Dan Savage and the Economist

A few days ago the Economist magazine ran a short opinion piece on the Dan Savage "bible bullshit" speech and the predictable reaction that followed from the religious right.  A good number of atheist and humanist bloggers that I read were not entirely happy with the Economist's comments.  I think this is because they focused on the opening paragraphs where the writer tries to make an issue of Savage's style, rather than the real issue of substance which is the bullying of Gay youth.

But the last paragraph of the piece really lays it out well:

Mr Savage's apology did not stop the outrage machine. Some seem to have taken particular delight in hurling Mr Savage's epithets—bully and basher (of Christians and Christianity, rather than gays)—back at him. The American Thinker harrumphs, "Evidently, bullying is one of those things that is defined by the 'victim'." Well, yes: in fact it is. Bullying is the strong picking on the weak, not the other way around (the other way around is satire). One could make the argument that in the case of Mr Savage's speech, he was the strong one, and the high-school students were "victims", but that would be weak tea indeed. Mr Savage is one person, not a movement, and of course those students whom he gave the vapours were free to leave. Not everyone has such freedom. Gay teens, not Christian teens, kill themselves at higher rates than the general populace. Nobody calls Christianity an abomination. One blogger accused Mr Savage of "Christian-bashing" for pointing out the Bible's position on slavery. A writer for a Focus on the Family site said that "using profanity to deride the Bible...is obviously a form of bullying and name-calling." In fact it is neither: Mr Savage, however intemperate his language, was arguing, not name-calling. That is a crucial distinction, and one that too often eludes the showily devout. If the Bible is in fact the word of God it can survive a few arguments about context and application.

And then there's a letter writer's acerbic comment about the piece:

The reason the psycho end of the right wing is *really* angry at Dan Savage isn't over the one word "Bullshit". The actual reason the psycho end of the right wing is angry at Dan Savage are the three words he brought into public consciousness: "It Gets Better".

There shouldn't be any doubt as to who the real victims are in this debate.


Please recommend this post

Poll Crashing du Jour

Dr.Dobson's national prayer day poll is being crashed by PZ Myers. A lot of us support prayer in its various forms, however you can easily see the indirect question here which is about supporting an inhumane organization that sees no separation between church and state, and views gay people as less than human. Please recommend this post

The Bishop of Death and Ignorance

Via CBC Calgary,

An annual fundraiser held by local Catholic teachers in support of an international AIDS charity is on hold after Calgary's Catholic bishop objected to its promotion of birth control.

For the last five years, the Calgary Catholic Teachers' Association has held a fundraiser during Lent for the Stephen Lewis Foundation, which supports women and children living with HIV/AIDS in Africa, and also runs campaigns to prevent the deadly disease.

More and more you read these stories with an astonishing sense that this can't possibly be happening. This was the same Bishop who obstructed the Gardasil vaccinations of young women because he imagined it would turn them into sluts. (I fully supported parental consent. That was never the issue.)

I'm not sure how much money the teachers could raise for Stephen Lewis, maybe its not all that significant in the bigger view. However there is an issue here of ignorance and religion based cruelty. Death is not an acceptable outcome for some poor person merely because of their choice of birth control or life style. It would be petty and ignorant, and in some cases illegal, for me to let someone die merely because I disapprove of their life.

Religious institutions sometimes act like cults. They need to be turned upside down so authorities can be held accountable for promoting death over life.

If those educators cannot raise money for a more than worthy cause, then I sure hope they are allowed to teach their students about AIDS/HIV both from a social and scientific point of view. We can't afford another ignorant generation.

Link: The Stephen Lewis Foundation

Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me. Please recommend this post

A Priest Who Did The Right Thing (Finally)

From the Los Angeles Time, October 13, 2008:

A week ago, Father Geoffrey Farrow stood before his Roman Catholic parishioners in Fresno and delivered a sermon that placed him squarely at odds with his church over gay marriage.

With Proposition 8 on the November ballot, and his own bishop urging Central Valley priests to support its definition of traditional marriage, Farrow told congregants he felt obligated to break "a numbing silence" about church prejudice against homosexuals.

"How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives?" he asked parishioners of the St. Paul Newman Center. "I am morally compelled to vote no on Proposition 8."

Then Farrow -- who had revealed that he was gay during a television interview immediately before Mass -- added a coda to his sermon.

"I know these words of truth will cost me dearly," he said. "But to withhold them . . . I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian people not only of their civil rights but of their human dignity as well."

Of course what happened next was predictable. Father Farrow was promptly fired by the Diocese and stripped of all wages, pension, and health care.

The hideous bigotry of California's proposition 8 continues to hurt all kinds of people. I'm glad that Father Farrow took this position because it gives some hope that there are still people of character and courage in the Catholic church willing to risk everything on an issue that will define our morality for years do come.

Father Farrow's dismissal probably also had something to do blogging against the Church's latest attempt to prevent pedophiles from getting into the Priesthood. While everyone agrees there should be stringent screening of candidates, for all kinds of reasons, it seems the latest guidelines deliberately and with malice conflate homosexuality and pedophilia. How would someone in a position of authority sleep at night knowing they pushed this lie?

Anyway, I'm glad this Priest took this stand and I hope many more do. Please recommend this post

Statistics and Hysteria

I was just reading this analysis from Stats Canada which suggests our family demographics are changing.

Regarding gay couples:

Half of all same-sex couples in Canada lived in the three largest census metropolitan areas, Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver, in 2006. Toronto accounted for 21.2% of all same-sex couples, Montréal, 18.4% and Vancouver, 10.3%.

In 2006, same-sex couples represented 0.6% of all couples in Canada. This is comparable to data from New Zealand (0.7%) and Australia (0.6%).

Over half (53.7%) of same-sex married spouses were men in 2006, compared with 46.3% who were women.

Regarding one person households:

During this time, the number of one-person households increased 11.8%, more than twice as fast as the 5.3% increase for the total population in private households. At the same time, the number of households consisting of couples without children aged 24 years and under increased 11.2% since 2001.

On legally married versus single or common-law:

Unmarried people outnumber legally married people for the first time

For the first time, the census enumerated more unmarried people aged 15 and over than legally married people.

In 2006, more than one-half (51.5%) of the adult population were unmarried, that is, never married, divorced, separated or widowed, compared with 49.9% five years earlier. Conversely, only 48.5% of persons aged 15 and over were legally married in 2006, down from 50.1% in 2001.

These results are based on the 2006 census, which compiled the responses of almost 9 million Canadians. But not me, I was just cleaning house and found my completed but never submitted form. All the census people probably know me by now as that recalcitrant thwarter of statistics gathering. You could make a movie about it with Reese Witherspoon and that guy from Ferris Bueller's day off and it would be quite funny.

Anyway, I was about to head off to the club when Baldrick came in and breathlessly told me I must read the latest vomitous screed from the Calgary Sun.

Apparently the broader trends are not holding in Calgary, and as a result the Calgary Sun had to diatribe about how much better we are than other Canadians, to quote:

Calgary is holding the fort in a country where the notion of the traditional family is increasingly under siege, states a federal census.

Holding the fort? Against whom? The enemy? What is the traditional family and who is sieging it? These military metaphors are red flags for plain old fashioned bigotry.

States a federal census? Huh? That has to be the most poorly written most mendacious pukey line I think I have ever read in a newspaper. It is absolutely disgraceful to mingle your bigotry in with someone else's headline and make it seem like they're a bigot as well.

But that's our Calgary Sun, defending us tirelessly against statistics, trends, facts and ideas. Please recommend this post