7. How do I respond when politicians condemn my sexuality, citing their belief in the Bible?

Remind them that the First Amendment protects them in believing whatever they want to about what God does or does not bless, but it also prohibits them from using those beliefs to decide who the Constitution protects or doesn't protect. Tell them to stop confusing their theology with our democracy. And then campaign for and donate to their opponent in the next election cycle.

Last edited Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

That's not exactly the point, however.

But again, not the point.

But it wasn't my point.

...with Fred Phelps's beliefs.

Now, I wouldn't have made the comparison in the first place, but being presented with the comparison, the choice seems pretty obvious to me.

And to whoever made up that New Commandment meme, I would guess.

Really, it's not that difficult. It's just not.

But again, that wasn't my point.

Not that your answer was uninteresting.

You expect me to wait for your permission to speak?

It's a message board if you don't want a response from anyone who reads it don't post it.

Isn't that something that you have railed against in your short term here?

that religious beliefs that you agree with deserve your applause but those you don't agree with deserve your scorn.

Is it surprising that I would prefer progressive and militant Christianity to fundamentalist Christianity?

I've been very much opposed to and have fought against homophobia for a long, long time, now.

Do you realty expect me to change those beliefs now in my old age?

And in case you didn't see where I was going with this, why is it OK for you to put scorn on some religions but not OK for me to do so on the RCC? Many in here have indicated that I and others are "militant atheists" because of our anti-catholic stances when we talk about the RCC.

What many in here don't see is that me pointing out problems in religions that some in here are members of is no different than what you and others are doing in this thread. It is just another example of "what I believe in is sacred but what others believe in that I don't is just bullocks."

I have no desire to push you into a closet.

So is this distraction from the discussion at hand about the double standard in the way religion is treated here on purpose or are you just that easily distracted?

So what about your non-belief in a god are especially militant about?

...my arrival here at DU.

This was before being banned from A&A for refusing to hide in the closet as an openly militant atheist.

Since some of that post is indeed relevant to the issue of this thread, I'll copy my comment here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123022173#post62

I refused to be forced into the closet, so I stopped posting there.

When A&A opens it's doors to openly militant atheists, then and only then will I be willing to post there again.

But I will not post in a forum that wants me to deny my very existence as a condition of posting.

in my first email. SO people know what was said to you and the fact that I tried to work things out with you.

I've already explained this to you many times.

the reality that that term has been used as a weapon against atheists in society and here specifically? You don't and didn't want to even engage in a discussion about why that might offend people.

Nope. You just want to be able to say whatever you want and history be damned. Apparently DU has only existed for the amount of time you have been here.

Have you gone to one of the feminist groups and told them they are hysterical yet? And then when the clear result of using that term happens, please do tell them that they are overreacting and that you won't be pushed into the closet. I know you had a really hard time understanding that analogy in our message exchange, but hopefully you have had enough time to figure it out.

...militant atheists.

I am talking about the process of reclamation and how the word "nigger" has been reclaimed by portions of the black community. Why do you have such a problem with that simple statement of reality. And why didn't you talk about my "gratuitous" usage of the word "queer"?

Please stop using the N-Word in posts addressed to me.

That's once in email, and twice right here in this thread.

Please stop. This is totally unacceptable behavior.

If you do it again, I will alert on your post.

I used it in a very academic manner in a discussion about the process of reclaiming words--something which I did significant research and study of during my Master's program. When people write academic papers about it, do you think they type "N-word"? No. They don't. If I had used it as a racial epithet, I could understand your concern. I did nothing of the sort.

And, additionally, why do you not have the same outrage to the academic usage of the word "queer"? Why is that something you are not as upset about. Especially in a subthread of an OP about rights of the group that reclaimed that word?

explicitly show me how I used it as a racial epithet. That's a bullshit claim by you. I did nothing of the sort. Either show where I did or apologize.

Don't post the word if it insults your sensibilities. Use n***** if you wish. But either explain how I used it as a racial epithet or apologize. You can't just toss around claims of me being a racist without some level of proof. Because that's just bullshit.

