Saturday, November 22, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

by Phil Zuckerman, Huffington Post

Thanks to Florian for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/the-religious-support-beh_b_145180.html

Proposition 8 passed because of religious folk. There is no question about it. Church-going Black Americans, tithe-paying Mormons, mass-attending Latinos, and Evangelical whites all joined forces in "protecting marriage." The underlying reason religious people voted to revoke from gays and lesbians the legal right to marry is doggedly theological: God doesn't like it. And when a society or culture does things that God doesn't like, that society or culture will suffer. This is a central tenet of every religion, and has been ever since the first shaman first claimed to be able to discern the will of the Almighty by examining the patterns in a bowl full of crushed berries.

And it simply isn't true. If God punishes societies that violate his commandments and rewards those that do, this just isn't apparent by looking at the state of the world today. The sociological fact is that the most irreligious nations right now are among the most successful, humane, moral, and free, while the most religious nations tend to be among the most destitute, chaotic, crime-ridden, and undemocratic. A similar pattern also holds true within the United States: those states and counties that boast the greatest numbers of strong believers and regular church attenders tend to have higher poverty rates, child abuse rates, violent crime rates, and lower educational attainment rates than those states and counties characterized by more secular populations.

Consider the nations of Scandinavia specifically. These countries are noteworthy because they were among the first nations to make abortion legal and readily available and they were also among the first nations (along with Holland) to allow for gay marriage. Indeed, gays and lesbians have been able to wed in these countries of Northern Europe for nearly 20 years now. And what is the state of society in these relatively irreligious nations, where weekly church attendance is among the lowest in the world and belief in God is markedly thin? They lead the world on nearly all indicators of societal well-being. From economic prosperity to low crime rates, from equality between men and women to excellent child welfare, from life expectancy to low rates of H.I.V., the relatively godless (or at least God-indifferent) nations of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Holland suggest that secularity - and acceptance of gay marriage, specifically -- doesn't bring down the wrath of God at all. And yet when we look at the most religious nations in the world - especially those that severely condemn homosexuality, such as Iran, Angola, and Mauritania -- we see extreme poverty, high violent crime rates, oppression of women, dictatorship, warfare, corruption, etc..

Where is the best place to be a mother and raise children? According to the latest Save the Children Report, it is relatively godless Sweden. The worst? Extremely Godful Niger. How about murder rates? Highly religious Columbia leads the globe, while highly secular Japan is near the bottom. What about strong economies? According to the World Economic Forum, of the top ten nations boasting today's most competitive economies, nine are relatively irreligious (the USA being the sole exception). According to the latest Global Peace Index, the top five most peaceful nations are simultaneously among the most secular, such as Denmark, which ranks in at #2. Even when it comes to suicide rates, it is the former Soviet nations that lead the pack, some of which are fairly secular, but most of which are quite religious, such as Lithuania.

Admittedly, atheist-communist regimes constitute an ugly experiment in human misery. North Korea is far from a beacon of societal health. The same can be said of the former U.S.S.R, China, or little Albania under former atheist-dictator Enver Hoxha. There is no question that atheism coupled with totalitarianism is a veritable recipe for societal disaster. But as for democracies that forgo God -- societies in which secularism is not forced upon a captive citizenry by dictators, but emerges organically and freely over several generations -- the overall international pattern is unmistakable. It is the more godless democracies - and especially those that allow for gays and lesbians to wed -- that are faring the best, while it is the more God-worshipping and homosexual-condemning nations that are faring the worst.

When it comes to God and the acceptance of gay marriage, the religious supporters of Proposition 8 certainly have a right to their opinion. But that doesn't make their opinion right.

Posted: Saturday, November 22, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 2764 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #288919 by BigChiefRainInFace on November 22, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Why was there even a vote on this? How is this at all compatible with what Americans always brag about, equal rights for all?

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

2. Comment #288921 by Enlightenme.. on November 22, 2008 at 7:16 pm

"Proposition 8 passed because of religious folk. There is no question about it."

:o

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

3. Comment #288922 by Diacanu on November 22, 2008 at 7:19 pm

BigCheifRainInFace-

Why was there even a vote on this?

Because the Mormons had the money to bludgeon it through as a ballot initiative, and fund a bullshit evil ad campaign to fear-monger the stupid.

Other Comments by Diacanu

4. Comment #288927 by TheGreatBZ on November 22, 2008 at 7:35 pm

America does have equal rights for all. But some are more equal than others.

