11.01.09
Posted in GLBT, General, Humor at 4:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
A serial comma is the comma you use before the last item in a series of three or more things.
With the serial comma:
I went to the store to buy oatmeal, milk, and cookies.
Without the serial comma:
I went to the store to buy oatmeal, milk and cookies.
There are arguments to be made for and against it.
Why do I bring this up?
There’s an article by Jay Lindsay of the Associated Press called “Evangelists target spiritually cold New England” making the rounds. There’s nothing overly special about the piece — the headline summarizes it well enough.
But reader Jon brings it to my attention because of the comma issue.
Here’s a direct quotation from the piece. The lack of a serial comma gives it an entirely different (and very entertaining) meaning:
They say a reason for the region’s hollowed-out faith is a pervasive theology that departs from traditional Biblical interpretation on issues such as the divinity of Jesus, the exclusivity of Christianity as a path to salvation and homosexuality.
Jon points out:
I’m pretty sure there are other paths to homosexuality besides Christianity.
Nice catch 
Permalink ~
10.22.09
Posted in Abortion, GLBT, General, Politics at 8:00 am by Hemant Mehta
This past Tuesday was the 6th annual “Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity,” a day for anti-abortion high school students to remain silent on behalf of aborted fetuses everywhere.
if you haven’t heard of it, here’s the deal:
Since January 22, 1973 over 50,000,000 babies have had their voices silenced through surgical abortion in this nation alone.
…
On October 20th, people from all over this nation will give up their voices for a day in solidarity for these children. Red arm bands and duct tape will identify them as taking part in the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity. They will carry fliers explaining why they are silent and educate others about the plight of the innocent children we are losing every day.
Regardless of your views on abortion, there’s nothing wrong with students participating in this event if they wish. (Say what you will about the information they use or the group sponsoring it.)
I bring this up for a reason.
I did not hear of a single Christian right/Conservative group condemning this event.
No right-wing group said it was wrong for students to showcase their social “agenda” in the classroom.
None of them demanded that students not go to school on the day of the event because the classroom was being “hijacked” for political purposes.
Not one group asked people to call local school administrators and ask why they’re allowing this event to take place.
Remember that when GLBT and GLBT-friendly students participate in the Day of Silence this April.
If any Christian right group condemns participation in that event, or tells parents keep their children home from school that day, or requests that members harass school officials about allowing this event to take place, CALL THEM OUT ON THEIR BLATANT HYPOCRISY.
You know they’re going to do it, too. You have ample time to prepare.
…
Incidentally, I approached David Smith, the Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, last year and asked him why his group did not put out any information against the Day of Silent Solidarity but actively opposed the Day of Silence.
He told me IFI was against the Day of Silent Solidarity.
But another year has come and gone and IFI has said not a word about the event on their website.
Their silence tells you all you need to know about their anti-gay agenda.
Permalink ~
10.16.09
Posted in GLBT, General, Politics at 12:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
Federal hate crimes laws currently do not protect people who are victims due to their sexual orientation.
Conservative Christians keep complaining that if a current bill — the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — gets passed, they won’t be able to spew their anti-gay rhetoric in church.
Which isn’t true at all. Pastors could continue to say whatever they want against homosexuality. They have a right to free speech, including the right to sound like pompous bigots. They don’t have a right to directly incite violence, though.
Dan Savage suggests a way to debunk the Religious Rights’ lie:
A group of liberal pastors should announce that they’re going to mount the pulpit in a particular church at particular time and preach a series of vile, hateful sermons — one right after the other — attacking people of various races and ethnicities, attacking men and women in turn, attacking people for being white, yellow, and brown, and attacking people of other faiths. The semons should rely on biblical passages that have been historically used to justify attacks on and discrimination against people of different faiths, races, ethnicities, genders, etc., though the ages. Alert the authorities and challenge them to come and arrest all these pastors for preaching hate against groups who are already covered by federal hate crime laws.
They won’t be arrested, of course, because it’s not a crime to be a vile, hateful religious bigot now and it won’t be a crime after sexual orientation is added to the federal hate crimes law.
Some of you out there must run your local churches, right?
Who’s in?
(via Daily Dish)
Permalink ~
Posted in GLBT, Jesse Galef at 10:30 am by Jesse Galef
This post is by Jesse Galef
–
Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan put up a post about an extremely brutal hate-crime attack on an openly gay man. The 2-minute news report he embeds is depressing, but there was something to laugh about at the end. The studio interviewed one of the attackers’ friends, who proudly displayed this tattoo:
It’s a tattoo reading “[Thou] shall not lie with a male as one does with a woman. It is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22″. Who else sees the problem here?
