red fuzzy jesus

The Fireplace Dilusion

I absolutely LOVE this article from Steve Harris so I am posting it in its entirety. 

_{The Fireplace Delusion: A Metaphor for Religious Belief}

_{Why do we still have fires despite their obvious harm to our health and the environment? Sam Harris on what our stubborn love of fires reveals about human nature and religion.}

by Sam Harris  | February 3, 2012 12:10 AM EST

It seems to me that many nonbelievers have forgotten—or never knew—what it is like to suffer an unhappy collision with scientific rationality. We are open to good evidence and sound argument as a matter of principle, and are generally willing to follow wherever they may lead. Certain of us have made careers out of bemoaning the failure of religious people to adopt this same attitude.

However, I recently stumbled upon an example of secular intransigence that may give readers a sense of how religious people feel when their beliefs are criticized. It’s not a perfect analogy, as you will see, but the rigorous research I’ve conducted at dinner parties suggests that it is worth thinking about. We can call the phenomenon “the fireplace delusion.”

On a cold night, most people consider a well-tended fire to be one of the more wholesome pleasures that humanity has produced. A fire, burning safely within the confines of a fireplace or a wood stove, is a visible and tangible source of comfort to us. We love everything about it: the warmth, the beauty of its flames, and—unless one is allergic to smoke—the smell that it imparts to the surrounding air.

I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not only wrong but dangerously misguided. I mean to seriously convince you of this—so you can consider it in part a public service announcement—but please keep in mind that I am drawing an analogy. I want you to be sensitive to how you feel, and to notice the resistance you begin to muster as you consider what I have to say.  
 
Because wood is among the most natural substances on earth, and its use as a fuel is universal, most people imagine that burning wood must be a perfectly benign thing to do. Breathing winter air scented by wood smoke seems utterly unlike puffing on a cigarette or inhaling the exhaust from a passing truck. But this is an illusion.

Getty Images

Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: there is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as cigarette smoke, and probably much worse. (One study found it to be 30 times more potent a carcinogen.) The smoke from an ordinary wood fire contains hundreds of compounds known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and irritating to the respiratory system. Most of the particles generated by burning wood are smaller than one micron—a size believed to be most damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so fine that they can evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into the bloodstream, posing a risk to the heart. Particles this size also resist gravitational settling, remaining airborne for weeks at a time.

Once they have exited your chimney, the toxic gases (e.g. benzene) and particles that make up smoke freely pass back into your home and into the homes of others. (Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke reenters nearby buildings.) Children who live in homes with active fireplaces or woodstoves, or in areas where wood burning is common, suffer a higher incidence of asthma, cough, bronchitis, nocturnal awakening, and compromised lung function. Among adults, wood burning is associated with more-frequent emergency room visits and hospital admissions for respiratory illness, along with increased mortality from heart attacks. The inhalation of wood smoke, even at relatively low levels, alters pulmonary immune function, leading to a greater susceptibility to colds, flus, and other respiratory infections. All these effects are borne disproportionately by children and the elderly.

The unhappy truth about burning wood has been scientifically established to a moral certainty: that nice, cozy fire in your fireplace is bad for you. It is bad for your children. It is bad for your neighbors and their children. Burning wood is also completely unnecessary, because in the developed world we invariably have better and cleaner alternatives for heating our homes. If you are burning wood in the United States, Europe, Australia, or any other developed nation, you are most likely doing so recreationally—and the persistence of this habit is a major source of air pollution in cities throughout the world. In fact, wood smoke often contributes more harmful particulates to urban air than any other source.

In the developing world, the burning of solid fuel in the home is a genuine scourge, second only to poor sanitation as an environmental health risk. In 2000, the World Health Organization estimated that it caused nearly 2 million premature deaths each year—considerably more than were caused by traffic accidents.

I suspect that many of you have already begun to marshal counterarguments of a sort that will be familiar to anyone who has debated the validity and usefulness of religion. Here is one: human beings have warmed themselves around fires for tens of thousands of years, and this practice was instrumental in our survival as a species. Without fire there would be no material culture. Nothing is more natural to us than burning wood to stay warm.

True enough. But many other things are just as natural—such as dying at the ripe old age of 30. Dying in childbirth is eminently natural, as is premature death from scores of diseases that are now preventable. Getting eaten by a lion or a bear is also your birthright—or would be, but for the protective artifice of civilization—and becoming a meal for a larger carnivore would connect you to the deep history of our species as surely as the pleasures of the hearth ever could. For nearly two centuries the divide between what is natural—and all the needless misery that entails—and what is goodhas been growing. Breathing the fumes issuing from your neighbor’s chimney, or from your own, now falls on the wrong side of that divide.