Other Comments by TheGreatBZ

5. Comment #288928 by NewEnglandBob on November 22, 2008 at 7:36 pm

I just finished reading Phil Zuckerman's latest book (author of this article). It is fantastic:

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

My comment on his book: Definitive scientific sociological ethnographic research coupled with superb analysis in a narrative style.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

6. Comment #288935 by WilliamP on November 22, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Gay marriage bans provide no benefit for anyone, and bring great harm to homosexuals, who make up about 10% of the population. If the law does no good for anyone and does harm to some, then it is irrational to support it. Is it any surprise that something as irrational as religion was behind the irrational support for this law'

Other Comments by WilliamP

7. Comment #288936 by j.mills on November 22, 2008 at 7:46 pm

I agree with the spirit of this article, certainly, though I suspect the writer's hints of a causal link between secularism and a lack of homophobia are a little glib. (EDIT: NewEnglandBob's post suggests maybe not.) However, this bit lets it down:

There is no question that atheism coupled with totalitarianism is a veritable recipe for societal disaster.

This is silly. There is no question that anything coupled with totalitarianism is a veritable recipe for societal disaster. Atheism is not the problem there and it's muddled and damaging to suggest otherwise.

On Zuckerman's wider point, that the religious are against homosexuality because it's condemned in scripture, I think that's a bit simplistic. After all, if there's no gods to dictate this idea, then why is it condemned in scripture? I think instead that religion justifies the prejudices that people already have, allowing them to be proud of their discrimination rather than ashamed. Thereby it empowers them to vote for attitudes that, without religion, they might be embarrassed to even admit to.

The notion that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is certainly untenable (and morally irrelevant); but similarly, I wonder if heterosexual prejudice against homosexuality is a natural tendency, an evolved instinct? One which religion fuels but reason curtails? Thoughts, people?

Other Comments by j.mills

8. Comment #288940 by dp176406 on November 22, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Correlation does not equal causation.

Other Comments by dp176406

9. Comment #288941 by Bonzai on November 22, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Everyone who ever masturbates is a little gay.

Other Comments by Bonzai

10. Comment #288947 by mmurray on November 22, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Everyone who ever masturbates is a little gay.

Reminds me of a movie where two guys are standing at a urinal and one says `shake it more than three times and you're a poofter'. Can't remember what it was.

As distinct from religion coupled to totalitarianism ? Just finished reading Carl Sagan's A Demon Haunted World. There is some very dark stuff about the Dark Ages which seem to fit the bill for religious totalitarianism.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

11. Comment #288950 by Eshto on November 22, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Proposition 8 passed because of religious folk.

No shit Sherlock.

On Zuckerman's wider point, that the religious are against homosexuality because it's condemned in scripture, I think that's a bit simplistic. After all, if there's no gods to dictate this idea, then why is it condemned in scripture? I think instead that religion justifies the prejudices that people already have, allowing them to be proud of their discrimination rather than ashamed. Thereby it empowers them to vote for attitudes that, without religion, they might be embarrassed to even admit to.

The notion that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is certainly untenable (and morally irrelevant); but similarly, I wonder if heterosexual prejudice against homosexuality is a natural tendency, an evolved instinct? One which religion fuels but reason curtails? Thoughts, people?

I think the idea that homophobia is somehow natural is totally unsubstantiated. Actually your suggestion that homophobia is some "evolved instinct" would be a much simpler explanation than the actual history of religious evolution and syncretism.

Modern homophobia can be traced back to the Abrahamic religious system. It began with ancient Hebrews, who developed rituals and laws that emphasized procreation and shunned non-reproductive activities, for reasons specific to their historical and cultural situation.

Over time these laws became institutionalized and, in the great tradition of religious stupidity, the words were worshiped but the reasons for why they were written down in the first place were long gone; the original contexts and meanings were completely forgotten. But after a few centuries it doesn't matter anymore because nobody cares what the original context is, they've ceased looking at their religious texts as... well texts. Now they take them at face value, like some kind of divine stereo instructions that must apply to all people living in all times. Here is one of the most important reasons why religious people are batshit crazy.

Then of course Abrahamic doctrine, after being embraced by the most powerful militaries in the world, was spread through conquest and colonization. Take Native Americans, for example. While gender norms differed from tribe to tribe of course, we do know that many Native American tribes did not practice homophobia until after being conquered by European Christians. Several Native cultures were tolerant of gender and sexual diversity before Christians got to them.

In some cases, presence of homosexuality was literally a legal justification for enslaving entire tribes. So now you have an invading nation obsessed with persecuting homosexuals, conquering your land and telling you that if anyone in your tribe exhibits homosexual characteristics, your tribe will be deemed satanic "heathens" and you will be enslaved or worse.

Guess how quickly Natives learned to police sexual behavior in their own tribes and adopt the homophobic attitude of their oppressors? Pretty goddamn quick.

Of course all this historical context is unbeknownst to contemporary Christians who have no idea why they're supposed to hate gays or how that idea spread across the globe. All they know is that their magic book tells them that being gay is bad, supposedly.

Which may be why on the surface it might seem like a simple explanation to say homophobia comes from religion, when in actuality there is a whole hell of a lot of history underneath it.

