molester—could simply follow a little girl into the privacy of a public restroom.

The inference here is that a MTF transsexual is likely to be a child molester. This claim is ridiculous to begin with, as it confuses gender identity with sexual identity. Lastly, contrary to the delusions of many of these people, such laws will not result in a sudden interest in cross-dressing by child molesters. If that was going to happen, it would have been happening before.

2. others feel uncomfortable having their privacy violated

Okay, washrooms, are places with a certain degree of privacy implied in them. Absolutely true. But consider the scenarios involved.

A MTF (Male to Female) transsexual enters the ladies washroom. She is going to find a stall, close the door and do her business - same as any other woman using the washroom. Invasion of privacy? None. It's not like she's going to be peering in the other stalls any more than other women do. It's a washroom, not a freaking peep show for goodness' sake! (and women often "critique" other women far more thoroughly than men do to men - meaning for the MTF that they are probably going to be all the more cautious about trying to fit into the protocol for using the ladies' room.

In the second possible scenario, a FTM (Female to Male) transsexual enters the men's room. Unless he has had rather expensive phalloplasty, he's going to be using a stall. Again, like most people, he's going to enter, do his business and leave.

Additionally, the writer is ignoring the "don't look, don't see" protocol in men's washrooms and locker rooms. Men don't walk around with it all "hanging out", and other men in the room will work awfully hard NOT to look.

3. After all, restrooms, by definition, are places where one exposes the private parts of one’s body.

Really? What washrooms does the writer go to? The public washrooms I'm used to tend to have doors on the stalls for a reason, and the only "shared" place is the sinks and mirrors - not usually where anything is exposed at all.

4. And, if a man decided to expose himself to a young girl there, who is she going to complain to?

The police, I should think - I believe most jurisdictions have laws on the books about 'indecent exposure'. That would be inappropriate behaviour from an adult of any gender towards a child. Equality and non-discrimination laws do not change the status of such things at all.

The fetid imaginings of the writer of that article suggest that he needs some time with a psychotherapist - it's getting pretty clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and worse he's clearly got some pretty strange ideas about what goes on in public bathrooms.

Appalling as this law is, it gets worse. Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family points out, in the Denver Post, that the law also threatens religious liberty: Colorado’s “public accommodations” law includes not only hotels and restaurants, but also any small or home-based business that offers “goods or services” to the public.

Wait a second here - you are complaining because it takes away your "right" to deny people service based on who they are? Hmmm...how fascinating. And just how would these same idiots feel if they walked into a business that refused to serve them because they were Christian, or because of their race? I'm not feeling too sympathetic to someone whining because their sense of entitlement is being infringed upon because they want to deny someone else access to a place to pee! (and just how small a person are you if you would deny another human being the right pee in peace?)

Oh yes, and just to keep it straight stories like this happen semi-frequently - apparently not fitting into someone else's sense of "male" or "female" is good enough reason to get removed from a washroom - regardless of your gender.

I See The "Persecuted Christian" Meme Is Alive and Well

Oh goody, I see that Lifesite has gotten onto its favourite hobby horse - the one with "Poor Persecuted Christian"(™) spray painted on the side.

There's two gems that come bubbling up on their "news" site from the last two days:

CHRC Spokesman Will Not Say if Christian Teaching on Sexuality is “Hate”

followed by

Saskatchewan Marriage Commissioner Fined For Refusing To "Marry" Homosexuals

Let's explore these a bit further, shall we - after all it's always interesting to see how these people twist reality to suit their politics.

Pete Vere, a Catholic writer who has been working on the clashes between the Human Rights Commissions and Christians, asked Mark van Dusen, a media spokesman for the CHRC, “If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?”

van Dusen replied, “We investigate complaints, Mr. Vere, we don’t set public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And ...if...upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1.”

That's the bit that Lifesite wants you to pay attention to. If, however, you read a little further on, you discover what reality really is:

“Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulated case law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there is room for a settlement between parties.”

In short, in a classic conservative line of questioning, a question was asked that calls for an absolute answer, and the CHRC responded with "it depends". Of course it depends on something - context and situation. When we are talking about topics such as the intersection between various aspects of the civil/human rights debate, there are seldom absolutes.

The real debate going on today (including cases like Boissoin) is about where the intersection of rights actually lands. When does "expressing an opinion" become promoting hate? Or when does "an opinion" arguably lead to violence or discrimination against some second or third party?

