Ha Ha Ha

Apparently a bunch of secular people questioning and calling out the denizens of No Apologies is enough to get them to shut down comments for the time being.

Given the persistent unwillingness over there to even consider an argument on its own merits if it disagrees with their preconceived notions ... especially if that argument came from a "secularist".

Still More "Persecuted Christian" Nonsense

I talked about the initial incident with Petals and Promises back here. This post is about the shrieking stupidity coming out of Canada's religious right wingnuts.

Lifesite almost brushes up against an honest bit of journalism, although their biases are clear enough.

Then there is the bunch over at "No Apologies", who seem to have gone quite over the top about the issue.

It all boils down to one basic point - they believe that they should have the right to run a business and enforce their religious beliefs upon their prospective customers.

Consider this doozy of a comment from Tom Bartlett:

The issue is not one of discrimination. Let me take the example of slavery. When slavery was legal, although it clearly contradicted the Christian (and U.S. adopted) value of recognising that all are equal in God’s sight, Christians who deemed slavery to be wrong would hide and help slaves to escape. They would face penalties under the law for taking a stand on principles not held by the state. Abortion is another example. Science establishes that life begins at conception and Christians do not allow for killing an innocent unborn child, so in principle we stand against it and regularly have our views censored, distorted, and having abortion defenders and providers paid for with our taxes while not allowing factual information to be presented in public schools. That is discrimination, but is permitted under law.

You just don't get it, do you? Nobody cares what you say as a Christian. You are absolutely free to believe and behave as you wish - up to, but not including the point where your actions demand that somebody else live by your moral creed. What you have forgotten is that Freedom of Religion is an individual freedom. It does not extend beyond the individual.

I cannot, under Canada's laws, start a business up and hang a shingle out that says "I don't serve ". Whether that group is gays, Christians or any other identifiable group. I can certainly choose to market to any one of those groups as a primary market focus(for example, there's a guy in my home town that calls himself "The Christian Contractor"), but as a business owner, I don't get to say "I won't serve " because they happen to offend my personal sensibilities somehow.

You see, there's an interesting aspect to universal freedoms such as "Freedom of Religion". Not only does it guarantee that any individual is free to believe and practice whatever faith they choose, but it similarly guarantees that others are not subject to those same beliefs being imposed in their lives. Put succinctly, Freedom of Religion includes Freedom FROM Religion.

The argument that one's faith permeates all aspects of life, including business dealings does not excuse an individual from the consequences of projecting their beliefs onto others who do not share that same faith.

Let me be clear about this. If I were to be a practicing member of a faith community that strictly forbade a medical procedure and I voluntarily underwent that procedure, then quite legitimately the members of that same community are within their rights to sanction me somehow. However, if I am NOT a member of that faith community, then they have absolutely NO SAY WHATSOEVER in the matter, and do not have the right to sanction me at all - no matter what they believe.

When it comes to businesses, one might be tempted to question just what steps a business is taking if it is run by a "christianist" who is going to drag their morals out to refuse a customer? Are they, like the "Christian Contractor" I referred to earlier making their faith a clear part of their business? Or do they just yank it out from under the counter when it is convenient? If you want the kind of privilege to tell a customer to PFO after making an agreement to do business, then you better be prepared to make your policies clear up front. (and I don't know too many people who are willing to do business with someone who posts an "I won't serve " sign on the door ... you might find that your market is a lot smaller than you thought at the outset if you were that honest with your customers)

*Note: I have used the term "christianist" here to refer to these people who insist that it is their rights who are infringed upon when they are called out for imposing their beliefs on others in blatantly discriminatory ways. The majority of Christians do not engage in such vile behaviours.

More Religious Bigotry

In New Brunswick this time. Florist Refuses To Sell Flowers To Lesbian Couple

After agreeing to provide the flowers for a wedding, Kim Evans of Petals and Promises Wedding Flowers sent an email last month to the couple, saying she didn't know it was a same-sex wedding and would have no part of the ceremony.

"I am choosing to decline your business. As a born-again Christian, I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter," the email said.

Yet another case of someone dredging up their religious beliefs and demanding that everybody else live by their moral code.

... and like a certain case involving one Scott Brockie, the business is declined after agreeing to do the work in the first place. Apparently "christianists" have forgotten the very real persecution their forebears experienced at the hands of the Romans, because they are practicing more or less the same kind of oppression against GLBT people. Worse yet, they express their bigotry after making a business agreement.

The question for the denizens of places like "No Apologies" is clear enough in my mind - how is the couple supposed to know that this - or any other - business is run by some narrow-minded christianist who will deny them service? ... and just why should someone's faith be an excuse for denying service to someone else?

... and these are the same people who question the "necessity" of Bill C-389? Seems to me that they are the best argument for that bill being passed into law.

Addressing The Bogus Arguments

One of the most common arguments I see from the religious right wingnuts is essentially that all study of human sexuality is invalid because they don't like Alfred Kinsey. Consider this screed by No Apologies writer Tom Bartlett.

...Despite Judith Reisman revealing the sexual abuse revealed in Kinsey’s own writings in which infants were repeatedly brought to orgasm, apologists set this aside as irrelevant. If such treatment of infants is acceptable and his research is valid, why is there still a stigma and laws against what is regarded as sexual “abuse” or “exploitation” of children?

