“The Bible Doesn’t Say That”

Contrary to what one might assume from the title, I am not going to talk today about whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality. I have made my thoughts on that clear from a scriptural perspective on my ‘Think’ page, and from a legal perspective in the article “2015 Talk Round-Up: Biblical Law.” Today, I offer some quick thoughts on the argument that the Bible does not tell believers to judge or condemn. You know, the whole “who am I to judge? The Bible tells us to love” thing.

Every time the accusation of self-righteous condemnation is levelled, I hear Christians responding in regard to whatever group is under scrutiny with “those aren’t real Christians. They are judging, and that’s against the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say that.” Every time I hear this, I have to wonder if those people saying it have ever actually read the Bible.

Here’s the thing. The Bible commands believers to “rebuke the sinner” (Matthew 18:15, Luke 17:3, 1 Timothy 5:20, and many more). Jesus commanded believers to “judge righteously” (John 7:24). IF you are a Christian who believes the Bible is the word of God, and IF you listen to what Christ said, and IF you look to God to determine your actions … then it IS your place to judge, it IS your place to condemn. The Bible DOES say that.

This is a pretty simplistic and brief argument of course, and it could be argued at great length from both sides. The point I am making is not that the Bible says one thing. The point is that Christians who condemn us for being LGBTQ+, or for whatever other reason, if they believe we are worthy of judgment, are just as much Christians as those who say otherwise. It is very misleading to say that the Bible tells believers only to love when that is very clearly not the case. It does say to love and have compassion, and it also says to judge and rebuke. Which part you choose to follow, if any, will be determined in large part by what kind of a person you are. Choosing to follow the love parts doesn’t make you any more of a Christian than choosing the judging parts. I’m not saying the Westboro Baptist Church is scripturally justified of course, the word “fag” is nowhere in the Bible, but the guy who told me that I am leading kids away from God, recruiting them into a life of sin, is. He believes what he said, and the Bible told him to do just what he did – judge and rebuke the sinner.

The Bible is a big book, and there is a lot of complexity to it. As frustrated as I and the knowledgeable Christians I argue with get with one another, we at least have a scriptural understanding in common. I find increasingly that pop culture rhetoric on this topic reveals both a lack of understanding of what is actually in there, and an eagerness to use it in social issue debates. The Bible doesn’t just say what we want it to. I would love to tell that guy that he is going against his own holy book when he ignorantly judges me, but he isn’t. It says what it says.

I don’t take the Bible as a moral authority, or as a book with any moral lessons that can’t be found in many other books (I can go to much older texts to find the same lessons). I study it because I grew up trying to follow it. I use my experience, and my knowledge, to help others. In addition to that, the Bible has a tremendous amount of cultural ‘pull,’ and whether or not we use it in any meaningful spiritual way is a choice those of us raised with it have to make. As a Queer person, I have Christians who love and accept me, and Christians who loath and condemn me. All of them are justified by scripture. So the next time you want to say “the Bible doesn’t say that,” think twice. There’s a good chance it does.

 

The Pope Met Kim Davis: What Matters Is The Impact

I was waiting for confirmation from the Vatican before saying anything, and now that they’ve confirmed it, it’s time to talk about the Pope’s recent visit with Kim Davis. If by now you don’t know who Kim Davis is, I recommend both reading my September 5th post “Kim Davis Broke The Law,” and doing a quick Google search for her name. This woman is a hero to the evangelical right, and a pariah to the secular left. She is a polarizing figure to say the least, a beacon of God-inspired exclusion. She has been marketed as a martyr, embraced by Mike Huckabee, and now Kim Davis seems to have found favour with the most influential Christian leader on Earth – Pope Francis.

Pope Francis has done a lot of good. He refuses to live lavishly, he shuns the rich to eat with the poor, he is a champion against our destruction of the planet, and he was surprisingly impressive when addressing the U.S. Congress on his recent visit. He is also a skilled hypocrite. Very recent exceptions aside, the Pope panders to his nearest available base. He eats with the poor but does little to help them. He said “who am I to judge,” and then slammed the LGBTQ+ community at a Vatican-run interfaith International Colloquium On The Complimentarity Of Man And Woman. He is, quite frankly, very similar to another well-known Catholic figurehead – talking out of both sides of his mouth while holding to the values and ideals that keep those he claims to care about in the same desperate situation. Francis is nothing new, he is merely a deceptively polished version of the same charlatanry the papacy was built on. His meeting with Kim Davis should come as no surprise, but the impact of it is worthy of discussion.

Now, it should be noted that Charles P. Pierce wrote a piece for esquire.com, published just yesterday, effectively arguing that the Pope may have been swindled into meeting with Davis; an attempt by his enemies within the Vatican to discredit him. Mr. Pierce is not the only one suggesting a set-up here, and I must admit his argument is plausible. That being said, for the reasons stated above, I believe it naive to just give the Pope a free pass. Meeting with Kim Davis is not unbelievable given his loyalty to traditional doctrine, and he may very well agree with the many Christians who praise her ridiculous behaviour as heroic. Given the likelihood of Francis agreeing to meet with her had he known the situation, the issue of whether or not he actually knew and was tricked into it is irrelevant.