"I just want the harassment to stop." Well too fucking bad. You called me a racist, and I'm not going to just let that slide, slick.

Don't run to another thread to make it sound like there are racists here on DU. I didn't do that and you don't get to claim I did. That's bullshit.

and just want to run away with your tail between your legs rather than act like a grown up and admit you made a claim that I was a racist that isn't true. Cool. Nice tactic.

Seriously, WTF is up?

I'd love to see the jury results.

...unfortunate that juries here at DU allow the N-Word to thrown at people even after they request it to stop multiple times.

And I think that it is unfortunate that some in the A&A group use this lax enforcement to their advantage.

So you were clearly wrong and just want to run away with your tail between your legs rather than act like a grown up and admit you made a claim that I was a racist that isn't true. Cool. Nice tactic.

Nobody else need apply. Any atheist who declares their tolerance of religion is quickly shown the door. Your experience there was not unique. I and others received very similar treatment. And Dawkins forbid you should mention any spiritual beliefs you may harbor, like the possible existence of a soul. They don't welcome impure atheists.

This group is a far more welcoming place for atheists and believers alike.

That's an interesting way to look at being blocked.

I would not put him and you in the same category in anything other than disbelief in god.

Keep fighting the fight, man!

I've resolved to listen to what Stoned Space has to say, going forward, rather than salting it with my initial perceptions.


Been a wild couple weeks in here, that's for sure. (And thank you, and you as well.)

...and openly identifying as a militant atheist.

There are those who don't wish to be confronted by the mere fact of our very existence.

It gets wild, quick.

Apparently I use too much 'violent' language.

Like people are walking into political debates with actual shields and swords or something.

Also 2 is technically incorrect. Jesus didn't say anything at all about gay people. Not one word.

Matthew 19:4-6, jesus refers to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and in doing so, omits or is silent on the issue of same-sex or LGBT pair bonds in general, and that is construed by many Christians to be a positive, exclusionary statement, but in actuality, the biblical character of jesus utters a sum total of 0 words about this issue.


So there is literally nothing he said to separate LGBT people from the superset of "all people", which I would find a satisfactory position, if indeed I believed the biblical character of jesus existed, and had divine authority. But you will not find anything resembling universal acceptance of that position in American Christians.

It's incredibly clear, supportive, embracing and positive from start to finish.

Glad you were able to find a flaw in it, though. I'm sure there are others, including fundies, who could find flaws all through it.

I have self-professed Christians throw that fucking book in my face over this specific issue day in and day out. I point out number 2's flaw, because that is my primary defense mechanism against their assault. It's a flaw/weakness I can exploit that blows a hole in their ideology.

These same people would laugh at the assertions made in that 'Q&A'. I call it 'sentiments', even though I agree with the concept, because it only resonates with people of a certain mindset. If I provided that list to Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in 2012, he would reject it.


That it is "clear, supportive, embracing and positive from start to finish" doesn't make it resonate with it's target audience. I don't need it myself, because I already embrace and defend the civil rights and humanity of the LGBT community on a daily basis.

because your experience is rather unusual, especially considering where you live.

This is a thoughtful and very useful piece that directly confronts the premises laid out in some fundamentalist ideology about GLBT people. It resonates with lots of people and provides a great tool. Why you would try to find fault in it escapes me.

The target audience is those that are confronted with religious arguments against GLBT civil rights, not the religious right. Glad you are able to do this without any assistance and that you already knew everything that is there.

Why do I stay? Well, I like money. And, I have been effective at changing some people's positions on these issues, so that's gratifying.


I disagree that my position is 'unusual'. I can see people in my position in national, and worldwide news, all the time. The climate here is better, I am more free to take a stand than some people, but the fight is everywhere. I wonder about you, sometimes, since you don't seem to see it.


"Why you would try to find fault in it escapes me."