Considering that Ms. Reisman's writings are featured regularly on Wingnut Daily, I'm somewhat inclined not to take her work too terribly seriously. When I take a few minutes to find responses to Ms. Reisman's criticisms, I find myself unsurprisingly reading a formal response over at the Kinsey Institute's website, which quite clearly calls into question the particulars of her criticisms:

Allegations against Alfred Kinsey and his research on children's sexual responses, as reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, were first made in 1981 by Dr. Judith Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 (Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud). When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman's lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice (which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit).

Hmmm...so, Ms. Reisman sued when the Kinsey Institute responded to her allegations about Kinsey's work? That sounds like a credible response to me. Or perhaps it's really more about the usual over-the-top distortions that I have come to expect from the religious right wing.

Below is a reiteration of these accusations, recently reported, and the Institute's response.

The act of encouraging pedophiles to rape innocent babies and toddlers in the names of "science" offends. The act of protecting them from prosecution offends. The act of falsifying research findings which, in turn, open the floodgates for the sexual abuse of children, offends. (from Dr. Laura's (Schlesinger) website)

This would be a cause of great concern if it were true. Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form. He did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings and there is absolutely no evidence that his research "opened flood gates for the sexual abuse of children." Kinsey did talk to thousands of people about their sex lives, and some of the behaviors that they disclosed, including abuse of children, were illegal. In fact, many sexual behaviors, even those between married adults, were illegal in the 1940's and 1950's. Without confidentiality, it would have been impossible to investigate the very private lives of Americans then, and even now.

While there may have been ethical issues in Dr. Kinsey's work, I would submit that those issues have been unreasonably blown out of proportion.

Others have criticized Kinsey's raw data:

Jones wrote that Kinsey's sexual activity influenced his work, that he over-represented prisoners and prostitutes, classified some single people as "married",[23] and that he included a disproportionate number of homosexual men, particularly from Indiana, in his sample, which may have distorted his studies.[12][13] It has also been pointed out he omitted African Americans in his research.[24] Bullough explains that the data was later re-processed, excluding prisoners and data derived from an exclusively gay sample, and the results indicate that it does not appear to have skewed the data. Kinsey had over-represented people who were homosexual, but Bullough considers this may have been because this was stigmatized and needed to be understood.[12][13] It was Paul Gebhard, in the 1970s, who removed all suspect data (e.g., pertaining to prisoners and similar respondents), and recalculated significant sets of figures against results given by "100 percent" groups. He found only slight differences between the original and updated figures.[25]

So, coming back to Bartlett's suggestion that somehow Kinsey's work justifies enabling pedophilia, his argument is not just a little bit incorrect, it's outright wrong. Where does he get it wrong? Besides quoting highly questionable allegations against Kinsey himself, Bartlett's argument conveniently overlooks the very fundamental point of consent. It is generally accepted in our world that children cannot make a consent decision in such matters. Further, it is widely accepted that child sexual abuse results in serious psychological trauma to the victim. It isn't rocket science to understand that harm occurs to the victim and that the victim cannot make a reasonable consent decision - hence the ridiculousness of Bartlett's assertion. Of course, he's notorious for making straw-man arguments.

Similarly, while there are moral and ethical questions that pertain to Kinsey's methods, we must not forget that he did his work on human sexuality from the 1930s to the 1950s - an era during which much of what he was exploring was subject to criminal sanction. Attacking historical works based on a projection of current understandings is an unreasonable line of argument which attempts to dismiss the results of that research not on the research itself, but on the basis of objections to how that research was conducted.

For example, at the turn of the 20th Century, it was considered ethical to experiment on people directly with x-ray equipment. Today, with the understanding we have of the effects that such radiation can have on people, we would consider that type of experimentation to be unethical because of its consequences. Even if we were to criticize that work on the basis of those ethical considerations, it does not render invalid the findings of that work itself.

Although Kinsey's methods may not have been ideal by modern standards, I think that accusations of malfeasance in his work are gross exaggerations inflated for political reasons. The Kinsey Institute has addressed these objections reasonably and rationally over the years. Kinsey was essentially a pioneer in the field of sexology - whether his findings were objectively correct is an academic discussion.

Biblical Discrimination???

Over at "No Apologies", we find Mr. Bloedow responding to my commentary on one of his dafter ramblings about rights and discrimination.

MgS makes the same socialist error. If a businessman subjects a potential customer to “‘we don’t serve your kind’ discrimination,” to use MgS’s expression, then that potential customer is restricted from participating in the particular benefits of that particular businesses products or services. He is not being restricted from participating fully in SOCIETY.

So...somehow, a business is not a part of society? Horsefeathers, Bloedow. You are drawing a false dichotomy here. A business exists as an element of society - it does not exist in a vacuum, nor does it provide its goods and services in isolation from society. To claim otherwise is false.

The problem with discrimination is that it ultimately results in groups of people being marginalized - largely because those groups make "the majority" uneasy for some reason or another. By definition, a marginalized population is prevented from participating fully in society because they are kept on the margins of that society.

The consequences of marginalization are disproportionally greater to the target of those actions than your discomfort about that person or group justifies.