Of course, that isn't how Lifesite wants to frame it:

The issue before the CHRC, therefore, is whether Christian and Catholic teaching itself is considered under Canadian law to be “hate speech”.

Still more absolutism speaking here. In such circumstances, one has to ask if every utterance of someone who is Catholic is in fact "Catholic"(™)? In other words, just because a person claims to be a practicing Catholic (or member of any other faith), does that automatically extend protections to everything that they say on controversial subjects? What is the legal status of those utterances should the church decide that in fact the statements are heresy, and disavows them?

Just to muddy the waters even further, it's not as if the greater body of Christianity is unified in its teachings on sexuality at all. There is a great deal of differentiation between the various churches, so you can't even argue that there is a teaching on sexuality that is universally held within the broad spectrum of beliefs that stand under the umbrella term "Christian".

In the second article, we find the following:

A Saskatchewan human rights tribunal has fined Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols $2,500 for refusing to "marry" two homosexual men who approached him for the ceremony in 2005.

Mr. Nichols told the two men, identified only as "M.J." and his partner as "B.R." in the court documents, he would not marry them because it went against his religious convictions as a devout Baptist, but referred them to another commissioner, Edna McCall, because he was aware that she would perform same sex marriages.

Let's consider this for a moment. A marriage commissioner is a form of public servant - they are licensed to solemnize marriages before the law. They are not by definition ordained ministers acting simultaneously in their capacity as clergy.

If we start granting public servants the right to deny service based on some "religious belief", we return very quickly to the days of segregation and "separate but equal" treatment. The cold, hard fact is that under Canadian law, we are all equal before the law and government. Therefore, anyone who is a public servant is obliged to respect that reality when they are delivering government services to citizens.

The tribunal ruling stated that Mr. Nichols had contravened section 31.4(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code and that his refusal based on religious belief conflicted with his duties as a public officer. "The Commission stands by its position that to allow public officials to insert their personal morality when determining who should and who should not receive the benefit of law undermines human rights in Saskatchewan beyond the issue of same-sex marriages."

Of course, the wingnuts over at Lifesite continue their argument by painting the commissioner in question as such a wonderful, noble and upstanding citizen, and by implication, is being downtrodden by the evil human rights commission:

Mr. Nichols testified at the hearing that he had never received a complaint in his 24 years of service as a marriage commissioner, nor had there ever been a problem with any of the services that he had provided in his capacity as a marriage commissioner, even though he had in a number of different situations refused to perform a marriage ceremony, such as marriages of convenience for immigration purposes or when he had been asked to perform a marriage dressed up in a cowboy costume.

There's quite a difference between the examples cited above and denying services to a GLBT couple:

1. A "marriage of convenience" is something that is attempting to subvert the immigration process. There are good ethical (and possibly legal) reasons why knowingly participating in such a scheme is suspect at best. (Arguably to do so is in fact to perpetrate a fraud)

2. Being asked to participate in a manner that goes beyond the solemnization of the marriage itself (e.g. dressing in a "theme costume") is also a legitimate reason to walk away. Remember, at that point, the reason for denial of service is in fact not denying anyone access to legal services that others would receive from you. No protected grounds of discrimination have been violated here.

Meanwhile, denying someone service that you would grant to somebody else - based entirely upon your moral assessment of the situation, puts you into much more dubious straights when we are talking about people acting as agents of the government.

Of course, in the minds of Lifesite's writers, these are all examples of how Christians are being "persecuted" in the public square. Never mind that what is really happening is that discrimination based on Christian scriptures is being called out for what it is - discrimination, and often unlawful discrimination.

(BTW - if Christianity were really being "persecuted", one might well imagine that the CHRC and related bodies would have long since taken the Roman Catholic Church to task in Canada for its refusal to ordain women - a clear violation of Charter Rights no matter how you twist it - however, the CHRC has not touched such cases, arguing that in fact such matters are protected under Freedom of Religion and thus rightly handled within the context of the Catholic Church hierarchy)

Dear Mr. Coren:

Just. Shut. The. F***. Up.

We already know you're clinically insane, but your weekend tirade simply adds a whole new dimension to the phrase 'cognitive dissonance'.

In one column, you go from condemning a man just diagnosed with brain cancer for an event decades in the past to whining about school violence, funding for gender surgery and punishing poverty.