This is a philosophical difference between us, I think. When someone proposes an idea, good or bad, offensive or pleasant, the first thing I do is hold it in my mind, and attack it from a contrarian standpoint to seek, identify, and exploit its weaknesses. Until I know how durable the idea is, I do not adopt it as my own, because I do not adopt ideas I am not fully prepared and willing to defend.

If I threw that list down in an argument as my defense, in support of full, equal, humane respect for LGBT people, and offered nothing further to support my position, I would be shredded. It is a juvenile defense, wholly inadequate to the task at hand.

I take these debates quite seriously, you see. I don't advance weak arguments against bigots and homophobes. I go for the jugular, with my teeth. I bring the sharpest sword. The strongest shield. I mean to win.

And little by little, I am.

That list was of no use to me, in that regard. I can do better. I can make #2 hold water. It does not, as is.
It is almost offensively simplistic.

There are people on this site who refuse to speak to you as well, and they are not fundamentalists. I may be one of them very soon.

What exactly do you wonder about me, AC? What exactly are you implying?

You are not winning anything when you talk about going for the jugular with your teeth, bringing the sharpest sword and the strongest shield. Nothing.

Your use of violent imagery and language is making me increasingly uncomfortable.

You've use that word, accused a DUer of advocating it, yet you brushed off criticism of your use of it as "hyperbole."

And here you leap to judgment on a fellow DUer using hyperbole of "going for the jugular."

Unreal. Just fucking unreal. No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously.

"What exactly do you wonder about me, AC? What exactly are you implying?"

I wonder exactly what I said. I insinuate nothing. I wonder where you are, and what people you interact with, that you do not see the things I see, because I live in a politically liberal corner of the US, and still, I am beset with this shit.

I suppose it might be partially because I seek confrontation with bigots and homophobes, because It's a worthwhile. It's a just cause. There are flesh and blood people that I love, and care about, that are under attack on this issue.

We've legalized same sex marriage in my state, and all the rights and benefits that comes along with that. But at the federal level they are still discriminated against.


I MUST correct that. It's an infringement of the constitution. Yes, I fight. I am willing to fight. I use intentionally provocative language in so doing. I'm an anvil, or a hammer or both, whatever it takes to break loose this issue, and gain full civil rights for all americans. (And I have a human interest in the rights of people worldwide, but I can only do so much at the moment when my own house is not in order)

There are people that make lovely, and eloquent, and with some people, very moving and gentle cases that work to change ideology. That's not me. I'm a pugilist. I fight. I think it takes broad approaches, and very different varieties of people to effectively work through these issues. I'm happy to be the confrontational element. I am well suited to it. I can take lumps. I don't even feel them.

Let the eloquent, beautifully worded folks do their piece.
Let me do the dirty work. I like it. I feel a calling to do it. The constitution demands it. Humanity demands it.

I think your approach is highly counter-productive, but I don't think there is any chance at all that you will change it. Whatever it is you feel you need to fight I think has a lot more to do with you personally than the cause, to be frank.

I don't understand your apparent reluctance to speak with me all the sudden. But whatever. I've made my case.

You'll note that at no time did she actually address the points you raised, because she couldn't.

But you gave her no opportunity to turn it around and play the victim, which is generally part of her SOP.

So instead she insinuated that you're violent and unstable, and are making her afraid.

I put a lot of my core nature on the table there, naked for the world to see. I got very unpleasant commentary in response.

It seems like the more honest I try to be, the more certain people back away.



Is this issue not worth fighting for? Is it not worth a fight? Truly? Does this issue not offend people? Are people wrong for getting incensed at such basic, blindingly obvious injustice?

Must we be gentle? Soft? Move slow? Make no demands? Express no outrage? Be meek?


No. I shall not.

In the racial dimension of the Civil Rights movement, I believe there was a place at the table for the soft, but firm eloquence and methodology of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, AND the righteous indignation of Malcom X. They were BOTH powerful and needed voices in that struggle. My tactics resemble more Malcom than Martin. I am confrontational. I do not blunt my words. I am provocative. I make some people necessarily uncomfortable.