On to the important part of this story – the impact. Pope Francis’ approval numbers are through the roof. Catholics, evangelicals, members of most Christian denominations, even some Atheists, like this man. What he says carries a fair amount of weight. So what is a 10-year-old child supposed to think when the man they have been told to revere meets with a woman who is seeking to deny that child the same rights and freedoms as the heterosexual cis majority? Even if Francis never utters a public word about Davis, his actions speak loudly enough. The LGBTQ+ children dragged to mass every week learn that the Pope stands against them, the church stands against them, and their parents tell them to listen to the Pope and the church. In this childhood scenario, the world is not safe. These damaging influences on the developing minds of young people more often than not cause self-loathing, fear, hatred, bullying, too often suicide, and fatal attacks. We know this because it’s not a hypothetical. It keeps happening. Religious and familial influence play a huge part in who we become, and when that influence tells you that who you are is wrong, the impact is devastating.

It doesn’t matter if the Pope knew about Kim Davis, and despite the noise being made about what might have been said at the private meeting, the words spoken don’t matter either. What matters is perception, and the perception here is that the figurehead of the Roman Catholic church had a private meeting with one of America’s most notorious homophobes. The message sent is that the Vatican approves of Davis’ actions, and although not surprising to some of us, the impact this can have on LGBTQ+ Catholics is something we should be concerned about.

The message I wish to give to LGBTQ+ Catholics is this: There is nothing wrong with you. Kim Davis is wrong. Pope Francis is wrong. The doctrine that dehumanizes and oppresses you is wrong. Many of us understand the difficulty reconciling your identity with what the church teaches. We’ve been there, and we can help if you reach out and ask for it. You’re never alone in this. Whatever your identity, no matter who you are, Outspoken Ally has people who can help at the email address on the ‘About’ page. We can also put you in touch with other organizations that are on your side.

You don’t have to listen to the Pope. What’s wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.

 

Are We Too Judgmental?

In May of this year, Dr. Michael Brown brought up the issue of judgment on his radio show, “Line Of Fire.” I listened to that segment recently when I downloaded the episode as a podcast, and I heard him make an argument that I was already familiar with but hadn’t given much thought. For some reason, it struck a chord this time. The argument is that when we call people like him bigots, liars, nazi’s, etc, we are guilty of the same negative judgment. I’ve heard this from others in the religious right, and it’s worth addressing. LGBTQ+ rights and freedoms is one of those things that spurs passionate controversy. Arguments can get very heated, and because I fancy myself an advocate who can maintain a modicum of cool in those situations, I’m working through the question – as a movement, as a group, are we too judgmental?

It pains me to admit that, as a group, we on the left do have a problem with the way we handle things. This is blatantly obvious when our opponents get death threats. I have spoken out against many opponents, including a man who I consider to be the absolute worst kind of human being (Scott Lively), and not once have I suggested he commit suicide, encouraged vigilante justice, the death penalty, castration, or anything of the sort. I never cuss anybody out, and I use adjectives with definitions that fit. I do it this way because I believe that the telling of the truth must be honest, but need not be brutal. After all, the term “brutally honest” is almost always used as a justification to be hurtful, and that is unacceptable. What I’m saying here is this: I’m about to argue that we are not too judgmental, but we do have to recognize our flaws. We’re good, but we should be better. Too many of us allow our emotions to get carried away, and we say things that give anti-equality activists more to demonize us with. We have to stop doing that.

In the interest of keeping a certain objection at bay, I did write an article using the word “terrorist” in regard to anti-equality campaigners and organizations. Some people took offence to that. I wrote a follow-up piece that I won’t re-hash here (it’s all on this site to be read at your leisure), but the gist of it is that I provided a logically sound argument that, I felt, justified my use of the word. This is what I’m talking about. When you throw words out there – potentially offensive words like “terrorist” – be prepared to explain yourself. If you present a sound argument, I support that. A sound argument will stand on its own, regardless of who disagrees or how much the right attacks it. It’s when we hurl death threats and use intimidation tactics that the line is crossed. That line must never be crossed.

So are we too judgmental? In a word, NO. What you fail to realize, Dr. Brown, is that the word “bigot” has a definition that fits, and nobody called you “nazi’s” until Bryan Fischer, Rush Limbaugh and company started levelling that disgusting word against us. Now, I know an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, but this is a culture war that was waged by Christians. We didn’t start this. All of it could have been avoided if LGBTQ+ people were just accepted from the beginning, but instead you had to take your 11th commandment and bash society over the head with it. “Thou shalt not be gay” is a gross misreading of the text, and it’s disheartening to see a respected theologian making such weak arguments, not to mention framing arguments for us that we don’t even make, and then tearing them down on his radio show. It’s not too judgmental to call a spade a spade. As long as there is a logical argument supporting our claims, your only objection could be that the truth hurts. I have followed you for a long time. I read your articles, I download podcasted episodes of your show, and I consider you to be an example of intolerance. The judgmental attitude, sir, rests on your shoulders; and it is certainly NOT the righteous judgment that Jesus calls on you to make.