The case against burning wood is every bit as clear as the case against smoking cigarettes. Indeed, it is even clearer, because when you light a fire, you needlessly poison the air that everyone around you for miles must breathe. Even if you reject every intrusion of the “nanny state,” you should agree that the recreational burning of wood is unethical and should be illegal, especially in urban areas. By lighting a fire, you are creating pollution that you cannot dispose. It might be the clearest day of the year, but burn a sufficient quantity of wood and the air in the vicinity of your home will resemble a bad day in Beijing. Your neighbors should not have to pay the cost of this archaic behavior of yours. And there is no way they can transfer this cost to you in a way that would preserve their interests. Therefore, even libertarians should be willing to pass a law prohibiting the recreational burning of wood in favor of cleaner alternatives (like gas).

If you care about your family’s health and that of your neighbors, the sight of a glowing hearth should be about as comforting as the sight of a diesel engine idling in your living room.

I have discovered that when I make this case, even to highly intelligent and health-conscious men and women, a psychological truth quickly becomes as visible as a pair of clenched fists: they do not want to believe any of it. Most people I meet want to live in a world in which wood smoke is harmless. Indeed, they seem committed to living in such a world, regardless of the facts. To try to convince them that burning wood is harmful—and has always been so—is somehow offensive. The ritual of burning wood is simply too comforting and too familiar to be reconsidered, its consolation so ancient and ubiquitous that it has to be benign. The alternative—burning gas over fake logs—seems a sacrilege.

And yet, the reality of our situation is scientifically unambiguous: if you care about your family’s health and that of your neighbors, the sight of a glowing hearth should be about as comforting as the sight of a diesel engine idling in your living room. It is time to break the spell and burn gas—or burn nothing at all.

Of course, if you are anything like my friends, you will refuse to believe this. And that should give you some sense of what we are up against whenever we confront religion.

To read more of Sam Harris, visit here.

 

Close Encounters of the Buddhist Kind

[From Foreign Policy]

Picture this: millions of followers gathering around a central shrine that looks like a giant UFO in elaborately choreographed Nuremberg-style rallies; missionary outposts in 31 countries from Germany to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; an evangelist vision that seeks to promote a "world morality restoration project"; and a V-Star program that encourages hundreds of thousands of children to improve "positive moral behavior." Although the Bangkok-based Dhammakaya movement dons saffron robes, not brown shirts, its flamboyant ceremonies have become increasingly bold displays of power for this cult-like Buddhist group that was founded in the 1970s, ironically, as a reform movement opposed to the excesses of organized religion in Thailand.

Yet, despite the pageantry, the inner workings of this fast-growing movement are little known to Thailand's general public, and certainly to the rest of the world, though its teachings loom large among the legions of devotees. The veil of secrecy parted briefly in late 1999, when two top Dhammakaya leaders were charged with embezzlement in what many considered a political ploy to suppress the temple's growing power. The charges were dismissed in 2006 after the former abbot and a colleague returned some land and nearly 1 billion baht ($32 million) to temple control.

This obscurity is because -- despite its 24-hour satellite TV station -- Dhammakaya has diligently worked to avoid the limelight. Until now. Over the past year, photographer Luke Duggleby and reporter Ron Gluckman have been granted unrivaled access to the facilities and ceremonies of Dhammakaya, and they provide an exclusive look at this mesmerizing movement.

[source]

Intelligence Squared Debate on NPR

Would the world be better off without religion?

I absolutely love this debate on religion held at NYU and broadcast on NPR. I have my own opinions on the subject of course, but I don't have time now to go into much detail. In brief, I'll say that the question is not clear on whether the world remains the same other than the departure of religion, or if humans experience a change that makes religion no longer necessary making the world better because that evolution has occured. Regardless, both sides do a good job of defending their positions and the conversation is fascinating.

Recording here

Link here

Sean Faircloth on Sex: Notes from Attack of the Theocrats (Chap. 4)

Great book: definitely on my to-read list...

 

You Just Haven't Spoken to the Right People

This article addresses something that is hard to counter effectively. It's called Are All Religions Equally Crazy? Many people who are critical of belief systems are told that they just haven't spoken to the correct spokesperson for that belief system. One has over focused on the extremist or the lay person or the misworded and verbose. It's a cop out. It's a way of brushing aside criticism of the one thing you're not supposed to question or criticize.