I'm ok with that. Malcom X was inarguably a great man, and I am disappointed in myself that I do not invest as MUCH passion in this current civil rights fight, as he did in his. There is injustice to be un-done here. Civil rights being denied. People being harmed.

You bet I fight.

As I pointed out, cbayer herself has used over-the-top rhetoric when it was an issue she felt strongly about.

I see the value in your approach, and I am much the same way. I have directly confronted homophobes and bigots on here, and always will. I also confront the behavior that gives cover to the homophobes and bigots, and that has earned me a spot on many shit lists. I wear that badge with honor.

I don't tend to think much about the motives of someone I am talking directly to, but now that you raise it, I can recall several such threads, and that clarifies the double standard at play, and I have witnessed it. Most definitely.

My thanks.

And engages in personally attacking cbayer and her family at every opportunity, in an effort to discredit her. If you noticed, he responds to virtually all her threads, knowing full well that he has been on her ignore list for a long time. He is a master of smear, distortion and manipulation. I think you have the ability to think for yourself, and to fight your fight, which I think is a good one, without swallowing the bs. You've been here long enough to know how he rolls.

Have a look at the first response to my post here.

One breath, me and fundies looking for flaws. All she did through this thread was belittle me and my motives. Not once did she address the technical nature of my point. Not once did she acknowledge any of my reasons for doing so.

Did I respond by attacking her? No.


"clear, supportive, embracing and positive from start to finish"

None of that has anything to do with my point. My point was, it is fundamentally and technically flawed. Incomplete. Not useful.
The objection was basically just associating me with fundamentalists. There is no meat there.

I found that highly offensive but continued to engage in good faith, without attacking.


Got me nowhere. Except possibly on an ignore list.

I think it devolved rather quickly, which can happen quite easily on an internet message board. I don't think she inferred you were a fundie, but you probably both overreacted and misinterpreted as your debate continued. I've seen you both have very civil debates in the past and you have both shown mutual respect. None of us agree on everything, but we are all pretty damn close.
So, maybe some deep breaths are in order.
These conversations may not seem as though we "get somewhere", but those of us who actually engage do get somewhere.
That's why we exchange ideas, so we can rethink, especially rethink about the things we feel the most certain about. That's how we grow.
Peace.

Hence my statement of not wanting to get in the middle. But thanks for your concern Warren.

Playing tag team while feigning neutrality is dishonest.

Are you married to someone in this group by any chance?

I feign no neutrality, btw. How about you?

But as a card carrying atheist you know about the group marriage requirements.

And yes, you interceded with a pretense of a disinterested observer, when in fact you aren't.

he is talking about himself. They are married. Thought that tidbit should be disclosed.

Former question withdrawn.

this exchange between AC and other posters just seems so familiar. I guess it's a pattern many DU'ers have exhibited in the past. At any rate, I thought this old PM was good at describing some patterns of some DU'ers. No DU'er in particular, just people who like to fuck around and play mind games.

>She does this passive aggressive bullshit. She pushes buttons...she knows how. She walks that fine line between doing things right, and doing wrong things she can get away with, and when she's called on her bullshit she:
>
> 1) throws up her hands and does a "who, little ole innocent me??" routine
>
> 2) then becomes the world's largest victim, never able to get a fair fight, never given the benefit of the doubt
>
> 3) then she gets what she wants--or, she'll get what she wants out of you---you'll be banned from the forum, or not be a host, or made into the Emanuel Goldstein of the xxxx Forum...whatever. As long as she comes out on top and you're at the bottom, she's gotten what she wants. She'll deflect the topic of discussion to whatever she wants it to be. If she doesn't like the topic of conversation, she'll make it about you, or how you're making it about her. She'll pretend that it's all about her just so you can spend 20 posts convincing her it was NEVER about her.
>
> 4) then, she'll make very passive-aggressive, veiled call-outs about you. Then she'll alert when you respond. She'll say she's being attacked. She'll pout and say that she's being bullied, harassed, or stalked. She'll get her posse of minions to attack the thread and call you a bully, and how unfair you're being, and how she's one of the most even-handed, unbiased posters DU has *EVER * seen (Look at anytime anyone criticizes her. The same group show up. They say the same things. It's not just coincidence)

It's too bad that at the same time they play those stupid games, they often claim they desperately want civil discussion.