When it comes to right vs left, religion vs the secular world, one can’t help but notice the ever-present noose being toted around. Our pro-equality activism is a reaction to negative judgment, it didn’t just start on its own. Our evangelical opponents spend a lot of time and energy looking for opportunities to throw that noose over our heads and squeeze. It’s pretty bad when a pastor talks about praying for God to “rip out Caitlyn Jenner’s heart,” but we’re the villains for using the word “bigot.” Bryan Fischer takes to the airwaves ranting about the “pink swastika,” that he made up, and although I choose not to use the term “nazi,” those who do respond with it spur reactions that completely miss the point. “Look at those hateful ‘gay activists’ using our own tactics against us!” Any and every opportunity is seized upon to tighten that noose, and when their plans are thwarted by laws or Supreme Court decisions, the anger grows. “Why won’t you let us oppress you?! Religious liberty!!” It must be tiring to go through life with such anger and paranoia.

At the end of the day, we on the progressive left have nothing to apologize for. Aside from some unfortunate missteps that must be corrected, we are not the ones responsible for negative judgment, nor are we to blame for the social ills that evangelicals created all by themselves. Our cause is reactionary. Without religious bigotry, there would be no fight to be had. Without religious bigotry, the Pride movement would not be necessary. Without religious bigotry, society would be further ahead. Are we too judgmental? No. We are responding out of hurt. The charge of being too judgmental finds its home with those who condemn us.

Matthew 19:3-6

Listening to sermons is a valuable research tool for anybody who wants to stay current on what various evangelical churches are teaching. I listen to sermons on homosexuality at almost every opportunity, and recently I’ve noticed a shift in many of the arguments. While the traditional approach has been to use Leviticus, Romans, and a few other scattered references to say everything from “it’s an abomination” to “we’re all sinners,” more and more preachers are opting to use Matthew 19. It makes sense for a Christian to look at what Christ said on any given topic, they are after all ‘Christ-ians.’ In the case of marriage, though, the idea that Jesus had anything at all to say about homosexuality is quite frankly offensive. Not to political sensitivities, but offensive to our human proclivity for honesty. To read into the text what isn’t there, and to use that to manipulate a congregation of believers, is dishonest at best.

Matthew 19:3-6 (NIV) ~ Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them ‘male and female,’ and said, ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Let’s unpack this. The Pharisees asked Jesus a very specific question. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife …?” The question was specific to heterosexual marriage. Jesus’ answer was specific to the question. This was a moment in which Jesus was being tested by his detractors to see if he knew the law regarding man, wife, and divorce. To hijack the passage and hold it up as an example of Christ’s condemnation of homosexuality is absurd.

It is argued that by referencing Genesis, Jesus was re-enforcing man-woman relations as the God ordained purpose for human sexuality. What this argument fails to realize is that the whole man-woman thing is strictly for procreation, the perpetuation of our species. Physically, the male and female sexes together are capable of reproduction, and for the majority of humans, sexual orientation facilitates that. Genesis is not insistent, however, that everyone be heterosexual. The existence of a natural way to reproduce has nothing to do with natural ways of showing affection or natural ways of enjoying intimate pleasure. These are often interconnected, but quite different things. Genesis is silent on this, it speaks only to relationships allowing for procreation and says nothing about relationships in which procreation isn’t possible. Otherwise we would have to consider relationships in which the couple is beyond their child-bearing years, not to mention young couples who cannot bear children. Going with the logic of the “God created them man and woman to multiply” argument, these too would be abominations.

Now, whenever it’s said that Genesis does not speak of homosexuality, somebody will inevitably bring up Genesis 19 (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah). That’s a topic for a different post, but there’s a discussion about it on our “Think” page. Regardless of what people think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about, a careful examination of ancient Middle East culture and scripture debunks the idea that the cities were destroyed because of homosexuality. There were a multitude of legal violations going on, to use the story as a scapegoat to justify anti-gay bias is too simplistic a reading.

Sermonizing on Matthew 19 is a desperate attempt to justify exclusionary bias. One by one, the evangelical and apologetic arguments have failed, and now we have preachers twisting and spinning the supposed words of Jesus of Nazareth into something that isn’t even there. To a faithful congregation, the idea that Jesus had a deeper meaning to his response is easy to believe, but such meaning would have been unnecessary and lost on the Israelites of 2,000 years ago. It must be said that Jesus was silent on the topic of same-sex relationships, and those who say otherwise must be corrected. There is simply no Christ-based argument to be made.

To our evangelical friends – use your best arguments against us, but avoid Matthew 19. When all of your arguments fail, which they have and will continue to do, join us in accepting and welcoming people for who they are; and not who you perceive them to be. I promise you will find a much happier life in embracing one another.