Leviticus also forbids tattooing. In the very next chapter.
“Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28″
Ah, suddenly it all becomes clear to me! He’s not an ignorant man clumsily using the Bible to support his prejudices! It’s a brilliant meta-joke, using delightful self-reference and blinding irony. Perhaps he’s gay himself and is using the tattoos to make a sharp-witted statement about the true meaning of morality, tolerance, and religion.
… judging by his TV interview, he hides his intellect well.
On a more serious note, I can’t think of a better way to illustrate the inconsistency involved when people cherry-pick passages of scripture. What a perfect visual representation of our argument.
Permalink ~
09.30.09
Posted in Books, GLBT, General at 9:00 am by Hemant Mehta
A few days ago, the Chicago Tribune’s Pulitzer Prize-winning cultural critic Julia Keller spoke out in favor of Banned Books Week:
That day marked my first encounter with banned books.
I probably don’t need to point out that my mother’s efforts were utterly counter-productive, that her prohibition only made true-crime books seem even more alluring. Human nature, for all of its rumored complexity, is a simple thing: Tell us we can’t have something and we suddenly want it more than we’ve ever wanted anything else in our lives. Put something out of our reach and we grope and strain and pant for it with all of our might.
…
The groups that keep Banned Books Week front and center want to remind us that freedom of reading, like freedom of speech, is crucial to a democracy. Books are worth fighting for. The release of the annual list of controversial books is a great opportunity to renew our commitment to unfettered access to books.
Books don’t kill people; people kill people. In other words, I didn’t become the ax murderer that my mother feared I might. And if I had, I don’t think we could’ve blamed the books…
Sounds reasonable. If I were a child, I’d be eager to find out what was so dangerous about a book that someone (i.e. probably a conservative Christian) wanted to keep it away from me.
So guess who’s all offended by this article?
Welcome back, Laurie Higgins. We missed you.
Higgins and the Illinois Family Institute issued a rebuttal to Keller’s piece. They don’t find anything wrong with censoring certain books from children.
Here’s what [Keller] fails to address:
- Ideas do, indeed, have consequences. Keller’s personal experience that reading about serial killers, ax murderers, and remorseless poisoners didn’t turn her into a murderer is lousy evidence for her unproven implicit claim that literature has no capacity to change people.
- Not every novel, play, essay, or short story is appropriate at every age.
- Books that never appear on the shelves of libraries, that is, books that the ALA’s de facto censorship protocols (aka “Collection Development Policies”) never allow to be purchased can’t be banned.
- Banning a book, or more accurately, making a book less easily accessible to children, may keep dangerous, destructive, deviant ideas and images out of the minds and hearts of children or delay the age at which they’re exposed to them.
Of course literature can change people. Keller of all people wouldn’t say otherwise. But a book alone isn’t going to turn you into a monster. There are always other factors in play. And to shield a child from every potentially damaging factor is to remove that child from the world itself.
Is every piece of writing appropriate for every age? Not necessarily. But no one should be making that decision for someone else’s children.
As for sheltering the children from harmful ideas, we’ll get to that later.
Higgins goes on to talk about “inappropriate” books assigned in school:
Keller seems to employ a red herring argument when she cites To Kill a Mockingbird and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn while, for example, ignoring a play like Angels in America that includes extraordinarily obscene language and graphic sex and whose author Tony Kushner displays some rather virulent anti-religious sentiment.
She makes it sound like some teacher forced that book upon his unsuspecting students. Not true at all.
Some backstory: An Illinois teacher was under attack from conservative groups when he assigned Angels in America last year. The lady leading the charge (*surprise*) once worked with IFI.
The teacher didn’t force the book upon the students and he gave them an option to read an alternative book (Camus’ The Stranger). In addition, parents had to “opt-in” to the play and sign a permission slip if they were allowing their children to read Angels in America.
This is what the teacher wrote in a letter to parents:
“If I have any agenda, it’s this: kindness and compassion are virtues to celebrate, forgiveness is always preferable to revenge, hope is powerful and lasting, and what we do for the greater good is what will define us and our legacy. If any work of literature can be demanding, complex, and nuanced in helping me express those values, then that is an exciting prospect. I believe that Angels in America is all of these things, and that, above all, is why I teach it.”
How dare he…?
(And what’s with Higgins attacking Kushner’s religious beliefs? An atheist wrote a book, therefore it should be banned?)