Before I get to my main point, let me point out that legislation against discrimination is juvenile symbolism. It doesn’t stop much of the discrimination it targets because people can get around it.

Are anti-discrimination laws perfect? No. However, they do have the net effect of persuading a lot of people who would engage in discrimination to actually think about their actions before they do it - especially in the marketplace and workplace environments. Yes, they can be undermined - and are from time to time, but that doesn't make them ineffective. Women, members of visible minorities and others can attest to the difference that such laws have made since their introduction in the 1950s and 1960s.

As an aside, you don’t see any atheists or homosexualists condemning “gay-only” businesses or women-only clubs. Clear evidence of the discriminatory nature of “anti-discrimination” law/ideology.

Oh - I see. You've decided to take up one of Mr. Bartlett's favourite tactics - drag in unrelated topics and try to claim that your opponent's position is inconsistent because of them. Nice try - but I haven't discussed these issues, nor do I take ownership of them. Don't go putting words in my mouth.

It's sort of the same as as the conversation around child-molesting priests in my view - using your approach, I must assume that your view is one of tacit approval, since I haven't seen you speak out against the subject, nor have I seen you speak out on the organized effort of Churches to protect these predators.

... and just what is "The Biblical" view of discrimination you talk about? So far, I've seen you assert it, but not once have you shown any reasonable derivation of your position based on anything other than some pseudo-libertarian screed you must have read back in University.

WhereIn NoApologies Shows Us Why Church And State Must Be Kept Apart

If you ever needed more concrete reasons why Canadians should be diligent about ensuring that radical religiosity needs to be kept as far from the reins of state as possible, consider the oh-so-rational thinking of the erstwhile Tim Bloedow in his post Thinking rightly about homosexuality and Christian B&B owners.

That being said, human rights is hostile to Christianity and justice. And we see that born out again in this case. Human rights is the law order for socialism – for affirmative action, group rights, “substantive equality,” which has nothing to do with genuine equality. We see this in human rights legislation: It protects people not as individuals, but based on their participation in groups, and not any group, only politically protected groups, such as people defined by ethnicity, sex/gender, “sexual orientation” and marital status. Human rights law doesn’t protect firemen, those with eyebrow piercings or dairy farmers.

Of course, what Mr. Bloedow is asserting here is actually quite ludicrous. Essentially, he is arguing that because human rights laws typically specifically address common grounds on which discrimination takes place. Whether that is race, religion, sexual orientation is irrelevant - these are all common grounds which have been used historically to limit the full participation of an individual in society.

Apparently, Mr. Bloedow doesn't understand the notion of individual rights as they are expressed in law. I will point to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an example of how flawed his logic is:

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

I don't know how this could be more abundantly clear about the fact that these rights apply to individuals.

What Mr. Bloedow seems to want is some kind of hierarchy of rights, which would put his "Christian Rights" ahead of all other rights - in particular his right to discriminate against others based on the projection of his faith onto others.

But the question is more fundamental than that. Christian activists should be asking: “How can businessmen live out their faith if they are legally required to support with their time, their labor, their goods, and their services behaviors that are offensive to them?”

Yes, we’re concerned about freedom of religion and conscience. Yes, we are concerned about Christian businessmen. But the real bahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifttleground is far more fundamental.

Really? So, you want to make it legal for businesses to practice "we don't serve your kind" discrimination? We've seen that before - it used to take place in the US before segregation was outlawed. Sadly, there are still those who would practice such vile forms of discrimination. Whether you apply on the basis of someone's ethnic characteristics, or on the basis of that person's sexuality is irrelevant - the consequences to the individual are still the same. You end up restricting their ability to participate fully in society on the basis of values that you are projecting outwards and insisting that they abide by.

These two views are incompatible. The erosion of Christianity and the rise of Humanism has been moving us from an environment of liberty – self-government under God – to state-ism. Many of us have only personally experienced state-ism so we don’t know what liberty feels or looks like. But that is ultimately what we’re arguing for when we say that businesses, such as these Christian B&B owners, should be free to operate their businesses as they see fit.

I always find this line of reasoning to be just a little too convenient. It always seems to crop up when we are talking about situations where so-calTo argue that operating a business should not be bounded by law is more than a little ridiculous. Businesses have always been subject to the law of the land, and rightly so.

What Bloedow is really arguing for here is either a form of extreme libertarianism, or if you read the rest of his writing he's really talking about rewriting Canada's laws to his particular interpretation of the Bible.

We posted a story about a Montreal-area trucking company that was ordered by Quebec’s human rights tribunal to pay $10,000 to a female truck driver who was not considered for a job because she is a woman. The business owner was apparently quite upfront about refusing to consider her for employment because she was a woman. We titled the post, “QC human rights trump business owner’s prerogative.”

Apparently, Mr. Bloedow wants to dial rights back to the late 17th Century. He obviously fails to understand that there is a fairly serious problem with refusing someone a job on the basis of the fact they are female - especially when they hold all of the requisite qualifications otherwise. Of course, I've seen other commentary on No Apologies where they've whined about how we should mourn a woman's "loss of purity" as a result of a sexual assault. The underlying misogyny of such a strategy is pretty offensive as it supposes that the only thing a woman brings to a relationship is her "purity" - and it is ironic that they never seem to talk about the same notion of "purity" for males, isn't it?