Other Comments by Eshto

12. Comment #288952 by Ascaphus on November 22, 2008 at 9:38 pm

... 8. Comment #288940 by dp176406 on November 22, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Correlation does not equal causation.

And what's your point? The notion that god or religion is the source of either morals or a desirable society proposes a _cause_. Your statement would mean that even if they could show the correlation, they must _then_ demonstrate, by elimination of other explanations, that they are on the right track. Zuckerman is pointing out that they don't even have a positive correlation to start with, which definitely disqualifies their explanation!

If Zuckerman were out to demonstrate that atheism was the cause of some aspect of society, he would then be required to back up his contention. But he is not. He is merely showing that what evidence there is directy contradicts the contentions of the religious:

...If God punishes societies that violate his commandments and rewards those that do, this just isn't apparent by looking at the state of the world today...

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

13. Comment #288955 by Cartomancer on November 22, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Having just got back from my college's great annual celebration of all things homosexual - the one and only Wadham Queer Bop, renowned throughout Oxford as the gayest night of the year - I have begun to wonder whether tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality correlates with religious faith and overall happiness on a micro-scale as well. On the scale of different Oxford colleges say, or different villages in isolated rural areas like where I grew up.

Well, all right, truth be told the pondering of this question has had to jostle in my mind with all the pleasant memories of gorgeous young sportsmen with no shirts on I have seen this evening, but it is still there. Sort of.

Is liberal,left-wing, godless Wadham objectively happier than stuffy, conservative, Anglican Christ Church? Does homophobia correlate with religiosity even on this scale? It'd be an interesting one to find out.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

14. Comment #288956 by Eshto on November 22, 2008 at 9:53 pm

You seem to be suggesting that if we remove religion, and I will add here, provided that people are reasonable, they will still be homophobic. I disagree, or at least I believe they will be greatly less homophobic.

Actually the more I think about it, the more absurd it is for anyone to feel the need to suggest there might be a "natural" or instinctive cause for homophobia. People living in homophobic societies are constantly bombarded with anti-gay stereotypes, myths, lies, etc. Homophobia is indoctrinated into people at early ages. Every school kid in America knows that to call someone "gay" or a "fag" is pretty much the worst thing to call them. It's getting a little better as time goes on of course, but it's still pervasive.

I distinctly remember being a very small child, one of my playmates was staying at my house. We were playing video games and getting competitive and, in front of my mother, my friend mindlessly insulted me by yelling out "Ryan's gay!"

My mother's response: "HE BETTER NOT BE OR HIS FATHER WILL KILL HIM."

(And yes I brought this up to my mother years later and made her feel terrible about it.)

...

Point is, I see absolutely no reason to require anything other than a sociological explanation of homophobic beliefs and attitudes.

Otherwise I would suggest looking at it the way Dawkins looks at religion. Not "what causes homophobia" but "how do ideas and values spread among human populations?" and "what evolutionary predispositions facilitate it?"

Remember the moth and the flame.

Other Comments by Eshto

15. Comment #288957 by Cartomancer on November 22, 2008 at 10:00 pm

As for homophobia as an evolved trait, how could homophobia have evolved? What would be the comparative advantage of it? It can't be that it makes an individual more likely to reproduce, because homosexuals are much less likely to pass their genes on and become competitors for breeding. Surely evolving a psychological predisposition to dislike 5% of your own species would actually be a comparative disadvantage? If homosexual behaviour were objectively harmful to organisms then it would gradually evolve out of existence, rather than other traits emerging to stifle it. Surely homophobic individuals within a tribe or group would cause significantly more discord, upset and disruption than their homophile or homo-indifferent peers, and thus prove less fit for survival, even endanger the survival of their group?

Unless homophobia is some kind of elaborate psychological mating display behaviour among heterosexuals? A kind of "look at me, I'm so dedicated to breeding and passing on my genes that I have nothing but contempt for those who don't" activity? Do heterosexuals ever respond to it as such? Does homophobia ever make an individual more attractive to members of the opposite sex?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

16. Comment #288963 by Bonzai on November 22, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Homophobia can't be an evolved trait as the taboo against homosexuality was not universal in all cultures.

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #288967 by Bernstein on November 22, 2008 at 10:44 pm

I don't think atheism should be associated with the condonation of homosexuality. It only makes things more difficult than they already are for atheists. I apologize to all the homosexuals on this site. It's nothing personal.

Other Comments by Bernstein

18. Comment #288968 by Ascaphus on November 22, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Re: Eshto and Cartomancer

If you put all those ideas together, isn't the simplest explanation that homophobia is just another manifestation of xenophobia? The biological reasons for and cultural enhancements of xenophobia are pretty well studied. Labeling somebody a homosexual simply provides another flag for focusing outgroup antipathy. As Bernstein said (though I hope she was joking about the other stuff) it's nothing personal. It's already been pointed out that most of these religious types hate atheists or folks of other religions with a vehemence that is hard to fathom, why should their hate of homosexuals be any less?