Regardless of Senator Kennedy's past, and what he did or didn't do in the past, your comments about him are inexcusable and callous. The man has just been shown the form of how he will leave this world, and you berate him for what? Where's that much vaunted sense of compassion that conservative christians like you keep spouting off about? (Oh wait - that vanished decades ago when political christianity became more about trying to regulate everybody else's life than anything else)

Much as it may please a kid being beaten half to death to know that his attacker is marginalized or may not enjoy full equity, the solution to gang violence, murderous teenagers and the mass decay of inner city public education is, for a start, to dismantle school boards that issue absurd and pointless press releases.

Ah yes, typical conservative thinking. Instead of addressing the problems, you'd punish those who identify the problems. Brilliant thinking Mr. Coren. Perhaps you'd like to try again.

Or perhaps your concept of "christianity" is far too rooted in punishment and retribution? Ah, I see it is:

More importantly, punish rather than reward irresponsible behaviour. Just as an example, cut off welfare payments to women who have several children by several men before they've reached 20 years of age.

Oh yes, punish those who are already in poverty. Brilliant, just brilliant, Coren. After all, we all know that those young girls who have multiple children when they are young did so deliberately, and their fathers were merely seduced by their feminine wiles. If the suppositions in your accusation weren't so laughably predictable, they are certainly derived from the standard biblical fundamentalist stance that women are somehow inherently evil and devious creatures. (Makes me wonder how Coren's wife can stand him, if his writing is a reflection of what he says and does at home...)

Also in Ontario the Health Ministry decided to restore full funding for sex change surgery, after having not fulfilled its election promise to finance special and crucial education to autistic children. If only those annoying autistic youngsters could prove that they were born in a body of the wrong gender!

There's so many problems here - and it's a pity that Coren manages to mangle all of them.

First of all, I doubt that the Ontario Ministry of Health made any promises in the last election, much less anything to do with providing specialized education for autistic children.

Second, I would expect that the Ontario Government provides services for the education of autistic children through whatever ministry is responsible for children, youth and education. A few minutes with Google turns up this press release from 2006, and there seems to be more in subsequent months. Once again, Coren mangles the facts.

Lastly, his sniping at gender transition related surgery simply shows us all just how clueless the man really is. The number of such surgeries requested in a year is a handful, and for the psychological well-being of those who request it, it is important. But then, Mr. Coren has shown us just what "christian compassion" really means in his mind so many times in the past that his christianity is filled with hostility and retribution.

At a national level no Canadian labour union or left-wing church called for a boycott of either China or Iran, after it was exposed that these two countries alone account for the vast majority of the world's executions and torture.

I don't know where that aside came from, but in typical pseudo-con style these days, it's a classic linking of unrelated topics. Yes, Michael, it's amazingly important to the world that Canadian organizations squawk about topics in other countries - when we have our very own variety of loon here at home to deal with.

Consider The Messages...

Apparently in Outer Wingnuttia, it's big news that GLBT people are more likely to consult with doctors and mental health practitioners. Of course, what Lifesite and the geniuses over at Daddy Dobson's mouth organ want you to think is how awfully sick these people must be.

But, let us stop and consider the messages that GLBT people are subjected to on a near daily basis at the hands of so-called "Christians" for a moment:

Gay rights are destroying society, Gays are linked to pedophilia, GLBT folk don't deserve legal protection, Gays are "recruiting" in schools, You're so sick we don't even know what you are suffering from.

Or, for that matter, politicians publicly comparing GLBT people to terrorists:

You know, it’s not a lifestyle that is good for this nation. Matter of fact, studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell for this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat even, that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat, okay.

(and then we hear the screams of outrage when upset GLBT people lose it - hmmm big surprise there. Note: I do not condone threats or physical violence)

On a near daily basis these stories come out it seems. Each and every time, the idiot uttering these statements claims to be doing so "as a Good Christian(™)". So, is it any wonder at all that GLBT people might consult with mental health practitioners to help them find coping strategies and to overcome the stress that these messages induce in their lives? No, it isn't.

Perhaps even more laughable is the fact that in the minds of these people, consulting a mental health professional is a bad thing - especially if you are man.

They jump with glee when the APA says that we do not know why people are gay, because it allows them to self-justify the meme that the christianists want to propogate that sexual identity is all about "choice" and "behaviour" (they carefully ignore the APA's wording which makes it clear that multiple interacting factors are likely involved) - which it isn't, and never has been. The christianist wants to self-justify abusive "therapies" and their "right" to dictate to the rest of the world how we should live (and no, heterosexual couples are not exempt from the ire of the moralizing christianist).