This has become a much longer commentary than I intended, but 1) it is absolutely necessary to drive home the importance to Christians of embracing Christianity as a worldview and not simply as a religion that provides a moral code to justify our antipathy to sexual perversion. 2) We need to champion morality at a foundational level that embraces justice for all Canadians, not simply for Christians, and 3) we need to understand where the true antithesis lies between Christianity and Humanism so that we don’t waste our time with losing battles, championing human rights and other anti-Christian concepts when we should, instead, be advancing the law of God and the lordship of Christ as relevant and applicable for 21st Century Canada.

Here is where Bloedow's obsession with all things to do with "homosexuals". He wants his right to discriminate against GLBT people - and women - enshrined in law. In effect, creating a hierarchy of rights.

The reality is that Mr. Bloedow's rights are already well established. What he has is a problem with comprehending the idea that individual rights exist with respect to the individual, and do not provide for the individual to project their beliefs onto others - especially in a way that limits their right to live a full life in society.

Religionist Distortions Of Reality

Now that the website "No Apologies" is entirely under Tim Bloedow's control, it seems to rapidly be spiraling into self-parody, with headlines for stories that have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the actual story and snide little comments at the beginning of the stories which completely misrepresent things.

Consider the following:

Is Christopher Hitchens about to become a Christian?

The real story is a repost and link to Mr. Kissinger, Have You No Shame? posted in the National Post - a column authored by Mr. Hitchens, and expressing outrage at some of Henry Kissinger's acts during the Nixon years.

Posted at the top of the story is a particularly vile bit of snide commentary:

As a die-hard atheist, Christopher Hitchens should have total moral ambivalence, much like the author of the grotesque article on cannibalism printed on the facing page from Mr. Hitchens’ article in the National Post yesterday. (both were reprinted from Slate.com.) Instead, he sounds remarkably like a Christian with his moral outrage against Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Maybe Mr. Hitchens will yet become a Christian before he dies.

The assumption - and I've seen it expressed many times - is that someone who isn't explicitly "Christian" can't possibly have morals or a moral compass since they do not cleave to the rules dictated in Christian scripture. The assumption itself is quite ridiculous, since there are a lot of people who are not religious in the first place, and in general they aren't any more or less morally upright members of society than their religious peers. Being an atheist does not make one amoral as well - one doesn't need the guidance of scripture to figure out how to treat your fellow human beings with respect and dignity, a little bit of simple observation in society usually works just fine.

Then there's this little headline: Incest by IVF? – Teenager helped lesbian aunt’s partner conceive

As usual, there's several levels of distortion here. First is the use of the term incest. Apparently the author of the headline thought it would be clever to confuse incest with consanguinity.

The definition of incest is quite simple:

1. sexual intercourse between closely related persons.
2. the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

Consanguinity is a little harder to pronounce, but pretty straightforward to understand:

1. relationship by descent from a common ancestor; kinship ( distinguished from affinity).
2. close relationship or connection.

In the actual story, the issue (if there was one at all) might be one of consanguinity, since IVF doesn't involve sexual intercourse to the best of my knowledge.

Guess what? Unless the Aunt's partner was a fairly close blood relation, chances are that there is no issue with the consanguinity laws either.

In short, there is no real issue here - although an attempt has been made to associate what actually happened with incest, with all of its accompanying taboos.

Lastly, we find this more blatant distortion: “Transgender” activist demands total acceptance despite huge freedoms

The real story Film about transgender dad banned after director refuses to cut scenes comes from Thailand:

Thailand’s film board has banned a movie about a transgender father struggling to raise two children, a move the director says highlights the conservative side of Thai society despite its freewheeling reputation.

Let's examine the degree of distortion between what the NoApologies headline says and implies and the real story for a moment.

(1) The word Transgender is placed in quotes. The implication is that the author of the headline is trying to suggest that the notion of transgenderism is fictitious.

(2) The use of the word Activist falsely implies that a transgender person who does something that gets into the public sphere is doing so for political reasons.

(3) The overall headline itself implies that transgender people should be happy with the freedoms that they already have, and that pointing out where there's still room to improve the situation is somehow unacceptable.

Lastly, I think it's important to point out that this story itself isn't really all that much different than the recent CBSC ruling about McVety's television show. Apparently it's "okay" to censor the work and words of transpeople that you want to marginalize, but not okay to limit the speech of someone like McVety. Frankly, I think it's a case of "pick one" - you can't have it both ways. Either free speech is an absolute with no limitations, or it has limits - and it applies to everybody.

I haven't seen the film in question myself, so I won't comment on its content specifically.

However, coming back to the original point, the headline that NoApologies put on this story has little, if anything, to do with the actual story itself.

Lifesite's news headlines are bad enough as a rule, but they usually have something to do with the actual story. In the last month or so, NoApologies has slide below the already low bar set by Lifesite ... and is becoming almost laughable.

Cogito Ergo Spud: What Happens When The Unreasoning Attempt Reason

Over at No Apologies, regular writer Tom Bartlett vomits up this attempt to dismiss the point, purpose and validity of Gay Pride events.