I suggest that the problem is really much more general. We are inclined to dislike 'others', and this poses a problem in our huge mixed populations. Some people are able, or willing, to recognize and tame this impulse in themselves, others either are unwilling or are goaded through the influence of religion or other cultural structures which thrive on exaggerating the differences.

Am I off base?

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

19. Comment #288969 by Bonzai on November 22, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Berstein

If we are going to accept all religious induced bigotry in order not to "make things more difficult than they are already for atheists" what is the point of promoting atheism anyway?

Other Comments by Bonzai

20. Comment #288970 by Bonzai on November 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Matt,

Xenophobia seems to be somewhat universal among all civilizations, but homophobia was not. So, no, I don't think they are variations of the same theme.

Other Comments by Bonzai

21. Comment #288972 by RedPen on November 22, 2008 at 11:24 pm

The truth of the matter about marriage is that it is an entirely secular, legal contract as far as the state is concerned.

When will these religious nuts learn that?

Other Comments by RedPen

22. Comment #288974 by Red Nomad on November 22, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Bernestein,
I don't think that taking a neutral stand on social issues would be of much use to an organization trying to promote atheism and reason. I think that most people without a religious motivation would probably reach the conclusion that restricting the liberties of others in these sorts of ways is wrong. Trying to only promote atheism while avoiding related issues would seem pointless to me

Other Comments by Red Nomad

23. Comment #288975 by Ascaphus on November 22, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Bonzai:

I see your point, but that still doesn't _require_ that homophobia be a distinct behavior. I guess I'm suggesting that xenophobia - or our tendency toward that behavior - is the 'ultimate' behavior in this case, and all the various ways we can recognize 'others' are the 'proximate' or particular manifestations.

Other triggers for xenophobia are not universal either. Besides physical characteristics like skin color, size, facial features, humans can now use cultural characteristics like language, dress, flag-waving, religion, nationality etc. to recognize the people they hate or discriminate against. None of these are universal, they are all arbitrary and most are ad hoc - some are deliberate like the confusing situation between the Tutsi and Hutu. They're not even sure about who to hate. I'm suggesting that the label 'homosexual' is yet another.

People recognize an 'outgroup', and apparently one of our first reactions is suspicion and hate.

Anyway, it was a good thought but you'll need to convince me that a particular hatred must be universal for it to be a symptom of xenophobia.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

24. Comment #288980 by DarwinsPitbull on November 23, 2008 at 12:11 am

bernstein

I don't think atheism should be associated with the condonation of homosexuality. It only makes things more difficult than they already are for atheists. I apologize to all the homosexuals on this site. It's nothing personal.

I see your point because atheism should not be associated with anything except not believing in god. Once you start associating other beliefs and values and things like that to it, then it starts resembling religion. Now there is nothing wrong with being for gay marriage, but I don't think it should be that since I am an atheist, I therefore am for gay marriage.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

25. Comment #288981 by Kit Finn on November 23, 2008 at 12:12 am

I think that the article is good on the whole, and could make some religious people sit up and think, but I doubt that many will read it....

Bernestein, sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with your view. If we are trying to promote rationalism, then pointing out the irrationality of homophobia should be something we should do.

Other Comments by Kit Finn

26. Comment #288982 by Bernstein on November 23, 2008 at 12:32 am

If we are going to accept all religious induced bigotry in order not to "make things more difficult than they are already for atheists" what is the point of promoting atheism anyway?

I'm just saying that atheism is difficult enough to sell on its own. Packaging it with the necessary acceptance of homosexuality makes it even less palatable to religious people. Consider this. Is it possible than an atheist have an aversion to homosexuality? And does this also mean he is probably going to fly a plane into a building? Not necessarily. Atheism should stand on its own. The rest should follow in time.

I don't think that taking a neutral stand on social issues would be of much use to an organization trying to promote atheism and reason. I think that most people without a religious motivation would probably reach the conclusion that restricting the liberties of others in these sorts of ways is wrong. Trying to only promote atheism while avoiding related issues would seem pointless to me

Then let them reach those conclusions on their own, if they choose to. Atheism should be strictly about not believing in gods; nothing more. Otherwise, it looks like we have a religious-like agenda of our own.

I see your point because atheism should not be associated with anything except not believing in god. Once you start associating other beliefs and values and things like that to it, then it starts resembling religion. Now there is nothing wrong with being for gay marriage, but I don't think it should be that since I am an atheist, I therefore am for gay marriage.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Bernestein, sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with your view. If we are trying to promote rationalism, then pointing out the irrationality of homophobia should be something we should do.

Later, perhaps. Homophobia is not the greatest threat religious people pose to the world. It's prohibition is also not something necessitated by atheism per se. We should take this one step at a time.