Same-Sex Marriage Will Pave The Way For …

With the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage to be released very soon, the social arguments and debates are again ramping up in the familiar venues – Fox News, social media, you know the circuit. Now, a common argument against marriage equality that hasn’t been addressed to my satisfaction is that same-sex marriage will “pave the way for polygamy, marrying children, and bestiality.” This objection is not new of course, it’s been around for quite some time, but I’m pretty tired of hearing it. Its popularity is due, in part, to its simplicity. On its face, to a person who is against LGBTQ+ rights to begin with, it doesn’t sound unreasonable. Redefine the institution of marriage, and the door opens for other non-traditional family arrangements … right? Well, no actually. It’s a non-sensical argument for a couple of reasons. 

Polygamy
My bias toward polygamy, and polygyny, is that I don’t understand it. Jealousy and other factors would plague me, I just couldn’t do it. That being said, any first-year Anthropology student can tell you that polygamy is practiced in many parts of the world, and it appears to work just fine when all parties are consenting adults of similar minds, and nobody is getting hurt.

The existence of polygamy as a taboo subject in the evangelical community appears somewhat contradictory given the disconnect between what many self-professed Christians say vs what they do. Studies consistently show unusually high numbers of infidelity and porn consumption within the most religious regions of North America, and the same goes for the multitude of bar-hoppers who can be seen on any given Friday night – throwing around slurs like “faggot” while hooking up with whoever will sleep with them, and sitting tight in their pews on Sunday morning. Polygamy and polygyny, committing to multiple partners within the confines of matrimony, may be something that some of us find distasteful … but it’s a more stable and healthy way to live than running around sleeping with multiple strangers. Now, I’m well aware of the Christian arguments against those who cheat and sleep around, I’m not suggesting that all Christians are sex-crazed fiends. My point is that as a community fighting “moral decay,” evangelicals live in a big glass barn. If you’re going to condemn, get your own house in order first.

Polygamous marriage isn’t for the majority of people, but it’s been practiced within humanity for millennia (even in the Bible). It’s not new, and if consenting adults want to do it, and nobody is getting hurt, I have no moral objection.

Marrying Children
This could take two forms. (1) Children marrying children, or (2) adults marrying children. Both forms are wrong, and here’s why: Consent. Adult opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples have the capacity for consent. Children do not. Children marrying children cannot be allowed because there is a fundamental issue concerning brain development and the ability to make rational decisions with foresight and maturity. Adults marrying children, practiced in India and some other countries, is a disgusting example of adults using their power to dehumanize and degrade helpless youngsters. A young girl of 12 cannot consent to marrying the 54-year-old pedophile who has paid her parents a dowry. It’s slavery, it’s child rape, it’s dehumanizing, demoralizing, and demeaning. Same-sex marriage is none of these things, it is the union of two consenting adults who commit to one another for the long term. Same-sex marriage and marrying children do not belong in the same category – they just aren’t comparable.

Bestiality
What a disgusting thing to say that marriage between two loving human beings is akin to a person marrying a dog or a horse. The consent issue is blatantly obvious in the case of bestiality, but how about the fact that the very suggestion that same-sex marriage could pave the way for this is beyond insulting? How hateful do you have to be to suggest that two men or two women getting married is no different from a marriage between a person and their family pet? People come up with this, and then have the nerve to say that gay people are immoral and disgusting.

And so …
If same-sex marriage paved the way for polygamy, so what? Polygamy is kind of a non-starter, or at least it should be. Where there is consent, and nobody is getting hurt, I really don’t know that we have any right to deny what comes naturally to those involved. We may disagree on that, but ultimately I don’t think polygamy is an issue.

Same-sex marriage could not pave the way for children marrying children or adults marrying children, since children do not have the capacity or maturity to give consent to such a thing. I might add, just because I think it’s noteworthy, that I haven’t yet seen any Christians holding signs against pedophiles taking child brides.

Same-sex marriage could not pave the way for bestiality because animals cannot give consent, and humans marrying humans is not comparable to humans marrying animals. Again, those making this argument have no authority to call anybody immoral.

“Same-sex marriage will pave the way for …” is the height of ignorance and desperation. It’s what people resort to when they’ve lost every other argument. Those who believe it are either ignorant of consent, not to mention human decency, or just don’t care. The goal is to put down and stop legal love between people they disapprove of, and the fallacies in the argument don’t matter to them in the least. What same-sex marriage will pave the way for is more people in loving relationships entering into the institution of marriage; just like the rest of us. All that changes is that a state-sanctioned loving commitment becomes available to more people. It doesn’t pave the way for polygamy, child marriage, or bestiality – it paves the way for inclusion and equality.

Biblical Justifications For Transphobia

Transphobia is a huge problem. Murder after murder, suicide after suicide, our trans friends and family are dying due to a tragic fear of what people don’t understand. The religiously fuelled orgy of ignorance, bigotry, and aggressive action continues to plague us. As we push for social equality, trans youth are suffering in the shadows, in the hallways, in our homes, and in our schools.

Now, it’s pretty easy to find the scriptural basis for things like homophobia, at least what’s perceived to be a scriptural basis, but the biblical foundations of transphobia are not so clear. Despite all the biblical analyses and supports one might use for justifying a bias against trans people, there are really only 2 passages – and they provide very weak support at best.