I don't think I've read too many pieces of work that are less rooted in logic and coherent reason recently (the insane ravings of Feminazi blog keeper "Miss Andrea" aside).

At its black heart, the entire diversity movement has been about contempt toward the noble traditions of faith that have provided so much good reinforcement against the secular humanism and violent belief systems that undermine society. I do, however, have some rhetorical questions related to the homosexual P.R.I.D.E. parade fiasco.

First of all "Pride" is a word - just like you find it in the dictionary. It is not an acronym, nor is it some kind of organization out of bad 1960's era spy fiction.

Second, there is nothing "noble" about blatant bigotry - whether it is rooted in faith or malice is immaterial.

Let's go on and look at his "rhetorical questions", shall we?

1) Why has it been considered perfectly acceptable for the P.R.I.D.E. parade to engage in blatant shows of contempt toward Christians? Incidents such as the obscene re-enactment of the Last Supper were met with yawning indifference by the media? Perhaps Jews should at least take solace in knowing that denigration of their faith occasioned some debate.

Since I haven't personally witnessed the "obscene" re-enactment of "The Last Supper", I can only imagine that it was apt as not to have its roots in much the same kind of parody that inspires so much of the Drag performance community. There's no doubt a certain amount of thumbing one's nose at those who have been so quick to condemn in there as well.

As for yawning indifference by the media, most of the world has gotten past being outraged by Pride parades - why would this be a big deal either?

2) What does it say about homosexual activists that contempt for these faith traditions is so intertwined with their events? Doesn’t this belie the notion that issues like same-sex marriage are about trying to blend into, rather than undermine, our culture?

I hate to point this out, but in today's world it would be difficult indeed to make a compelling argument that any one faith is "preeminent" over all others in society. Blending into society doesn't mean that anyone has to adopt a particular faith tradition.

3) How does a group that “prides” itself on diversity try to exclude a group with its own ideology? What does this reveal about the hypocrisy and premises of the “diversity” movement when it merely draws its own lines on what attitudes, beliefs and lifestyle choices are unhealthy or unacceptable? Don’t such incidents mean that we must uproot the core suppositions behind secularism and start from scratch in determining whether the homosexual (transgender, bisexual, etc.) lifestyles have equal merit and are thus deserving of special protections?

Huh? Where's the exclusion here? Do I really need to point out that there have been religious groups who participate actively in the GLBT community, churches that openly accept GLBT members without persecuting them.

What Mr. Bartlett is misunderstanding ... and misrepresenting ... is the idea that diversity means treating all with respect and dignity. Respect and dignity is a two way street - generally one reaps as one sows, and the hardline anti-gay crowd has hardly treated GLBT people with respect or dignity. One can hardly be surprised that the GLBT community works with those who treat them well and feels it appropriate to 'return the favor' to those whose contempt for them has been so blatant.

4) Given the fact that homosexuals make up only 1 to 2% of the population, why do they have so many hateful activist subgroups among their numbers?

Such as?

Sorry pal, if you want to claim hatefulness and so on, I'd suggest you provide real and concrete examples ... along with specific organizations that are allegedly behind these acts. Simply asserting hatefulness is not the same as demonstrating a reality behind it.

5) Why are P.R.I.D.E. parades mired in such controversies that don’t tend to plague other groups? For instance, how is it that N.A.M.B.L.A. (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) has enjoyed such close ties with P.R.I.D.E. events? Why did P.R.I.D.E. only distance themselves from N.A.M.B.L.A. after public scrutiny and outrage? Why have homosexual activists fought so hard to lower the age of sexual consent if there is no link between these two groups? What, for that matter, is the secular argument against sex between adults and children?

Ummm...really? I haven't seen or heard of NAMBLA being anywhere near a Pride parade for years. This is yet another example of making false connections - the inference being that GLBT people are really just pedophiles.

I can't speak for the situation in the US, but in Canada there's been an interesting double standard in our sex crimes laws. If someone is female, they can consent to sexual activity at the age of 14; however for someone who is male the laws make it a crime (statutory rape) if the individual engages in anal sex under the age of 16. Why the difference? That has been at the crux of that lobby for years. It's disappointing that Mr. Bartlett hasn't bothered to do any research on the matter.

As for any link between NAMBLA and the mainstream GLBT community, that's a huge reach.

The indoctrination and recruitment programs that government is complicit in imposing on society keep many homosexuals from getting the compassionate help that would help them deal with underlying hurts, break free from their lifestyle, and be fully informed of the risks inherent in it. Social acceptability won’t eradicate these very real issues.

"Compassionate help"? What does that mean? Reparative therapy perhaps? We all know how well that works. As for "risks", the risks of ignorance are far, far greater - and it's no secret that Bartlett's argument is heading towards returning to an era of blatant oppression of GLBT people - something which makes it even harder to communicate with those groups.

I know many will insist that pro-lifers have such radical elements, but that argument is easily refuted. Those who have committed acts of violence, such as killing abortionists and bombing clinics, are neither on the fringe nor at the centre of any pro-life organisation. Any such rogue individuals and groups have never had a part with us and are roundly and consistently denounced. In fact, pro-life gatherings are peaceful; where there has been violence, it has almost always been directed at pro-life protestors. That is because pro-lifers don’t promote nebulous concepts of “diversity,” but make an unapologetic stand in defence of vulnerable human life.