Other Comments by Bernstein

27. Comment #288984 by MedMonkey on November 23, 2008 at 1:01 am

Bernstein

I'm just saying that atheism is difficult enough to sell on its own. Packaging it with the necessary acceptance of homosexuality makes it even less palatable to religious people.

Are we really trying to sell atheism? I would imagine most of the people on this site regard themselves as rational skeptics before atheists. It's hard to describe oneself via the beliefs they lack. It's true I came to my skepticism through atheism, but the truth is religious dogmatism isn't the problem in the world - it's the lack of rational and skeptical inquiry into all human ventures. I think for the general population, promoting science and a general skeptical filter is more palatable than beginning with atheism. We should let atheism blossom out of an improved world-view. But I might be off-base ... any comments?

Other Comments by MedMonkey

28. Comment #288989 by Quetzalcoatl on November 23, 2008 at 2:42 am

Hello again Bernstein-

You miss the point here. Atheism is nothing more than an absence of belief in gods, it is true. However, promotion of reason and rationality practically requires us to take a stance against bigotry and discrimination, religion-fuelled or otherwise. Atheists can condone homosexuality and fight for gay rights without it being about their atheism.

More talk about things "following in time". I'm sure you remember how vehemently I disagree with this notion.

There is no reason why atheists, skeptics, secularists and rationalists cannot promote reason and rationality and counter prejudice on multiple fronts. In fact, I would positively encourage it.

Your concern about the palatability of religious people is misplaced. Atheism itself is tremendously unpalatable to religious people. The notion that you can be good without God is unpalatable. Refusing to challenge them on certain aspects of their beliefs, particularly those that are discriminatory, because you are afraid they will reject it is nothing less than pandering to their bigotry. And quite frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing that in the world. It's time for it to change.

Later, perhaps. Homophobia is not the greatest threat religious people pose to the world. It's prohibition is also not something necessitated by atheism per se. We should take this one step at a time.

No, we shouldn't. If we are to make progress, then we must take a stand on issues such as these. As I have said before, atheism currently has heightened public awareness thanks to the work of the Four Horsemen. It is time to make use of that, and do everything we can to improve things. Contrary to the fable, slow and steady does not always win the race.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

29. Comment #288990 by Roger Stanyard on November 23, 2008 at 2:45 am

Ascaphus says "I suggest that the problem is really much more general. We are inclined to dislike 'others', and this poses a problem in our huge mixed populations. Some people are able, or willing, to recognize and tame this impulse in themselves, others either are unwilling or are goaded through the influence of religion or other cultural structures which thrive on exaggerating the differences."

In the case of Proposition 8, methinks you are way off.

This whole fundie/religious homophobia thing is just a latter day form of racism. The fundies lost the racism battle in the 1960s and homophobia has replaced it - just substitute gay fr black and the language is the same.

Moreover, the whole shooting match, as with racism, is highlyu politicised.

It's about a minority - white, not well educated, hetrosexual religious males against the freedoms of the majority - women, blacks, gays, the well educated....The bigots cannot cope with the idea that everyone should have the same freedoms.

Freedom threatens their religious position. It's Plato's old conundrum written in a slightly different way - does morality in religion come from society or is it external and ordained and determined by religious texts.

They cannot cope with the former. Yet it is blatently obvious that the former is where morality comes from.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

30. Comment #288991 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 2:52 am

Comment #288989 by Quetzalcoatl

However, promotion of reason and rationality practically requires us to take a stance against bigotry and discrimination, religion-fuelled or otherwise. Atheists can condone homosexuality and fight for gay rights without it being about their atheism.

Absolutely.

We have to promote reason and rationality as positive positions. That means not allowing people to condemn others on the basis of religion, or gut feelings. They have to come up with rational justifications for their views. Unless we challenge such views, we could end up with secular bigots as against religious bigots. We should insist on rational discussion of everything - not just religion!

Refusing to challenge them on certain aspects of their beliefs, particularly those that are discriminatory, because you are afraid they will reject it is nothing less than pandering to their bigotry. And quite frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing that in the world. It's time for it to change.

*applause*

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #288994 by Enlightenme.. on November 23, 2008 at 2:55 am

Carto#13:
"..jostle in my mind with all the pleasant memories of gorgeous young sportsmen with no shirts on.."

If you like watching stuff like that, then I recommend last weeks episode of Stephen Fry in America where he went along to see a bunch of well-buff young dudes on a calendar shoot.

..for the Mormon missionaries calendar.
------------
I don't think atheism should be associated with the condonation of pro-choice. It only makes things more diffi...

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

32. Comment #288997 by Quetzalcoatl on November 23, 2008 at 3:00 am

Steve Zara-

I always watch out for Bernstein's posts. They're always "interesting".