I remember when I posted a clip from Bill Maher's Religulous, a colleague (and rather nasty critic of free thought in general) commented that Maher had only interviewed dim bulbs. Maher hadn't but that's beside the point. There's the idea that critics just don't understand because they haven't talked to the right people. Who are the right people? No matter who speaks for religion they are declared the inadequate spokesperson. There are mythical beings out there that we are supposed to be asking these questions of but no one can quite point out who they are.

Consider this quote from the artilce, "Believers often accuse us of ignoring more moderate and progressive religions while we trash the low-hanging fruit of hard-line fundamentalism. We're accused of disregarding sophisticated modern theology so we can zero in on the simplistic faiths held by the hoi polloi. (Neither accusation is fair; many atheists, including myself, have taken aim at both modern theology and progressive religion, and in any case fundamentalism and other widely held religions are valid targets for critique -- but that's another rant.) Yet at the same time, many believers seek our approval for their particular beliefs. "Sure," they'll say, "a lot of those other religions are silly -- but my religion makes sense! Don't you agree? Don't you? Huh?"

It's a two faced condemnation of inquiry and desire for approval. It also assumes the critic just doesn't understand your views rather than has any valid thing to add. It comes in different forms, harsh spite that calls critics intolerant or pity that pats them on the head. Those poor lost souls just don't understand. But rarely does a rabbid defender of faith actually ever defend faith. The best I've heard is that it has a positive effect on the individual's psyche and still serves an important organizing role in society. Neither of those defenses speak to its truth or necessity - just its convenience. Perhaps I have also not spoken to the correct spokesperson for goblins or the moderate unicornist. Perhaps I over focus on the unicorn extremist and the fairy fundamentalists. And perhaps I'm an elvinphobe for criticising those that angrily proclaim truth in elves while simultaneously incapable of defending their belief in elves. I just need to find the right spokesperson for elves, and unicorns, and talking snakes, and pregnant virgins, and flying horses, and rape victim stoners or whatever else is ignored, brushed aside, explained away because I really just don't understand the complexity of these things. 

The full text of the entire article is wonderful and you owe it to yourself to read what the author has to say. Unless, of course, you assume she's just never spoken to the right person.

The Difference Between Rational Criticism and Irrational Fear

This is an issue I legitimately struggle with.  On one hand, there is a huge problem with hateful, ignorance Islamophobia.  Much of the Islamophobia one sees on the news is a banal fear of the other.  People are different so ignorance of their faith or their culture leads to assuming the worst.  And the use of ‘their’ is also inaccurate because there is a misconception that Muslims are all from other countries or not part of the West.  The rednecks protesting the community center in Manhattan are just ignorant of Islam.  Victoria Jackson on CNN saying Muslims “hate God” is equally sad and funny.  However, there is a rationalist critique of faith and the relationship between faith and power that warrants examination.  And I think it is unfair to lump all critics of Islam together.

There is a difference between being a critic of faith out of principle and being ignorant and disliking people simply because they differ.  Atheist scholars, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, should not be categorized with attendees at Tea Party protests carrying signs calling President Obama a communist Muslim.  (This shows a glaring ignorance of both Marx and Islam.)  According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Atheists actually know more about religion than the faithful.  So we should not dismiss historians, scientists, and theologians in the same way we shake our heads at Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin. 

All criticism is not created equal.  Every area of human existence is subject to scrutiny among a variety of disciplines.  But, question anyone’s religion and you are suddenly an ignorant bigot who just doesn’t know about Islam, or some other faith.  We cordon off religion as immune from scrutiny.  This infantilizes religious people by treating them as incapable of explaining or defending why they believe.  Religious people should be able to recognize academic discussion and rational inquiry rather than assume all criticism is rooted in fear.  And individuals should be comfortable enough with their faith to endure criticism in the same way that mature, well-adjusted adults can absorb questioning on any other aspect of their lives. 

Investigating Miracle Detectives

I’m a bit disappointed by the show Miracle Detectives on the new OWN Network. Maybe I expected too much. The show is sort of a real life X-files. A man and a woman investigate claims of miracles. “Miracles” are undefined but, broadly speaking, they are unexplained stories from people who have feelings. The man is the believer. He claims to have been visited during a storm by ghost nuns years ago and credits that experience for believing in miracles. The woman is a scientist who claims to use the scientific method to evaluate miracle claims. If that’s her role, she doesn’t do it very well.