Psalm 139. This Psalm is all about how God knows each one of us infinitely more than we know ourselves. At verse 13, we read “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb,” and at verse 16 “Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
What Psalm 139 is saying, in a nutshell, is that God knows everything about each of us because we were lovingly created according to his will. The idea that a person’s assigned sex could be out of sync with their gender identity is completely unacceptable to somebody who holds fast to Psalm 139; for if God created us according to his perfect will, our sex couldn’t possibly be wrong. Of course, every sermon I’ve listened to about this equates sex with gender, and sexual orientation with gender identity. Given this failure to understand basic terms, it’s really no surprise that some people would use Psalm 139 to justify their condemnation of what they don’t care to understand.

Oddly enough, Psalm 139 could also be used to justify acceptance of trans people. If, as is taught, we cannot know the thoughts or motivations of God, how can we say whether or not he created them just the way they are? Is gender not a social construct? Are we not flawed due to original sin? Isn’t it possible that we have imposed false social norms that were not part of God’s original plan? Psalm 139 says that God knows everything about each one of us because he created us. It doesn’t say anything about initial intent. From a biblical perspective, it may very well be that the very existence of the trans label is entirely our fault; and contrary to what God intended. Genesis lays out a differentiation of sex in the Garden of Eden, but not of gender. It could be that gender fluidity was the original idea and we screwed it up.

Deuteronomy 22:5. “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.”

So, Deuteronomy is generally believed to be Moses’ restatement of the law originally given to the Israelites by God, in Exodus and Leviticus – approximately 40 years prior. This is questionable of course, given the fact that the laws in Deuteronomy are better described as continuations rather than restatements. In any event, this condemnation of wearing the clothing culturally assigned to the opposite gender is ridiculous. An all-knowing deity who concerns himself with what clothing we wear is extremely petty indeed, and dare I say it, quite human. One would think that if somebody had the entire universe to take care of, what clothing we wear would be quite low on the list of priorities. I think it’s a pretty safe bet that Moses injected his own displeasure with ‘cross-dressing,’ and attributed it to God. If this verse is to be taken as a condemnation, along with Psalm 139, the scriptural basis for transphobia is extremely weak.

As with discrimination of any kind, it’s just not reasonable to believe a single word of the ‘justifications’ for it. Even if the Bible came right out and said “trans people are flawed, unnatural, immoral, and must be fixed,” it would still be wrong. There are over 2,000 religions in the world, and we have one chance to make a life. Any book that says we are to waste that life trying to condemn and ‘fix’ the diversity around us, isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

How about trying to understand? Ancient holy books were written before anybody knew much about anything. Instead of treating the Bible like a manual, how about we accept that much of it is no longer relevant, and work to come together? You can have your faith, but believing in the infallibility of the literal word of scripture renders you useless in a civilized society. The Bible isn’t entirely irrelevant, but condemnations of things we now know to be natural belong in the same category as every other biblical thing we no longer support (ie: slavery, not eating shellfish, avoiding mixed fabrics, stoning our children, etc). We need to accept that things change as we learn, and we need to embrace that knowledge. We need to embrace one another.

You may be upset over my choice of words and my insistence on de-legitimizing scripture, but that’s kind of the point. Scripture is being used to kill trans people. It’s being used to justify murder, and it’s being used to justify the abusive action driving trans people to suicide. Criticism is 100% reasonable here, and in my opinion I haven’t been critical enough. When the Qur’an is used to justify war and suicide bombings, people are all over it. When the Bible is used to justify violence and hatred toward minority people, we are supposed to say “oh, that person has problems, the Bible is a book of love.” And then, of course, we’re reminded that we have to “respect everyone’s beliefs.” Personally, I’m sick of this. I will not respect anything that doesn’t deserve respect, and I don’t particularly care if it’s your belief or not. If your belief is harming others, or causes you to dislike them without rational justification, it is worthy only of contempt.

Without scriptural support, without anything but your personal bias toward the unfamiliar, how do you feel about trans people? Believe me, answering that question can be one of the most fulfilling things you ever do. It gets to the core of how you view humanity, and that is a profoundly beautiful thing.

Understanding Is So Very Important

Before I get into this necessary bit of personal clarification, I just want to direct you all to the ‘New To Outspoken Ally Page,’ where you can find a link to Outspoken Ally on Facebook. Let’s keep the discussion going! Okay, on to the topic at hand:

I sometimes speak with people who are aware of my work as Outspoken Ally, but misunderstand just what it is I have an issue with regarding religion. Regardless of how much I write and clarify the messages Outspoken Ally espouses, I realize that faith is a very personal thing. There will always be people who feel attacked when just one or two tenets of what they believe are confronted – I understand that. I also understand why they believe what they believe, and it would help if Outspoken Ally was understood as well. Misunderstanding does nothing but distract us, and while we argue, the people I’m fighting for are being hunted, abused, and killed in the name of God/Allah/Yeshua. That second one, Allah, will be dealt with in a later post. For now, the opposition I face is primarily Christian, so let’s clear up a few misconceptions.

