I didn’t think that Bilerico could become any more putrid.
But, never let anyone – particularly christians who demand the special right to never have their mythology called out as such – say that this agnostic can’t acknowledge being wrong:
[W]hat is always ironic to me is how much anti-gay Christians and the rabid anti-faith folks have in common.
I’m actually not going to quote any more of Emily Heath’s special rights-ist crap than that.
Because that’s all that is necessary.
Someone who wants to reap the hierarchical benefits of an anti-philosophical disease of mythology that has oppressed all women and most men for thousands of years begins a whiny rant by equating the disease’s victims with their murderers and would-be murderers.
Yes, that one line is all that’s necessary.
Instead of legitimizing Heath’s illegitimacyt, I’m going to quote from opposing views – things that the anti-philosophical disease of mythology that Heath is acting as apologist for has, whenever it has had the politico-legal muscle to do so, criminalized to an extent that they have been sufficiently erased from history for other apologists for the anti-philosophical disease of mythology to claim that non-christianity-by-choice is a blip of modernity.
Zack Ford points out that Heath:
assumes that faith and nonbelief stand on equal, but opposing, intellectual ground. To assert that faith is unfounded is not an uncompromising standpoint in a “disagreement”; it’s an argument that itself needs to be debated. But believers have no argument for faith except faith itself, so the argument is dismissed. “Fundamentalist” is a heavy word nowadays that connotes radicalism. By your definition, all atheists are automatically fundamentalists, which adds to their demonization in society.
Let me tell you why I’m an angry atheist.
I’m a scientist, an environmentalist, a feminist, a free speech advocate, and I’m gay.
I support birth control and family planning and abortion rights.
I believe that religion doesn’t belong in the science classroom.
I support even “blasphemous” speech. Of course, I support gay
rights, including same-sex marriage. I live apart from my Mexican
partner of 18+ years and can’t sponsor him for immigration as
In every case, the overwhelming majority of my opponents base their
opposition on their religious beliefs.
I do indeed consider myself a victim of fundamentalist religion and the
undeserved deference most people give to religious beliefs.
Furthermore, I don’t believe I should be forced to subsidize my political opponents with tax exemptions just because they declare themselves churches.
Damn right I’m angry
Kathy Padilla (and her justifiable sarcasm):
Yes – they are exactly the same. Except one says who you are is not valid & one disagrees with what you think. Except one wants to limit your civil rights and the other actually supports them while they disagree with you.
Of course – none of the atheists actually ever asked me to kiss their ring or call them Reverend when I’m not seeing them in that capacity.
More than a bit of overreach on this article.
Scott Rose (no relation – except via my agreement with his reasoning; I did add some spacing for clarity, though):
Emily wrote in the essay above: “But what is always ironic to me is how much anti-gay Christians and the rabid anti-faith folks have in common.”
1) When did it ever happen that an “anti-faith” person violently attacked an “anti-gay Christian” previously unknown to them personally simply because the Christian was anti-gay? By contrast, how often do we hear about anti-gay hate crimes being carried out by Christian terrorists?
2) When did it ever happen, in Tennessee, for example, that the State Government passed a “Don’t say Christian” law?
3) Senator Jim DeMint, a born again Christian, has said that gay people should not be permitted to teach school. When did it ever happen that a gay elected official fanned the flame of (alleged) “anti-faith intolerance” by saying that no person of faith should be allowed to teach in any American school?
4) When did it ever happen that huge percentages of the LGBT communities shrilly screamed that people of faith should be forbidden by law to marry each other?
And on and on and on. Emily in her essay trivializes the nature of Christian terrorist tortures, including political terrorism that the Christian terrorists relentlessly direct against innocent gay people. Nothing that (alleged) “anti-faith” “intolerant” people do comes even remotely near to being like what the Christian terrorists inflict on LGBTers. Oh and I’ll give you one additional example. Emily is complaining about dirty words in comments. Gay people thrown out of the US military for being gay were stripped of all benefits, thrown out on the streets with no food or housing or health care, though they had performed their job duties in the military at least satisfactorily. And in the military they had been so unfairly booted out of, there remained many vicious bigots, Christian chaplains, demanding persistently that DADT not be repealed. Even now that it has been repealed, the majority of the military Chaplains continue demonizing gay people and fighting tooth and nail against their marriages being recognized in the military. What have “anti-faith” LGBTer ever done to Christians, even remotely comparable?