We have to promote reason and rationality as positive positions. That means not allowing people to condemn others on the basis of religion, or gut feelings. They have to come up with rational justifications for their views. Unless we challenge such views, we could end up with secular bigots as against religious bigots. We should insist on rational discussion of everything - not just religion!

I absolutely agree.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

33. Comment #289002 by Anvil on November 23, 2008 at 3:12 am

I don't think atheism should be associated with the condonation of ginger people. It only makes things more diffi...

Other Comments by Anvil

34. Comment #289004 by Bernstein on November 23, 2008 at 3:35 am

Atheists can condone homosexuality and fight for gay rights without it being about their atheism.

Then this should not be done under the banner of atheism. Would it be likely, for example, for a religious person to infer that atheism "attracts" homosexuals because they can find no refuge in religion? I think it would. And suddenly it's no longer about atheism per se, is it? It's about the willingness of religious people to trade one ideology for another.

It's one thing to tell people it's irrational to believe in god but quite another to tell them that their homophobia (this word has a wide brush, by the way) is somehow god-induced as well. Did you consider, perhaps, that they might still be homophobic even without belief in god? Can a person be homophobic, atheist and "rational" in most other aspects of his life? Of course he can.

There is no reason why atheists, skeptics, secularists and rationalists cannot promote reason and rationality and counter prejudice on multiple fronts. In fact, I would positively encourage it.

Then you run the risk of losing sight of the big picture. Richard Dawkins might one day be remembered not for the "God Delusion" but the "Gay Delusion".

Your concern about the palatability of religious people is misplaced. Atheism itself is tremendously unpalatable to religious people.

What more atheism plus "you must accept homosexuality"?

No, we shouldn't. If we are to make progress, then we must take a stand on issues such as these

Fine, but as I said before, don't do so under the banner of atheism. Two hundred years ago it would have been perfectly acceptable for a gentleman to declare himself an atheist yet, by choice, abhor homosexuality.

Other Comments by Bernstein

35. Comment #289007 by Stafford Gordon on November 23, 2008 at 3:41 am

Short sweet and to the point, and all good news.

However, facts are not always convenient when it comes to religion. The fantasy kicks in and protects believers from reality. That's it purpose, and that I suggest is the heart of the problem; especially when it's at the centre of a cultures tradition and it can take generations to dislodge.

Feel for the children therein; witness Sarah Palin.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

36. Comment #289010 by ev-love on November 23, 2008 at 3:53 am

“Reminds me of a movie where two guys are standing at a urinal and one says `shake it more than three times and you're a poofter'. Can't remember what it was.”

(10. Comment #288947 by mmurray )

I seem to remember a UK cartoon. In this version it was a bobby crouching at a broom cupboard keyhole:

“One more shake and you’re nicked!”

ev-love

Other Comments by ev-love

37. Comment #289011 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #289004 by Bernstein

It's one thing to tell people it's irrational to believe in god but quite another to tell them that their homophobia (this word has a wide brush, by the way) is somehow god-induced as well.

Who is suggesting that? The only thing we are suggesting is that their homophobia is enabled by their belief that it is God's will.

I think you really misunderstand what people here want to do. My feeling is that what they want to do is promote rationality, not specifically atheism. So effectively you are setting up a straw man - promotion of pure atheism - and then saying how it should and should not be done.

If we promote rationality, that should include acceptance of homosexuality, womens rights, and so on. That we are atheists is a consequence of this, not the prime motivation.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #289012 by Anvil on November 23, 2008 at 4:08 am

RS comment 29;
The words nail, hit and head spring to mind.

Morality does indeed come from society which patently has dynamic. If we freeze this morality, say 3000 years ago, and call it the inerrant word of god then I shouldn’t be surprised that elements of society that don’t believe in this inerrancy should have moved on somewhat and disagree with my desire to stone gay men to death. Still, as long as they don’t bring up this particular disagreement I might be prepared to hold a discourse with them.

Other Comments by Anvil

39. Comment #289014 by Titania on November 23, 2008 at 4:18 am

37. Comment #289011 by Steve Zara

Steve, my sentiments exactly.

Now forgive me for going off topic, but this is so cool! I hope Josh posts this. I emailed it to the articles address.

It came from outer space: Fireball streaks across Canadian Prairie, crashes

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/11/it-came-from-ou.html

Other Comments by Titania

40. Comment #289018 by Baron Scarpia on November 23, 2008 at 4:27 am

Then you run the risk of losing sight of the big picture.

On the contrary, we're looking at the biggest picture of all, of which atheism is only a part (if a significant part).

There are probably many irrational atheists out there - people who are atheists because it's fashionable in their circles, people who still believe in Fate, people are are atheists but think that homeopathy and astrology work. Simply being an atheist isn't enough. In my opinion the fight is not between atheists and theists, but the rational and the irrational. And once that's the case, only political compromise requires us to ignore gay rights.