“You have problems with MY church. Christianity isn’t bad, you know. It’s just the people who misuse it and misrepresent God.” – While it’s true that I have issues with the church, my biggest issue is actually with the inextricable intolerance and hatred of religion in general. I’m not particularly concerned with the average sermon on any given Sunday morning. What I care about is the doctrine of exclusion and moral superiority, and even more-so the practice of retreating to the Bible to educate yourself about those you don’t understand. If evangelical Christians would go to the communities of those they are wary of and initiate conversation, views may change a little bit. Honestly, you really don’t want to be using the Bible to educate yourself, it clearly was never meant to be a textbook. As for those who “misuse and misrepresent God,” I’m not buying that. I know some loving and inclusive Christians, and I know some exclusionary and hateful Christians – like it or not, they all have equal justification for their views; and those justifications are found in the same book.

“If you want to see the church reform, why not fight for change from the inside? You’re not doing any good by staying outside.” – This would be a good point, if not for two things. (1) I left the church because I could no longer support the message or believe the underlying concepts. Not long ago, I was very involved in the church. I played lead guitar and sang backing vocals in a praise band, and I promoted youth engagement. To continue that charade, however, while no longer supporting the church itself, would be dishonest. (2) I AM doing good from the outside. I’ve had LGBTQ Christians thank me for Outspoken Ally’s message, I’m fortunate enough to be asked to speak at educational institutions that have Christian students, and I am regularly contacted by a slowly growing number of people, specifically to answer their questions related to the conflict between faith and identity. I want to see society reform. The church has to come with it, and my efforts from the outside are doing just fine.

“You just want to see all of Christendom fall apart. You’re just as hateful as you’re accusing us of being.” – Well, no, actually. I don’t want to see Christendom fall apart. Faith means a lot to people, I don’t necessarily want to take that away from them. What I want is for religiously motivated ignorance, bigotry, and sense of moral superiority to fall apart. Christendom is a huge problem because of it’s global influence on division and human rights abuses, but if doctrines changed to actually place value on the lives of ALL people, I would have little left to disagree with. My stance here isn’t hateful, it’s a reaction to hate. Outspoken Ally was borne of an intolerance toward hatred, bigotry, ignorance, and dishonesty. These are ideals that we shouldn’t tolerate, ideals that are fundamentally harmful to all of us. Just as hateful as I am accusing you of being? Not even close.

“You’re just mad at God.” – This one bothers me. I am a Secular Humanist, and as I wrote on October 25, 2014 (The Guiding Principle Of Honesty), I live by a principle that “best fits the values and work that my life is devoted to. It informs my actions, decisions, everything … it’s called Honesty.” I am too honest to say that I know whether or not any God exists, so how could I possibly be mad at the concept? I’ll admit that Christians often do things that make me angry, I’ll even admit that I’m generally angry with the church for the atrocities their teachings ultimately cause and promote, but mad at God? If you think I’m mad at God, you’re way off.

These are the misconceptions I am most frequently confronted with, and I am more than happy to answer further questions on the matter. It’s so important that we understand each other. Outspoken Ally is concerned with social injustice and the religious foundations of it. The approach to that, here, is honest, clear, and blunt. The anger, frustration, and button pushing turns of phrase are justified, when one considers the consequences of the attitudes being fought against. Outspoken Ally stands for people – people who are systematically beaten down by those who would rather put their trust in a 2,000+ year-old book, than in actual facts in the here and now. The differences between us should be celebrated, not condemned, and those who disagree with that are quite frankly denying themselves of the interconnected beauty of the human condition. That, in a nutshell, is what Outspoken Ally is about. You may have additional ideas about what it is that I believe or have a stance on, but by all means, please ask; and be kind when you do. My values, the values that Outspoken Ally promotes, are important to me. I want you to know about them. You won’t be turned away or ignored if you ask with genuine tact and interest. Understanding is so very important.

The Following, I Freely Admit, Is A Rant …

The following, I freely admit, is a rant; but I believe it to be a necessary one. There is something that must be said, and I am tired of waiting for someone else to say it.

On Saturday, November 8, 2014, I had a moment of morbid realization when I came across a headline that read “Being Gay In Iran Can Mean Death – Or Getting A Forced Sex Change.” The best way I can describe my reaction to this is that moment when you realize that there is no limit to the ways in which some members of our species will hurt each other. It seems that there are no lines that cannot be crossed. The increasing amount of good being manifested in our society is uplifting, but the dark side of humanity still has too much control over the actions of deranged psychotics willing to kill over religious attitudes toward difference.

For every horrifying idea, there are a few disturbed people willing to carry it out; and when such ideas become state policy, we have new blood on our hands. The fact that Iran is one of 10 countries in which homosexuality is punishable by death, is a testament to the human potential to fail. I am going to go ahead here and assert that Iran is one of the most backward nations on Earth. Along with countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran is a prime example of what happens when you run a government in accordance with religious principles. The archaic ideas and human rights abuses found in the books of the three primary monotheistic religions should never be used to inform policy, law, legislation, or ANY matter regarding the running of a state (It is said that many Western laws and statutes were based on Biblical morality, but this is not true. Every example of our “Biblically inspired moral code” is based on a value that predates Biblical times).