Is it any wonder at all that GLBT people face more mental health challenges than the "rest of the population"? I don't think so - a lifetime spent being told that one is "abnormal" (or worse) is bound to exact a price from those who are on the receiving end of that message. (Oddly, the very social pressures to conform are the first thing that GLBT people must shed - with it would come the fear associated with the mental health world - and that probably means that they are far more in touch with their feelings and emotional state than most people would be, a reality that means that they will be more willing to listen to a therapist as part of sorting out their feelings.)

They do not wish to admit that if people are allowed to live their lives openly and honestly, that the incidence of serious secondary mental health concerns drops off dramatically. In short, if we apply the old adage about "live and let live", there's generally going to be a lot less problems.

The Latest Religious Attacks On Minority Populations

Few things get my dander up more than someone attempting to justify treating someone as a lesser person because that person is "sinful" according to some religious dogma or another.

Recently, as right wingnuttia has gradually found themselves losing case after case in attacking gay and lesbian rights, they have turned their attentions to the "T" in GLBT - transgender people.

While I am far from surprised by the outright stupidity of the arguments that Wingnut Daily spews forth, I tend to expect somewhat better than that from a publication like Christianity Today. Sadly, when they published this bit of illogical drivel, they proved me quite wrong in my expectations of a more sane treatment of the subject.

Optimistically, I would have hoped that they would, in the process of doing their research, talk to more than just supposedly "christian" therapists. Instead, they restricted themselves to sources known for their overt hostility to anyone who professes an identity other than emphatically straight such as Exodus International or "Family Research Council". As close as they come to a "reasonable" source that isn't directly affiliated with the anti-gay lobby is Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist whose practice and theory is heavily focused on religious values to begin with. (although, to Throckmorton's credit, he at least claims to work with his client's religious values rather than imposing his own)

Quoting "Concerned Woman", Matt Barber:

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America (CWA). Barber points out that the American Psychiatric Association, which declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, still classifies the condition of transgender as a disorder. Barber says the political left wing is facilitating more gender confusion by counseling the afflicted to feel good about themselves rather than find a treatment for this disorder. ...

I won't go into the irony of a man like Matt Barber being the public voice for an organization called "Concerned Women for America" - I think that speaks for itself. However, Barber is making the same mistake that a lot of people make - assuming that because a condition exists as an "Axis I" diagnosis in the DSM IV, that it is therefore "bad" or a "serious mental illness". Yes, transsexuality is serious and needs to be handled carefully from a clinician's perspective. However, given the medical interventions that are required, there is also a legitimate need to have a clinical understanding of the condition that can be readily communicated between professionals.

Barber's claim that the psychological world hasn't sought treatment for transsexuals, and instead chooses to facilitate them is actually quite false. From the time that Harry Benjamin to present, mental health professionals have explored transsexualism quite actively. However, as is observed in The Uninvited Dilemma, and other books on the subject, attempts to dissuade transsexuals from their journeys simply are not terribly effective in the long term.

They then go on to start quoting from Jerry Leach of Reality Resources - a man who is to transsexualism what Peter LaBarbera is to homosexuality:

Jerry Leach, director of Reality Resources, a ministry in Lexington, Kentucky, to people dealing with gender confusion, shares Chambers's point of view. Leach says, "Rather than cutting tissue by invasive surgery and starting a new life, which for the most part doesn't work, people need to find help psychiatrically."

Leach is a self-professed "ex-transsexual" who turned away from his gender identity when he found religion. Okay, I don't take anything away from him - if that direction has made him happy, that's great for him - it is a logical fallacy to assume that his path applies to all who are transsexual.

With the exception of Throckmorton, who has never really spoken significantly about transsexuals (and I question whether he has the appropriate background to do so effectively), every source the article went to works from the primary assumption that transsexuality is about sex, and is therefore, sinful in the "Christian" ethic somehow.

Had the article's author bothered to take the time to interview a few therapists who deal with transitioning transsexuals (and other members of the broader transgender population), I think they would have come away with a far different picture than that presented by people like Leach or Alan Chambers portray. In fact, the APA's "quick sheet" about Transgender people brings out a key point about the condition that is overlooked in the article:

... People generally experience gender identity and sexual orientation as two different things. Sexual orientation refers to one’s sexual attraction to men, women, both,or neither, whereas gender identity refers to one’s sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender.