At its core, Christ-centred advocacy is borne of compassion, while homosexual activism is mired in hatred.

Therein lies the double standard of the entire argument. On one hand, Mr. Bartlett trashes GLBT people based on the acts of a few - arguably some of whom would be considered extremes even within the community and then tries to deflect the actions of extremists like Dennis Roeder by claiming that they are mere "aberrations". Sorry, Mr. Bartlett, but if you insist that the GLBT community own the acts of its extremes, then it is only fitting that the lobbies you support take ownership of the actions of their own extremists.

To conclude that his own brand of advocacy is rooted in "compassion" when it has so often turned not just to hate-mongering, lies and deceit but to outright murder is a stretch, especially in contrast to his claim that GLBT activism is filled with hatred (which he only claims, but does not substantiate).

There's a little hint here - just as people's sexual and romantic lives are personal business, so is an individual's religion. That means that I don't have the right to limit someone's religious beliefs, but nor do they have the right to impose their beliefs upon others.

The Base Squirmeth

If I hadn't read it, I would never have believed it.

Over at No Apologies, we find one Tim Bloedow airing his opinions Canada's Discrimination Law.

Think about it… the non-discrimination categories are politically defined. Some of them, like ethnicity and colour of skin and marital status, may line up with real-world distinctions, but it’s a particular worldview – and a non-Christian one at that – which has selected the particular categories that exist today in non-discrimination – or Human Rights – codes. In other words, the state has been given the divine right to define reality and morality by declaring that “sexual orientation” should be a non-discrimination category, but suit colour should not be; marital status should be, but hair length should not be.

Besides setting up one of the usual straw-man arguments that the religious right likes to throw around, Bloedow is also telling us a great deal about his thinking as to what government can or should do.

The straw man is easy enough to discount. He tries to equate sexual orientation with 'suit colour' and 'hair length'. Of course, this is fairly typical rhetoric - according to the extreme religious right wing, sexuality is entirely a matter of choice, no different than choosing a suit. The rational research into human sexuality seriously calls such a simplistic view of things into question.

“Human rights” – or non-discrimination – law is predicated on Humanism/Atheism/Socialism, so it discriminates against Christianity.

So ... you wanted to better understand the double standards that seem to permeate the current CPoC? There it is in black and white. It boils down to 'rights for me, not for thee' - especially for those who are not hardline followers of a particular notion of Christianity which I will dub 'Christianist' - in a manner consistent with the distinction between 'Islam' and an 'Islamist' (a term often used with respect to violent, political advocacy groups whose roots are in Islam).

I find it interesting that Bloedow argues that Humanism effectively discriminates against Christianity. He seems to have lost sight of the fact that in Canada, the fundamental foundation of human rights law is rooted in individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, for example, the concept of Freedom of Religion in fact encompasses not only Christianity, but other forms of belief (or non-belief) as needed. However, that freedom exists primarily for the individuals who live in Canada, and does not give any one system of beliefs the right to demand that others live by its specific creed.

What does this mean in the real world? It means that an employee can file a discrimination complaint against his employer, but an employer has no recourse to file a discrimination complaint against an employee (or a potential employee who he thinks decided not to pursue employment with him due to his race). It means that a tenant can file a discrimination complaint against a landlord, but a landlord can’t file a complaint against a prospective tenant who finds other accommodations due to a discriminatory attitude. It has meant that 99% or more of the time when Christians file “human rights” complaints, they’re complaint is rejected, but when homosexuals file discrimination complaints against Christians, almost every single one is accepted and more than 95% of them are decided in favour of the homosexuals. It is also why many vehicles for combating “gender” discrimination can only be used by women, not men.

Once again, Bloedow is grossly misrepresenting the situation. Of course the opportunity to file complaints exists (for example, an employer could file a complaint against a prospective employee for refusing an offer based on the employer's race). However, the chances of being able to substantiate such a claim would be astonishingly small, unless there were overt actions taken by the prospective employee. (e.g. being tattooed with swastikas and making obviously racist comments during the interview - in which case one might wonder aloud about the employer's sanity in even extending an offer of employment)

Further, cases of discrimination where a group that has been in a position of power and/or dominance for an extended period of time are involved are extremely rare (e.g. gender discrimination against men, or discrimination based on someone being Christian). It is far more likely for a woman to hear "that's a man's job" in the workplace than the other way around.

In fact, the HarperCon$ dismantling and weakening of the very programs that strive to ensure equality in Canada have already had a serious impact on the very people that Bloedow and others seem to think they have a biblical right to treat poorly. (e.g. women and homosexuals for a start)

Non-discrimination law is a perpetual act of war against Christianity. It reflects a complete abandonment of the Christian principle of equality – equality before the law – that is absolutely foundational to the survival of a just civilization.

One can only come to a conclusion like this by thinking that there is some kind of 'right' to impose your particular brand of religiosity on the breadth of a nation's populus. Doing so would naturally negate the concept of individual liberty, leaving many subject to treatment as second class citizens simply for not following the religious edicts handed down.

... and if you think that given a majority that Harper wouldn't go down this very path, consider this.