It's also bad compromise. Recently in America there was pro-gay legislation in the works, and the usual lot of bigots were preventing its progress in the Senate. The legislation was also pro-transgender, and it was clear that the legislation would be more 'acceptable' if the transgenders fell off the bus, so to speak. So the question was, should we push them off?

This caused a lot of controversy in the gay community. My reaction was 'If we don't include them now, when do we include them?' It's the same here. I'm not here to fight for atheism. I'm here to fight for reason, and reason tells me that homophobia has no basis in reality. Would you say that because we're atheists we shouldn't fight for female equality because it would muddy the issue?

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

41. Comment #289020 by jabber on November 23, 2008 at 4:35 am

17. Comment #288967 by Bernstein on November 22, 2008 at 10:44 pm

"I don't think atheism should be associated with the condonation of homosexuality. It only makes things more difficult than they already are for atheists. I apologize to all the homosexuals on this site. It's nothing personal"

So, you think then that the injustice meted out to homosexuals takes second place to the political convenience of 'atheists'? That sounds VERY familiar - perhaps we could extend it to any 'other' group that doesn't make a 'good fit' with the atheist agenda? Cowardly, cynical, cruel and obtuse; and adding the get out clause of 'nothing personal' makes it kinda worse.People always use it when they know that what they have said IS personal - to them.

If that's not what you're saying - then what exactly are you saying we SHOULD do about homosexual 'problem'?

the Atheists 'movemment' likes to pretend it has no agenda, but this is patently false - it is not just about not having 'a faith' - it is about believing and promting the rational, in order, i presume, to help to make things better.

At least, I always thought that Athiesm had an altruistic intent. We are not, as witnessed by this baord, merely individuals who just don't beleive in something someone else does. This sounds, aptly, like all the gay dating sites where people are forever saying that they aren't really gay in the accepted sense, they just HAPPEN to be Guys Who just HAPPEN to sleep with other guys - purrlease!

The fact that we laud Dawkins and Hitchens et al, that we participate on these boards (and many others) suggests a coherance, and an underlying dynamic. Somehow homophobia, racism, sexism don't seem to sit very well with the word 'athiest' - perhaps it's a semitioic misunderstanding on my part.

There are many people who have not the slightest interest in religion; they don't believe it, they dont even consider it - yet they don't identify themselves, even when asked, as 'atheist' - it simply isn't an issue.

On the other hand, those of us who do make a point of highlighting our atheism; who make the effort to find and contribute to boards like this, who are offended by the injustices performed by religionists, cannot also claim to occupy a postion of 'disintersted affection'.

The very fact that this point was being discussed (should we include homo-support as 'part of the package')is a further clue to what we're about.

"Atheism should be strictly about not believing in gods; nothing more."

Should it? Should? SHOULD Atheism be restricted to anything at all? I thought the point of atheism was its rationality - not to the formation of 'shoulds' and 'oughts' and proscriptions. Anyway, what it SHOULD be, in your view, is irrelevant if it simply ISN'T. Atheism ISNT so confined, Atheism has much wider horizons.

I don't think i need someone to tell me what my atheism SHOULD be in order to regard myself as a 'proper' or 'acceptable' atheist, no more than i need straight people (or gay, for that matter) to tell me what manner of a homosexual i SHOULD be; what would this acheive? Brad Pitt SHOULD find me irresistable - but he doesn't.

@Cartomancer
Wadham may be happier, but perhaps the Anglican contingent are more smug in their stuffy conservativeness - i wonder which holds the greatest potential for misery among those who attended neither?

Other Comments by jabber

42. Comment #289024 by Anvil on November 23, 2008 at 4:47 am

37: “That we are atheists is a consequence of this, not the prime motivation.”

Couldn’t agree more.

I eventually decided to use the term ‘Atheist’ after much soul-searching (couldn’t find one) and the early realisation that the religious claim to ‘morality’ was A) highly dubious, and B) had consequences that would cause, does cause, will cause harm.

I can only speak personally, but for me it’s much more than ‘God? Ha! Don’t be stupid!’

It follows that where I see irrational thought (such as homophobia), if not caused by, at least encoded in religion, then as an atheist I should speak out.

Other Comments by Anvil

43. Comment #289025 by Baron Scarpia on November 23, 2008 at 4:50 am

I've sometimes thought it would be better if we could simply call ourselves 'rationalists', with the implication that atheism was a consequence of it. Unfortunately too many people still don't think atheists can be rational, so we're stuck with the term for now.

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

44. Comment #289028 by sornord on November 23, 2008 at 4:59 am

Florida had the same thing on the ballot but the wording of the proposed state constitution amendment was such that only a husband and wife (i.e. marriage of a man to a woman) would be able to claim joint legal benefits. Too broad. I voted no but the measure passed.