In some respects, this is a key point in understanding the problem with the Christianity Today article - it continues to confuse sexuality with gender, and equates the two subjects when they are in fact distinct.

The article ends off with this line:

The challenge before conservative evangelicals is persuading transgendered people, their families, and faith-based advocates that gender identity disorder is not beyond the reach of God's grace, compassionate church-based care, and professional help.

I dare say that given the painfully obvious bias of the Christianity Today article, the message of "compassion" above presupposes a "conversion" view of the subject and is based on deeply flawed premises and reasoning. In the meantime, ignorance and fear continues to foster murders and other acts of violence against those who transgress gender norms.

Church Attendance - It's All Feminism's Fault

This appeared just before Christmas in the Globe and Mail's Opinion Section.

Apparently Michael Valpy has bought into the neo-fundamentalist line that the reason that attendance at churches has largely dropped in Canada since young women turned away from the churches some forty odd years ago.

But with research showing mothers to be the prime influencers of their offspring's religious behaviour, it remains the rejection of the church by young women 40 years ago that was so catastrophic. Their children never came through the doors.

There is little doubt that feminism and conservative christianity have clashed over the decades. However, it is indeed simplistic and outright silly to apply a single cause explanation to something as complex as a societal shift such as what Valpy is addressing.

The various alternate explanations Valpy explores all suffer from a fundamental omission - that of a growing availability of advanced education and concrete knowledge of the world around us becoming commonly available for the public.

Think on it for a few minutes, and you start to realize that as people become more educated and critical in their thinking, often the less they need the kind of guidance that the Christian Church has traditionally provided. {This isn't to say that there aren't educated people who are religious}

Additionally, as an increasing body of evidence calls into question statements that are made in scripture (e.g. much of the creation story in Genesis), it further erodes the relevance of scripture to many people who would rely on it for guidance if they didn't perceive it as filled with questionable assumptions.

There may well be a myriad of other factors in play as well - the rise in prevalence of other faiths, a growing sense of individualism come to mind, as well as a growing "highly mobile urbanization". Churches have historically been social focal points for fairly small geographic areas - towns, villages etc. Late 20th Century urbanization brought with it the "suburb" - essentially an attempt to nestle a small town in the greater body of a city - but with it came the proliferation of cars and transit. Instead of social lives centering around relatively small geographic areas, people now drive considerable distances to visit friends and family.

If I look at my own life, none of my intimate social network lives "walking distance" from me. Everybody is at least 10 minutes away by car. I interact with my neighbors infrequently at best - a handful of times a year perhaps. What possible connection am I likely to have with my neighborhood church? (especially after having moved a few times over the years)

Valpy has tackled a complex topic, and missed badly. His article falls into the trap of grasping at a simplistic explanation that utterly fails to explain the phenomenon he is exploring. To distill the last 40 years into "mothers don't take their children to church" is little more than a bad attempt at sophistry.

The Evils of Atheistic Fundamentalism

I had no idea that there was such a term as "Atheist Fundamentalist", but, apparently some think there is.

He said it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas "Winterval", schools refusing to put on nativity plays and crosses removed from chapels.

In his Christmas message, he said: "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous."

While I would certainly accept the proposition that fundamentalism is bad news, no matter its stripe, I take a little bit of exception to his commentary about the use of phrases like "Winterval".

First of all, one has to recognize that not all faiths celebrate "Christmas" per se, however a winter solstice celebration is quite common, whether we are talking about Persian Culture, or the pre-Christian era cultures of much of Europe.

I disagree with The Pope's recent pronouncement that "Christmas without Christ is empty". To make such a claim is to suggest that all other cultures and faiths besides your own are empty and devoid of meaning and validity.

When one stands back and recognizes that the early Christian Church chose to move its celebration to coincide with winter solstice celebrations in northern europe, it becomes a bit tricky to claim that other non-Christ centric celebrations are invalid.

I am sympathetic to those who are appalled by the notion that the annual school play at this time is often called "Winter " rather than the "Christmas Pageant" (or whatever) - I do think this reflects an over-sensitivity on the part of those wishing to "not offend non-Christians". I wouldn't ask a Muslim to change the name of Ramadan simply because it happens to coincide with a celebration of my own faith.