Higgins finally gets to the part you know she’s been waiting to get to — The Homosexuals:
In addition, [Keller] fails to acknowledge that many of the most frequently challenged books are ones that affirm controversial ideas about homosexuality, and that many of those are picture books intended for very young audiences. The frequently challenged books Heather Has Two Mommies and King and King embody unproven ontological and moral claims that many parents consider radical, subversive, and perverse. The implicit claims are far too abstract and complex for the very young audience for whom these picture books are intended, which leaves just squishy, emotional non-arguments to shape the feelings of young children. I think this could reasonably be called propaganda.
You know what Heather learns in that book?
She learns that “the most important thing about a family is that all the people in it love each other.”
Damn radical, subversive, perverse propaganda…
And then, as she’s done before, Higgins goes down the slippery slope and brings in false analogies (like racial superiority and paraphilias):
The epithet “book banner” is hurled at conservative parents as a tactic to humiliate them into silence. Would parents who object to picture books that explore the sorrow of children who have been deliberately created as motherless or fatherless children be called book banners? Would parents who object to picture books that affirm polyamory be considered book banners? Would parents who object to public school teachers enthusiastically and positively teaching a play that affirms and celebrates racial superiority be considered book banners? Would parents who object to public school teachers teaching a novel that graphically depicts and celebrates paraphilias as normal variations of sexual practice be considered book banners? Would parents who object to the teaching of a book whose author attacks or ridicules Orthodox Judaism or Islam be considered book banners?
Of course, no teacher is encouraging racial superiority or celebrating paraphilia. Just because a book discusses those ideas in a certain way doesn’t mean it’s an endorsement of said ideas. (And what the hell is wrong with affirming polyamory?)
We can argue over the phrase “book banner.” Maybe “book denier” is better.
The problem I have with Higgins throughout her piece is that she and IFI are not simply concerned with what their own children read.
Their goal is to control what your children read. If they’re offended by it, then they don’t want your kids exposed to it. That’s why we raise a fuss. And that’s why we should be embracing Banned Books Week. Parents have a right to control what their children should read (key word: THEIR). I would hope they don’t censor anything, but it’s each parent’s decision.
And smarter children will find their way around the barriers surrounding them. Children, with their almost unlimited sense of curiosity, ought to read books they think are interesting. If someone else is trying to stop you from doing it, it’s all the more reason to find out why that is. (Want some advice? Try Judy Blume. She’s fantastic.)
I do agree with Higgins when she implies that parents should be concerned with what their own children read.
The way to handle that, though, is not by censoring their kids from tackling controversial subjects. Let your children read what they want. But keep an eye on what books they choose. Read it yourself, if you can. Discuss the subject matter with them. Don’t let the book be the last word on the topic.
You know, If IFI were truly concerned about children being exposed to violent imagery, graphic sexuality, and complete fabrications about the world around us, then they would focus on banning the Bible.
When they get around to that, maybe I’ll take their other concerns more seriously.
…
Julie Clawson, a Christian, has a few thoughts about Banned Books Week and how it relates to her faith:
There’s good reason why people lose their faith in college -– when confronted with the messiness of religion, or theology, or textual studies their sheltered minds are taken by surprise and they feel lied to and betrayed by the church that did it’s best to keep them from encountering reality. But some still think it’s better (or at least easier) to pretend than to deal with the messiness that is reality. Instead of wrestling with church history or helping our kids respond with love to all the people they encounter, the very discussion gets banned. So kudos to Banned Books Week for forcing us to face those fears instead of hiding from them. For not letting ideologies be used as silencing weapons of oppression.
Permalink ~
09.26.09
Posted in GLBT, General at 4:22 pm by Hemant Mehta
Reed Braden has begun a new website that sounds very promising:
The Gaytheists is a new group blog for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning Atheists, skeptics and Humanists.
LGBTQ. Perfect.
Feel free to check it out and add them to your blogrolls.
Permalink ~
09.22.09
Posted in GLBT, General at 6:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
President Barack Obama is a bleeding-heart conservative when compared to politicians like former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
The late Trudeau was an inaugural inductee into the new Queer Hall of Fame.
The former prime minister was a key figure in decriminalizing homosexuality and his famous partial quote — “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” — helped convince Parliament to pass the law in 1969.
Trudeau’s son, Justin, said he is incredibly honoured that the work his father did is being acknowledged.
“I know that the decriminalization of homosexuality 40 years ago was something that my father was very proud of,” Trudeau said.
“He’d be touched,” he said, of his father who passed away almost nine years ago.
Once again, Canada wins.
By the way, Trudeau was an outspoken Christian (Roman Catholic). He also got divorced during his tenure as Prime Minister.
(Thanks to Shawn for the link!)