To be clear, I refuse to identify this as a Muslim problem. This is a religion problem. It is the great failure of humanity, when faith in religious doctrine trumps reality; and it applies to every religion in which doctrine leads people to mistreat others. The fact that most of us miss, is that these things always have religious foundations. In North America and the U.K, discrimination and hate is rooted in Christianity. In the Middle East, it’s Islam. In Russia, much of the hatred toward LGBTQ people is informed by the Orthodox Church. In Africa, it’s the colonial brand of hate-filled doctrine introduced by the parasitic missionaries of the past. In every country where minority people are routinely mistreated to the point of fearing for their lives, religious belief can be found at the very foundations of the social structure. In countries that experience very low levels of hate-inspired action, we see higher levels of secularism. The correlation here points to the root cause. Religion informs culture, and in those precious few cultures where religion has not gained dominance, we see much more acceptance, equality, and overall social health. I point this out for two reasons. (1) It’s relevant. (2) I often encounter “you make a lot of good points, but what’s your solution?” Well, I believe the answer to that lies in what we deem worthy of respect.

As long as we have countries where minority people are treated as inhuman, threatened, and demeaned in horrifying ways, we must continue to try to understand where the underlying ideas are coming from. Change cannot happen unless we understand what it is we have to change. I believe that an important part of this fight involves taking the perceived right to respect away from religious ideas. Ideas must be judged by their merits, not by the tradition behind them. If an idea is causing harm, it is deserving only of contempt until it either changes or ceases to be. The notion that religious belief is inherently deserving of respect has forced silence from people who may have otherwise cried out, if only it were acceptable to do so. There are some religious ideals that are deserving, but they are deserving because their merit is relevant and beneficial, NOT because they are a sincerely held religious belief. I don’t particularly care where an idea comes from – if it is hurting minority people, I will speak out against it, and if it is accepting and inclusive, I will support it. We do need to understand where an idea comes from to know how to fight it, but we only need to know the effects of it to pass judgment (and we have every right to that judgment. As a matter of fact, we have a moral obligation to it).

Now, I realize that a person with deep faith could be pretty angry with me at this point, if indeed you are in disagreement and have read this far, but it was really time for someone to say this. Religion is trashed all the time, but not generally by people who know what they are talking about. I have spoken out against ignorance in non-belief before, about the dishonesty of reading only what fellow non-believers say, and then taking their arguments as your own; without actually learning about what it is they argue against. Simply put, if you read only Richard Dawkins, you will wind up with the opinions of Richard Dawkins … but you will not be any closer to understanding religion, faith, or religious people. The difference here is that I know exactly what I’m saying, why I’m saying it, what my saying it means, and what objections may come my way. I have no problem criticizing religion because I study it. I know its power. I have lived it, and every day I struggle with the baggage associated with leaving it. Most importantly, I see it hurt more and more people every single day.

When I see a headline talking about capital punishment and forced sex changes as legal sentences for homosexuality, I get angry. This time, as you can see, I’m angry almost beyond my ability to remain tactful. To be honest, I’m tired of the continuing position of privilege held by religious ideas. I can no longer even accept the argument “not every Christian/Muslim/Jewish person is like that,” because the radicals can find just as much justification for violence as the moderates find for peace … in the exact same book. Enough already. I beg of you … if you subscribe to an ancient text … please understand that your belief does not give you the right to lash out at what you do not understand. I realize that coming out of the dark ages is a frightening prospect (and I realize that saying that is probably offensive), but please do us all a favour and join us as we march toward equality. If you decide to stand on the sidelines frowning and holding your “Adam and Eve” placards, know that you are displaying a complete lack of moral behaviour. Subscribing to ignorance is not righteous. It is dishonest and shameful.

Africa – Homosexuality, Rape, And The Need For Education

On May 16, news broke that the President of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, had threatened to kill anybody caught seeking asylum in Europe by citing Gambia’s anti-gay laws. The article ( http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/gambia-president-threatens-to-kill-asylum-seekers-who-cite-anti-gay-laws/ ) on this story, as with all articles since, is a glaring example of just how dangerous the world still is for LGBTQ people.

Death threats, uses of words like “vermin,” likening LGBTQ people to malaria-causing mosquitoes … none of this surprises me. We’ve seen this before. We’ve seen it in Uganda, Zimbabwe, now Gambia, and other African nations. The reason I am writing about it now is because the African prejudice against LGBTQ people does not get the attention it should. Most of the reports on polls that I have seen reveal that the majority of people in choice countries on the continent of Africa are opposed to homosexuality (this is allegedly true even in South Africa, where same-sex relationships are legal, but the state routinely turns a blind eye to violent attacks against LGBTQ people). Laws against love are abundant, dolling out sentences of 14 years and more for having a relationship with somebody of the same sex; and they are widely supported by an approving citizenry (ie: 95% of the Ugandan population according to some estimates). Some people speak out about these crimes against human dignity on a regular basis, and it’s time for more of us to join them. For those living in this hell, this is not some issue to be dealt with eventually … evading capture, living in fear of being discovered, hiding in the shadows and living in slums to blend in … this is their everyday life. They are human beings. Our fellow human beings.