The notion of "Atheistic Fundamentalism" is a flawed concept to begin with. The very notion suggests that there is some "fundamental" set of tenets that atheists subscribe to. Besides the common concept that there is no "real god", there is no common set of concepts that atheism derives from. One cannot, for example, claim that atheists all subscribe to a common root text, and that the fundamentalist has some particular interpretation of that text. What I suspect they are referring to is in fact a form of "absolutism" on the part of some people, who seem to complain at the mere mention of the concept of any religion that it is "exclusionary".

I think what people of all traditions need to become a little more self-aware of is that in societies where multiple faiths coexist, faith itself becomes a matter of the individual, and each of us should be free to practice our faiths - up to, but not including the point where our practice of our faith begins to impose itself upon others.

As a practitioner of "Evangelical Christianity", one might believe that it is your duty to go forth and preach the gospel to those who have not heard it yet. That's fine, and I have no problem with that. However, I still possess a right to not have to listen to that gospel if I do not wish to. In other words, if someone approaches me in a coffee shop while I'm enjoying a coffee, and begins to preach to me, I have a legitimate right to tell that person to get lost ... and they should comply. {and yes, I've had that very experience once or twice - although I had to get a little bit more explicit in my demand to be left alone)

In short, matters of faith do not, and should not, be matters of state in a poly-faith society such as exists now in much of the "Western World". Instead, there is a quiet respect that we all should bear for all faiths... including those who practice no specific faith.

You Can't Read That ... It's Not Religious Enough!

Apparently, some religious conservative wingnuts in Ontario decided that The Golden Compass shouldn't be in the Halton Catholic School district's libraries because it was *gasp* written by an "atheist" (agnostic actually, but whatever):

Following a recent Star story about the series, an internal memo was sent to elementary principals that said "the book is apparently written by an atheist where the characters and text are anti-God, anti-Catholic and anti-religion."

Why? Apparently because the author has made some "inflammatory" statements:

Pullman has made controversial statements, telling The Washington Post in 2001 he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief." In 2003, he said that compared to the Harry Potter series, his books had been "flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."

Yeah, whatever. The wingnuts got their knickers in a twist over Dungeons and Dragons when I was in school. Note to the wingnuts - banning the book gives it notoriety, and people will want to read it. In the meantime, if you are that scared about a children's book undermining your child's faith, perhaps it is time to start asking yourself just why your faith is so fragile.

Oh Dear God!

Via Huffington Post: Theocracy Now!.

Watch the video, and listen closely to the vile crap being spewed by these people.

If they weren't so serious, these people might almost qualify as funny.

Executions for gays and blasphemers; "Islamofascists", and goodness knows what else. Oh yes, did you hear that being gay is a "gender identity confusion"? (Or at least so Lou Sheldon claims)

Dobson's spewage at the end is exceptionally hideous, followed only by someone as obscene as Newt Gingrich.

The term "values vote" means this: voting for violence, war and discrimination against minorities. I can't even call that "conservative", it's downright regressive.

*Bleah*

Cause and Effect: Fundie Style

Via Pam's House Blend, we learn what passes for causal reasoning among the fundies.

The short synopsis - GLBT people made god start the wildfires in California.


... Right! ... and on a more humorous note, I leave you with this take on God's wrath:

It's Just A Story People...

Okay, last week, author J. K. Rowling told the world that one of her characters, Dumbledore, is gay.

I figured I'd leave the story alone, and wait until the raving lunatics of the far right started shrieking. Sure enough, The Peter™ comes out with opens his yap right on cue.

Young children, adolescents, and even many adults fall victim to the specious syllogistic reasoning that goes something like 1. Kindness is good, 2. Homosexuals are kind, 3. Therefore, homosexuality is good. It is clearly a faulty syllogism, and yet it’s wildly successful.

Of course, LaBarbera conveniently ignores the equally invalid syllogism of his entire organization:

1. The Bible Says Homosexuality is Evil
2. The Bible is the inerrant word of God
Therefore...
3. Society should outlaw gay people

But, like picking at an scab over an infected wound, The Peter™ goes on to try and conjure up some connection to the oh-so-evil "gay agenda":

The “gay” manifesto After the Ball written in 1989 describes a number of strategies to be used to transform cultural views of homosexuality, one of which is “conversion” (how very darkly ironic). The authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen write that “In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot’s good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label ‘gay,’ either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype.” Whether Rowling is aware of this process or not, she is employing it.