Permalink ~
09.20.09
Posted in GLBT, General, Lawsuits at 9:00 am by Hemant Mehta
When President Barack Obama wanted to speak to schoolchildren about the importance of staying in school, working hard, and washing your hands, the school sent out four separate notices to parents.
When the Boy Scouts of America — with their history of discrimination against atheists and members of the GLBT community — want to use class time to recruit new members, the school said nothing to parents.
That prompted Jennifer Burks to write this letter-to-the-editor:
On the second day of school, a representative from the Boy Scouts of America came to my son’s school to recruit new members. My son came home so excited, and cried when I had to tell him no. I feel he is too young to understand BSA’s homophobic and discriminatory policies, so I told him we already had too much on our plate. The BSA is prejudicial (it doesn’t accept atheists or agnostics) and homophobic (no gays allowed). My son will never be a Boy Scout and I wish that I had been notified that valuable learning time was going to be spent promoting a homophobic hate group.
…
From now on, I expect notifications of future speakers at my son’s school and the topic of discussion. I expect a verbal message from his teacher, a letter from the principal and two auto calls. I would also like the opportunity to send in a signed note to excuse him from said speaker.
Right on. If the BSA reps were honest about their positions, they wouldn’t be allowed in any good school.
Matt Comer at QNotes shares the response given by the district’s superintendent.
Donald Martin, Winston-Salem Schools superintendant, responded to the mother’s email: “The boy and girl scouts are allowed to advertise meetings — typically they have a back-to-school fall recruitment meeting that is held in the evening. We also have a special facility use arrangement with both the boy and girl scouts.”
Martin added, “There should not have been a meeting with representatives of the boy scouts held during the school day that required students to attend. I’m sorry that this happened and we will review this topic at our next elementary principals meeting.”
If I were a girl scout, I’d be offended at being lumped into the same group as the BSA.
Comer doesn’t think this is good enough and he’s absolutely right:
For schools, working with the Boy Scouts is dangerous and obviously wrong. Their partnerships will inevitably lead to some of their students being discriminated against — something that should never happen in public schools. Secondly, their Boy Scout partnerships could very well open schools to other discriminatory groups seeking equal access.
…
The Boy Scouts’ anti-gay and religiously-exclusive policies are tarnishing their sterling history and the honored place they once earned — but lost long ago — in American society and culture.
The way to correct this problem and reverse the policies of an otherwise excellent organization is for more people to complain. Expose the discriminatory practices of the BSA. If they’re allowed at your child’s school, give the administration hell. Ask them why they’re allowing an anti-gay, anti-atheist organization free rein in the school. Direct them to Scouting For All.
Jennifer set a wonderful example with her letter. The only way to be even more effective is to stop the BSA ahead of time.
(Thanks to ungullible for the link!)
Permalink ~
09.18.09
Posted in GLBT, General, Politics, Secular Coalition for America at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta
A group of organizations that support religious liberty sent a letter (PDF) to Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday. The coalition includes the American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Civil Liberties Union, Interfaith Alliance, Center for Inquiry, and the Secular Coalition for America.
The issue at hand is an Office of Legal Counsel memo from 2007 that states the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) allows for religious discrimination.
The coalition says the memo was wrong, adding that it “threatens core civil rights and religious freedom protections.”
The OLC Memo wrongly asserts that RFRA is “reasonably construed” to require that a federal agency categorically exempt a religious organization from an explicit federal nondiscrimination provision tied to a grant program. Although the OLC Memo’s conclusion is focused on one Justice Department program, its overly-broad and questionable interpretation of RFRA has been cited by other Federal agencies and extended to other programs and grants. The guidance in the OLC Memo is not justified under applicable legal standards and threatens to tilt policy toward an unwarranted end that would damage civil rights and religious liberty.
…
The OLC Memo… stands as one of the most notable examples of the Bush Administration’s attempt to impose a constitutionally questionable and unwise policy — RFRA should not be interpreted or employed as a tool for broadly overriding statutory protections against religious discrimination or to create a broad free exercise right to receive government grants without complying with applicable regulations that protect taxpayers.
The coalition wants the Obama administration to review the memo, withdraw it, and then disavow it.
Of course, this group is right. You can’t give federal money to religious groups and then allow them to fire gays, atheists, and anyone else they deem unworthy. If they accept the money, they need to abide by the law, and the law doesn’t allow for that type of discrimination.
Will the administration pay any attention? Obama’s track record on progressives’ issues hasn’t been what I had hoped it would be. But these organizations represent a huge segment of the people who voted for him — liberals are members or supporters of many of the groups on this list.
In any case, it is very cool to see so many organizations working together on this shared agenda item. The more we can stick together, the more affect we’ll have on the political process.
Permalink ~
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