A Little Window Into The World Of The Anti-Gay Conservatives

I have often wondered what really makes the religious conservatives so rabidly hate-filled when it comes to homosexuality. It has often seemed to me that the anti-gay message is rooted in a particularly narrow, literalist view of scripture.

After reading this gem ... and in particular the comments over at No Apologies, I'm afraid I must revise my opinion.

The vitriol is not really rooted in any meaningful understanding of Scripture - at best, that seems to be an excuse - something that they can point to that allows them to justify not taking personal ownership of their feelings and reactions.

What needs to be understood about these people is that they are not content to be sodomites and just carry on with life. They want to promote that wicked lifestyle. We know this because God says so.

Hmmm...what an interesting set of inferences. First of all, there's an underlying wish that GLBT people would quietly stay in the closet - after all, why on earth would anyone that was GLBT want to be a full participant in society? When someone from the GLBT community does participate in our society's government, they are immediately accused of "promoting their wicked lifestyle" or "recruiting".

Underlying this seems to be two basic themes:

(1) A desire to keep the unknown ("the Others" in society) from being full and equal participants in society.

(2) Fear - plain old fear. Once you make another human being "the Other", it becomes easy to think of them as less than human; of being capable of all sorts of malfeasance and misdeeds.

In short, although the mask they draw over their words and deeds is made of the fabric of faith, it is but a mask. Underneath it lie attitudes steeped in fear and ignorance. When confronted with evidence that contradicts their assumptions, they will inevitably dismiss it out of hand, rather than trying to assimilate it.

The Poor, Persecuted Christian ... and Reality

Over at No Apologies, we find them desperately trying to spin things into a case of "persecuted christianity" because Washington, D.C. might pass a law legalizing SSM.

In Washington, D.C., the Catholic archdiocese has threatened to end its charitable work in the city – the work of Catholic Charities – if homosexual “marriage” rights are passed and the state tries to force Catholic Charities to extend employee benefits to homosexual “married” couples. If this happens, homosexualists will be to blame for terminating important charitable aid to the needy.

Then there is reality - The Catholic Church is the one threatening to shut down it's charitable works in D.C. if the bill is passed.

What soup kitchens for the poor have to do with SSM is a bit of a puzzle, isn't it?

But officials from the archdiocese said they feared the law might require them to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples. As a result, they said, the archdiocese would have to abandon its contracts with the city if the law were passed.

Oh, now I see. The Church is afraid it might have to treat gay employees as actual equals with respect to subjects such as benefits plans.

The reality here is that the Church is offended that it might have to treat all of its employees as equals for subjects such as paid benefits plans. In other words, the Church is about to lose yet another area where it can discriminate and treat gay people as second class citizens.

It's important to note that the law in question does not impinge upon the Church's autonomy with respect to deciding who it will or will not marry:

Under the bill, which has the mayor's support and is expected to pass next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform same-sex weddings or make space available for them.

In order to get its way, the Church is effectively making the clients of its charitable operations the victims. The denizens of No Apologies, are, of course, trying to spin this hostage taking as being the fault of those who back gay marriage. In effect, they are saying that the Church's actions are the direct result of the law changing, instead of recognizing that the Church has choices it can make. It could choose to simply extend benefits to same sex couples that are legally married - and there would be no issue. Instead, they choose to try using their charitable operations as a political lever.

Hardly something that one can blame the backers of the gay marriage bill in D.C. for.

That's Terrorism?

According to the wingnuts over at No Apologies, the mere threat of the GLBT community demonstrating against an anti-gay series of seminars is "terrorism".

No, I'm afraid that's just abusing the term. Stalking people and murdering them so that others will be intimidated out of legal practices like women's health care services, that's arguably terrorism of a sort. Anybody else remember Dr. Tiller's murder this year? Or Operation Rescue's various campaigns against abortion providers?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Look at the screaming, whining and bellyaching that comes out from the religious right wing whether it's about gay rights, marriage or abortion - the demonstrations are amazing, and when someone chooses to confront them using their own tactics it suddenly gets labelled "terrorism". There's a word for this - hypocrisy.

As for Mr. Lizotte, the man leading these sessions, he seems to be a francophone version of the usual anti-gay speakers. I would put even odds that I could find the same assertions that Mr. Lizotte makes on any of the usual anti-gay websites - with about as much real data to back them up.

What Happens When You Confront Religion With Evidence?

Over at No Apologies, things got even more interesting in the discussion of Mr. Buterman's firing after my last look at the thread.

One of my favourite bloggers, Zoe Brain came along and tried to present the denizens of No Apologies with actual science around transsexualism and Intersex conditions here, here, here, here and here.

Which commenter "RRC" tries desperately to dismiss in his comments - first by stating:

Your Matthew 19:12 citation is not about being intersexed. And, respectfully, you need to understand that a sovereign Creator created and governs the field of biology and is not in a separate realm from God’s creation of morality. That is philospher Immanuel Kant’s unproven assumption.

Nice attempt at a dismissal - he doesn't even bother to answer to anything that Zoe has raised in her first post. His second post attempts to dismiss Zoe by arguing that she has violated his notion of hermeneutics.