That's why things sometimes seem so familiar.

That every successful group that has pressed for change has had at least two competing elements: Firebrands and Peacemakers. MLK Jr. and Malcolm X's if you will.

The firebrands are the ones who shine a light upon the injustices and inequities, the failures of society to the people who are forced to support it. They sake people out of their lofty perches and force them to the ground. Thus making people uneasy and force them to re-examine their views.

The peace makers then take those people who find their faith shaken, and their position uncertain and ease them into understanding and accepting the unpleasant truth. Thus building the coalitions needed for change.

I do not think change can come without both of these people. Madalyn O'Hair said many things I do not agree with, but I don't think we would be where we are without her. She was a firebrand who blazed the trail that many of us are now following.

As someone who is probably more of a peacemaker I want to salute people like you and all the other firebrands for clearing the way and doing the dirty work!

Tip of the Hat, my good sir. Tip of the hat.

become liabilities as the movement progresses. Good example is ACT UP during the AIDS crisis.

You have to get people's attention, but once you have it you have to stopped screaming at them.

It's time to stop screaming at some people, imo, let along going for their jugulars with your teeth.

People are refusing to speak to him. That's not productive. That's not winning. That''s just alienating.

How would you respond to someone who approached you in this way about an issue on which you felt strongly and they felt very strong as well? Would you be likely to listen or just try to get away from them as quickly as possible.

When you look at was is causing change specifically in terms of GLBT civil rights, it is thoughtful and directed action, not in your face attacks.

I do not applaud this at all.

"When you look at was is causing change specifically in terms of GLBT civil rights, it is thoughtful and directed action, not in your face attacks."

Perhaps you could state that 'in your experience', not 'you' as an absolute fact.
Because I would love to see you prove that statement objectively true.

ns. Right now. As you take a breath reading this. Civil rights denied. Infringed.

Humans, suffering. At the hands of my government, which purportedly represents *me*.

Two months ago, same sex married couples JUST got federal bankruptcy joint filing protection.
Inches. Bit by bit.

There's a LOT left to do.

Or perhaps accusing them of advocating genocide?

Both peacemakers and firebrands are needed. How much and where they are needed varies with the context, but the need for one or the other never vanishes.

When slavery was abolished, the firebrands were still needed to point out the jim crow laws, inequity, discrimination and persecution. MLK's presense did not keep Malcolm X from being a critical figure in the civil rights struggle. Even today, we still need people like Al Sharpton to point to shine a light on things like the injustices surrounding the Treyvon Martin case.

When people stop listening to him they open their ears more to the peacemakers. He makes our job easier and people more open to our words. It is a concerted effort on both parties to make these things possible.

As for how I would respond, I would defend myself in my less confrontational way and argue my position with all the facts and information I have available to me.

I disagree with your statement on LGBTQ rights. The victories have been a mix of detante and confrontation. Some states peacemakers have passed laws legalizing marriage equality, while in others the firebrands have had to bang it out in the courts. Without both groups the progress would not what it is today.

I think you were the one who asked that people not be called militants, but here you are applauding someone whose position and behavior are clearly militant.

It's ok for someone to behave as a militant, but not to label them as such?

Which do you want?

As was discussed before, it means a supporter of religion.

Why do you object to that word even though its dictionary meaning is perfectly okay and possibly even desirable?

Same things applies here.

Its because that term is used as a slur to insult non-believers. Not just "firebrands" but anyone who takes any type of stand. It context is almost always used negatively when describing us. Its similar to describing non-believers in religious terms or believers as mentally ill.

This is something that the most recently blocked poster from AA refused to understand even though it was explained to him many many times. Of course, that poster is still trying to play as if he can't figure that out.