This is one of the most significant problems with repeated exposure to positive portrayals of homosexuals in films, television show, plays, novels, textbooks, and speakers. Unsophisticated thinkers come to believe that somehow good behaviors or traits are inherently exculpatory in regard to others. But we should no more say that the sin of homosexuality is effaced by a homosexual’s compassion, generosity, or good humor than we would say that a polygamist’s sin is effaced my his compassion, generosity, or good humor.

The short synopsis - normalizing someone being gay is a bad thing - why? Well...ummm...gee - it might lead to other bad things like polygamy. Sorry Peter, but you'll have to better than a slippery slope argument to convince this audience. Recognizing that people who are different as normal people is not a bad thing.

Nor should we be burning books because we don't like them. In the case of Harry Potter - it's fiction, deal with it.

Just Because You Claim It...

...doesn't make it true.

Apparently the bible-beater crowd thinks that having a PhD makes everything you say correct. In this case, the topic du jour is about gay couples raising children.

The arguments are more or less the usual screed - children need married parents of opposite gender, and children who are raised in same sex households don't get that.

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father.
...
First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments.
...
Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father.
...
Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations.
...
Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people.
...
And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage.
...

I'm going to make a couple of opening points here:

First, this is entirely argument by assertion. There isn't a single place where Dr. Hansen actually cites corroborating peer reviewed literature to back up her claims.

Second, she is basically doing little more than raising the usual collection of half-baked ideas that the religious right throws around.

Her first point - which hinges primarily on the reality that men and women tend to socialize with children somewhat differently. While I generally agree that there is a 'naturalness' to this, I do not accept the blind supposition that it is "necessary" for the children. There is evidence that speaks quite to the contrary. Additionally, the APA's basic commentary on gay parenting does not suggest the "socialization" problems that Hansen suggest in points 1 - 3.

Point number four is pure assertion. The claim that a child's sexual orientation - or experimenting is influenced by a parent's sexual orientation is simply an assertion with no evidence to support it.

The last claim - namely that allowing gay marriage will open up the gateway to all sorts of other things is a classic slippery slope argument that fails to examine the differences between gay/lesbian couples who marry and the social context in which (for example, polygamy) exist. To associate one with the other is simply intellectual hackery and fundamentally dishonest.

Additionally, the entire argument rests on some pretty amazing gender stereotypes that just don't hold much water in real life.

In short, even though the author of the article possesses a PhD in a relevant discipline, it's quite clear that she hasn't even done the basic research to substantiate her claims. (of course, when a mere few minutes with Google turns up significant - and impartial - evidence that contradicts her argument, one might imagine that finding corroborating evidence would involve borrowing from Paul Cameron or other researchers who are regarded in a similar light.

[Update 18/10/07]
Over at "The Blend", Pam has posted a well written letter on the matter she received from another psychologist.
[/Update]

When You Say "Disestablished" ...

Prior to this morning I really had not heard of Father John Neuhaus, and after reading this drivel, I'm not sure I want to hear any more from the man.

Basically, Neuhaus claims that Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms has shoved Christianity out of the public square. A statement which is absolute nonsense, and he knows it. Canada's Charter has not pushed Christianity out of the public square, instead it has forced it to stand among a lot of other equal voices instead of giving it the arbitrary prominence that many of its practitioners blithely assume it should hold simply because Canada was colonized originally by people who were predominantly Christian.

The claim that Christianity has been "pushed out of the public square" in Canada is blindingly false. One only has to look at who was screaming the loudest over the legal recognition of same gender marriages. The lobby groups that were making the biggest noise were all claimants to the label of "Christian". So, please tell me how that's "being pushed out of the public square"? Quite simply, it's not.

The reality is that Canada's legal framework has done two things - it has made it very difficult indeed to encode as law the kinds of brutal discrimination and inequality that is present in Biblical Scripture. It has given an voice to groups that in the past had been suppressed by the preeminent position granted to "Christianity", and caused people to start to think that just maybe there's more to things than what's transcribed in scripture.

People like Ted Byfield and Michael Coren bemoan the fact that they can no longer stone adulterers or criminalize GLBT people. They claim it is in the name of "faith" and all that is "good in the world", yet it is ultimately the same kind of preening superiority that I saw so often in school - where those who "don't fit in" are subjected to the most awful treatment, largely because somebody else decides to inflict it upon them.

If anything has been "pushed out of the public square", it is not Christianity - or any other faith - but rather the use of the claim of "faith" to justify treating some of our country's citizens as second class members of our society.