I think that the gay community may be doing itself a disservice and engendering a lot of ill will toward itself by trying to change the definition of "marriage" instead pushing for legally identical "civil unions" (which are already permitted in most states to my knowledge.) It's a hot button issue and strikes me as more an effort to obtain publicity and media coverage than a defined legal status.

Other Comments by sornord

45. Comment #289033 by Kraes85 on November 23, 2008 at 5:17 am

I don't think we can derive equality for homosexuals from atheism - we can't derive a whole lot atheism after all.
However, we hold the principle of equality to apply to all, except if we can give good reason for making an exception. By that I mean that the burden of proof is on those who wish to institutionalize discrimination against any group of people. Since there is no god who condemns homosexuality (or one who doesn't for that matter), there is no cause for discrimination.

I think my argument is sort of related to Bernstein's in that I don't derive my pro-homosexuality stance from atheism. But on the other hand I am perfectly happy to say that, as an atheist, I consider that there is no reason to discriminate - and that I am therefore against it.

My two cents. Does anyone wish to state a stronger case from atheism against discrimination of homosexuals?

Other Comments by Kraes85

46. Comment #289034 by jabber on November 23, 2008 at 5:19 am

15. Comment #288957 by Cartomancer on November 22, 2008 at 10:00 pm

"Does homophobia ever make an individual more attractive to members of the opposite sex?"

No - but its's quite common (and quite significant in terms of indcuing self-loathing in youn gays) that amny gay people DO find the Butch, totally UN-gay, potentially violent 'jock', skinhead, "Thugz", extremely erotic. "Many gay men in my experience have accepted the versions of acceptable gay masculinity peddled to them in a majority of gay sites that they subscribe to... ".
(strike out:Gay men don't seem to want to be parntered with an 'obvioulsy' gay man) - camp is fine in a best freind, but not in a husband
Nowhere is homophobia more strikingly coded than in the minds and desires of its victims.

Other Comments by jabber

47. Comment #289036 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 5:25 am

Comment #289034 by jabber

Gay men don't seem to want to be parntered with an 'obvioulsy' gay man - camp is fine in a best freind, but not in a husband

Please don't generalise like this.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #289038 by Roundearther on November 23, 2008 at 5:34 am

You beat me to it, Baron.

Atheism goes hand-in-hand with rationalism, but neither is dependent on the other.

Being an atheist means I simply don't believe in god.

As the handful of people who inexplicably go from atheism to "praise Jeebus" rapture show us, there are a few cases where atheism doesn't always show rationalism.

My dislike of racism and homphobia are rational viewpoints, not on the existence of a deity, but on racism and homophobia.

I have to admit, though, that I still don't have any answers. The basic bit of rationalism known as atheism simply says "there is no god". Cue accusations of fundamentalism and bleating about morality.

So we have to turn to the wider consequences of religion, both physical and metaphysical, which bring us on to the wider rationalism. And that risks confusing, and offending, everyone, by lumping the religious together with those who don't even bother to construct a nice story to cover for their misguided views.

As well as making us sound even more awful to the ultra-religious/midguided.

Sorry, I don't often post on here, I usually just lurk. Hope that all makes sense to other people, not just me!

Other Comments by Roundearther

49. Comment #289039 by Baron Scarpia on November 23, 2008 at 5:37 am

Sonord -

how do you define 'marriage'? And why can't it be changed?

Imagine the following scenario; people can marry others of the same ethnic background, but inter-racial couples are allowed 'civil partnerships'. The rights are identical to each, it's only the name that's different.

That does not sound good to me. It is an implicit assumption that inter-racial couples must, for no practical reason, be treated differently simply because of skin colour.

Why allow it, then, for gay couples? Is this more political compromise?

(Here in the UK we have civil partnerships. Why not marriages? Because the religious complained...)

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

50. Comment #289040 by jabber on November 23, 2008 at 5:39 am

48. Comment #289036 by Steve Zara on November 23, 2008 at 5:25 am

"Please don't generalise like this."

Yes - i did intend to point out that it was generalisation - and it was largely based on my own (obvioulsy limitied) experience of the phenomena - but it is a significant cultural phenomena on the gay scene (in the UK, at least). Doesn't mean Camp chaps are reviled - i stand corrected interms of the post though...i will amend it to: "Many gay men in my experience have accepted the versions of acceptable gay masculinity peddled to them in a majority of gay sites that they subscribe to... ".

I cherish being given the opoprtunity to correct myself....however... i did say 'seem', which implies it's a private observation/perception rather than a statement of actual fact; i could only be aware of how things 'seem' to me. I can't know how it 'seems' to others, because i am not they...

I am very ashamed that my post was so weak the only thing worth highlighting was a comment I mistakenly, and foolishly, assumed might be taken for what it obviously was. I shall know better in future.

Other Comments by jabber

Reload Comments | Back to Top