I am anti-religion sole because of my experience with them. I do not believe in a higher power and believe that religion causes harm to society with its very existence. It provides people with excuses and crutches for their behaviour and I will not take being preached to lying down. I will not start a conversation about faith and religion, but I will not brush aside or ignore the attempts to convert, save and condemn me. I am an ATHEIST and proud of it. I will not be ignored or be labeled a bigot as I attempt expose your religious texts for the fiction they are. I will not ignore violence, tragedy and oppression at the hands of your faith. I will expound upon the virtues of LOGIC and REASON, that we do not need an outside deity to determine our morals. It is my duty as an atheist that upon an individual or group starting the conversation about religion that I do my best to stop them from drinking the Kool-Aid.
With LGBTQ people this primarily done by explaining the historic and current oppression found within their faith. I do not hate those with faith, I pity them. Tolerance works both ways, your attempts to covert, save and condemn me are not tolerant. I will not take them lying down, I will only use words to change your ideas about religion, can you say the same. Or even better, lets just ignore the topic of religion all together.
This essay is nearly on the same level of absurdity as those who claim “black people are racist too.” You’re making connections between two groups which have extremely different histories and, especially, hugely disparate levels of power over one another. If there were a strong history of queer or trans people persecuting people of faith then you might be rummaging in the right attic. But they don’t and I find this suggestion of yours really offensive.
Bilerico publishing something absurd?
Finally, Steve dares to speak logic to mythology special rights-ists:
No, I don’t have to respect religion or beliefs. That’s the whole problem here. Religious people think they deserve respect simply because they are religious. Because they think faith is a virtue. It isn’t. They may deserve respect for what they do, yes. But that’s in spite of what they believe.
As for the various sects and cults. It’s all the same kind of nonsense when you get down to it. Just a matter of degrees. Yes, I certainly prefer a Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan or nature worshiper over a Christian or Muslim. I generally prefer progressive Jews over the other Abrahamic religions as well. I prefer a Unitarian Universalist over any kind of Christian or a liberal Christian over an evangelical or fundamentalist. They are simply easier to live with. But on a very basic level it’s all the same, even if their followers behave very differently.
This goes towards the idea that many LGTB Christians have, that we are only against religion because or if it’s anti-gay. That’s just one of the reasons why I’m against it. Ultimately I think they are ALL wrong. I think religion is a fundamentally flawed idea. Given that it was our first idea about how the world works, that should be no surprise. I think it did far more harm than good and that we would be better off without it. I disagree with any concept of a creator god, since that just complicates things. I can’t believe that there is any being watching over us, caring about what we do. I can’t believe in the supernatural like gods, angels, demons, invisible places or prophecies (though I can certainly be entertained by it in television and novels).
I think Christianity is fundamentally immoral, since ALL its sects have a human sacrifice as its core. I can’t believe that the torture and death of a human being can absolve others of their crimes. I think Original Sin is one of the most screwed up ideas anyone can possibly come up with. And you can’t have Christianity without the former and rarely without the latter.
But the biggest reason: there is simply no evidence whatsoever for ANY of them and any of their claims.
The difference between Emily Heath and Michele Bachmann?
Perhaps I’d better ask it this way…
We all know – even if far too many of us won’t admit – what Michele Bachmann would use the might of corporeal governmental force to do to all who in any way disagree with her religious beliefs if she believed for a second that she could get away with it as president.
Are we really deluded enough to believe that anyone - including Emily Heath – who needs the “Rev.” affectation to support her fact-free lifestyle would not, if imbued with absolute power, do exactly as Michele Bachmann would, with the tiny exception of (presumably) Heath not cranking up any auto-da-fés for people solely for engaging in same-sex sex but oh so regrettably having to do so for those who simply refuse to otherwise believe as she does?