As often as I see stories about the deplorable treatment of LGBTQ people in Africa, I come across articles about rape being defended in those same countries. I have seen documentaries in which men tell the camera that rape is the fault of the woman, that she must not wear short skirts because that causes them to rape her. In February of this year we all heard of Uganda’s Minister for Ethics and Integrity, Simon Lokodo, saying that men raping girls is okay because it is heterosexual rape, “which is natural” ( http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ugandan-reverend-simon-lokodo-child-rape-better-homosexuality-video-1437976 ). This paradox wherein rape is acceptable but homosexuality is not is a grossly immoral ideal not often seen in our western discourse. It is common, however, in other places, and the root cause is ignorance. When a population is ignorant of something, in this case the inherent violence and subsequent harm caused by rape, there is nothing to prevent it from happening. In a patriarchal society, things that satisfy men are justified regardless of what consequences may befall the female victim. In Christian societies, and most of Africa has been Christian since colonialism, moral confusion drives the problem. Laws that are in direct conflict with the actions of the deity who imposes them serve to confuse the population to the point where we simultaneously have socially acceptable violence against women, and laws to prohibit and torture people who love the “wrong” person.

Now, I’m not going to suggest that an appropriate course of action is to barge in to Africa and tell them that we have a better way of life they must abide by. That happened in the past – it was called colonialism, and it destroyed the cultural fabric of every society it touched. What I suggest is that we educate. Society functions best when it is given quality education. Africa does not need missionaries, they don’t need more churches, and they don’t need a spiritual awakening as I’ve heard some people suggest. What Africa needs is the education that has been denied them by corrupt doctrines like “AIDS is bad but condoms are worse,” and “suffering is good because the last shall be first with thy father in heaven.” No, education must not be denied them any longer. With education, rape will eventually become unacceptable. With education, homosexuality will become something that is understood rather than reviled. With education, AIDS infections will begin to decline, and with education the laws of nations will change to reflect more empathic and unified societies.

These thoughts on the power of education may seem idealistic or insurmountable to anybody reading this, but it’s exactly what is working here in the west. Africa is the cradle of life, it is the birthplace of humanity. What a terrible disservice and disrespect has been paid by her descendants. People need not suffer any longer, and we need not sit idly by and watch it happen with self-righteous “empathy.” We can’t all go to Africa, but we can still speak out and make ourselves heard. We all have a voice, and we have a moral obligation to use it to defend those who are worthy. Those who have been denied proper education, and suffer because of it, are worthy. The people of Africa are worthy.

In Defence Of The West

After a brief two-week hiatus I am back to writing, and I have decided today to write about something I never thought I would feel the need to. It is no secret that the western world has many problems. In both Canada and the United States, governmental decisions are threatening to financially and morally bankrupt each nation, and things are not much better in many parts of Europe. The western world has become very good at doing many detrimental things, but there are criticisms from other parts of the world that I feel are unfair.

The name “Boko Haram” allegedly translates to “western education is sinful.” The terrorist organization that bears this name has been responsible for thousands of deaths in their jihad for sharia law. They recently kidnapped approximately 220 schoolgirls in Nigeria as a way to deny them an education that sharia dictates they are not permitted to have. When groups like this warn of the “evils” of western education, I take exception. In the western world, we are consistently looking for ways to change things in order to do what is best for the largest number of students. We are consistently collaborating with professionals in varying fields in order to ensure that the most accurate and effective information is taught. Perhaps most importantly, we are consistently enacting and promoting policies and programs that protect and nurture both male AND female students as they grow in character and knowledge. The education system in the west is generally progressive, positive, and moral. A system in which young women are not permitted to learn, a holy book is taught as fact, war is taught as a necessity, rape is taught as the fault of the woman, and non-believers must be punished if they speak against Allah or Mohammed, is grossly immoral. For those who subscribe to sharia law to claim that anyone else is “sinful” is a shameful testament to their willful ignorance of humanity.

I am not one to defend everything that we do in the west, and you need only to read anything else written on this site to see that. The problem I have here is that we are condemned and threatened for our “sinful ways” by people who feel a righteous obligation to rape, kill, and pillage; and this problem is not isolated to Muslim extremism or “Boko Haram.” The Islamic faith worships the God of Abraham, as do the Christian and Jewish faiths. In the Bible, slavery is condoned (see Exodus 21 for your ‘how-to’ guide), a virgin who is raped must marry her rapist after payment has been made to her father (Deuteronomy 22: 28-29), and Jesus came not to change the laws but to uphold them (Matthew 5: 17-20). There are many Muslims and Christians who are peaceful and even progressive in their approach to the world, and with them I have no issue. The point here is that the people who do pose a problem on account of their holy book(s) do not have any moral authority upon which they can stand to condemn the rest of us.

In the case of general education and way of life, I will defend my culture and the people who co-exist within it. We have many problems, but none so great as those who are loudest in their condemnation of us.