It's this attempt at a rejection that actually makes me laugh:

Zoe,
Anyone has a “fraudulent agenda” who doesn’t start with the Creator God and his ethical system, his “Law” as I’ve said. I already made a defense for the intelligible pre-conditions of evidence. Zoe, you can’t have raw evidence devoid of a worldview foundation. God-less presuppositions in evidence always end up in futility. That is the fraud. So I’m way thru all your researchers.
If you don’t accept my opinions I guess we’ll have to go our separate ways.
Good day.

This boils down to one thing - he's rejecting the evidence that Zoe has thoughtfully cited in her posts on the basis that he disagrees with the worldview that scientific inquiry is based on.

This isn't a lot different than the three year old having a temper tantrum because their parents won't give them the candy they've decided that they want. RRC hasn't actually refuted anything - he's just said that he can't be bothered to examine the evidence because it might make him re-examine his assumptions about the world.

Talk About Self Centered!

I've been leaving the situation around Jan Buterman alone quite intentionally. Frankly, there just aren't enough details in the public arena to make any particularly useful commentary on the case itself.

However, that hasn't stopped the commenters over at No Apologies from getting going - in particular someone purporting to be Stephen Boissoin. (I'd guess that it is him, the writing style is consistent with other ravings of his I've seen, but it's possible that it's a poseur)

Up to this morning's comment, Boissoin wasn't doing much beyond spouting pretty standard Christian dominionist nonsense. Other than repeating his combat-centric language, it was quite unremarkable. This morning, on the other hand, he opened his mouth, and the mask slipped:


* Screen capture used since NoApologies admins have a habit of sanitizing their comments sections.

Mr. Boissoin has all of the rights that he cites from section 2 of the Charter. It is unfortunate that it has been necessary for sanctions to be imposed for his exercise of those rights in a manner that infringe upon the rights of others. The Charter sets out personal rights and freedoms. Each of us is responsible for exercising those rights in a manner that respects the rights of others.

What Boissoin doesn't quite seem to understand is that his rights are not absolute rights that overrule the rights of others. His demands about repressing GLBT people run smack into the tension between his rights and the rights of other individuals.

However, his last statement is particularly ridiculous:

I want these rights and I do not want to have sex changed transgendereds teaching my children. Catholics pay taxes and they have every right to use them for their benefit, like anyone else. The government is to serve the people.

I see ... and a transsexual has somehow taken a position in life where they have no right to appeal when they believe they have been mistreated, Mr. Boissoin? Is access to the law and justice only available to those who are in your opinion sufficiently pious?

Lastly, just what is it that you think is so evil about transsexuals? Hmmm? Afraid that the evil "transness" of these people might rub off on your children? (Didn't we get past that after the grade school "girls/boys have cooties" thing?) If you're really so afraid of such things, then perhaps you should pony up the dollars to send your children to a nicely sequestered private school, where none of the reality of the world will come before their eyes. (I hate to think how well they will handle that) ... and no, a statement of faith that denies the existence of a recognized medical condition doesn't make it go away - no matter what the Vatican says.

[Update 11:45 8/10/09]
Oh, but it keeps getting richer. This has Mr. Boissoin into quite a lather - and he's getting more and more irrational and strident.



I hate to disappoint Mr. Boissoin, but a transsexual is not necessarily a homosexual - before or after transition. Sexual identity is not the same thing as gender identity.

But, before falling into a long discussion about the distinction between gender and sexual identity, let's take a closer look at what Mr. Boissoin is saying:

I do not want gays of any sort teaching my children…no transsexuals, transvestites, transgendereds etc and I would fight tooth and nail to ensure that this did not happen.

Would his statement represent anything acceptable if it was about people's ethnicity? Let's take a look, using language that was perfectly acceptable in the Southern US not so long ago:

I do not want gays coloreds of any sort teaching my children…no transsexuals, transvestites, transgendereds Blacks, Chinese, Indians etc and I would fight tooth and nail to ensure that this did not happen.

It's not very pretty, is it? Just what make this acceptable when he's talking about GLBT people? Nothing. It's the ugly side of humanity coming to the surface. It is a sad statement indeed that the writer goes on like this. Frankly, this kind of closed mindedness is disappointing to see, as it is really no better than the arguments against racial integration not so long ago - and it is no more valid than those arguments have turned out to be.



Then he goes on to misrepresent Canada's marriage laws by claiming that a refusal to marry someone who is transsexual would result in the minister facing a human rights complaint.

While I agree that a transsexual certainly is a different situation than two men getting married, I think that the principle laid out in the Civil Marriage Act regarding faith and same sex marriages would apply:

Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Now, this does leave the provincial marriage commissioners in a bit of a grey area, for they are contracted to the government (and thus act as an arm of the government) - they are thus bound by their duty as a civil servant to serve all members of society equally within the scope of their contract. (Remember, the government in Canada recognizes no specific religion, and therefore its agents must act in a similarly atheistic manner)

However, someone who is an ordained minister would be acting in their capacity as a member of that church's clergy. As such, it would be difficult indeed to make a case that a clergyman refusing to perform a marriage on theological grounds had unreasonably engaged in discriminatory practices.

(As an aside, I'm reading a little bit into this clause in that I am assuming that the courts would tend to rule that the same principle applies to transsexuals as applies to homosexual people in such a matter)
[/Update]