I get the point of the show. The man and woman appear to be at odds and then close out each episode leaving the viewer with an eerie feeling that something could have happened because there were feelings and emotions experienced by the people affected. Evidence of miracles include feeling better, healing from diseases people regularly recover from, seeing lights or outlines that look “exactly like angels” etc. etc.

In one episode, magic dirt is believed to have healing powers. The evidence of its healing: (pause for amazement) crutches left behind by the healed and the fact that 20 to 30 thousand people visit the site every year. First of all, people will believe anything. A small Scottish town has perpetuated the myth of the Loch Ness Monster for decades because it brings in tourists who go on monster tours and buy Nessie t-shirts. (For a hilarious look at how charlatans perpetuate known falsehoods to a gullible public for cash check out Penn and Teller’s exposé.) 

The fact that the keepers of the magic dirt temple have crutches lined up at its entrance proves nothing – unless you’re the man on this show that desperately wants to believe everything. For one, the owners want to attract 20 to 30 thousand visitors every year so they could have lined up those crutches themselves. Also, people heal from hurt legs all the time. It’s not a miracle to heal from an injured leg with or without magic dirt. What is amazing is why these “believers” never believe god, or angels, or magic dirt, or magic water heal anything that doesn’t heal itself. They never claim that the magic dirt regenerates an amputated limb. That would be a miracle because limbs on humans never grow back. Miracle peddlers only sell things as miracles that can happen on their own. This is hilariously covered on the site Why Won’t God Heal Amputees.

God is credited for curing the flu, cancer, anemia, broken bones, headaches, back problems, food poisoning, and a long list of maladies. But he has never once given someone a missing limb back. Why?  If the power of miracles fixes all these other problems, why not amputation?  Does God hate our troops?  No, all of these problems are self-limiting. But, a woman rubbed magic dirt on her leg and later she no longer had cancer. It must have been the magic dirt. Miracle confirmed!

Supposedly an angel helped get a little girl off of life support. The evidence for this miracle: a woman has been a nurse for 30 years and did not think the patient would survive. But then she saw an angel on her computer monitor and the patient did survive. Also, and here’s the real confirmation, she felt the presence of something. Proof!  Miracle confirmed!  There is absolutely no possible scientific explanation for why a patient would recover from a serious condition or why someone would feel a presence at work.

Granted, the scientific woman does a demonstration to show how sun coming through the window can create the bright light that is purported to be photographic evidence of an angel visiting the little girl. But this demonstration is interspersed with miracle man claiming there’s a culture war between people who believe and those who have to have scientific evidence. He gets into a quasi-argument with another scientific commentator that calls his beliefs subjective and un-provable. So mean! 

After seeing the demonstration of the sun coming through the window and making the exact same image of the supposed angel, he admits that the image might not be an actual angel. But, he cannot ignore the timing of the sunlight with the girl’s miraculous recovery. Sunshine created a pattern on a wall at the same time a girl recovered from a serious condition. That’s all it takes to make this guy believe an angel visited the hospital and healed this little girl while presumably dozens of other patients suffered and died simultaneously. Angels are very busy and choosy about whom they help.

The last line of that episode went to the science woman. After showing miracle man how the light coming through the window looks like an angel…  After showing him that the girl actually recovered because part of her treatment was discontinued, he still says it’s a miracle because of the timing. And she says, “Well, it just shows you how two people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. That’s the power of perception. I think that’s fine.”  She’s a scientist?!

So scientists run controlled experiments and it’s okay to write in the conclusion, “Angel visitation.” It’s just ridiculous. I was hoping this show would be more like Myth Busters. Myth Busters is still a TV show but they do produce quasi-scientific recreations and dispel ridiculous claims. Miracle Detectives has a “scientist” shrugging at the end that maybe magic dirt cures cancer and maybe light on a monitor from a window is an angel stopping by. What scientist goes along with a nurse claiming to feel a presence as “evidence”? 

Plants generate sugars through a process of photosynthesis… or fairies visit with magic sparkle dust!  Cells divide through a process of meiosis… or tiny unicorns cut the cells with their horns!  A little girl recovers from an illness because the treatment she was given was interfering with her immune system’s efforts to fight it… or an angel visited her with magic kisses!  You can’t prove it isn’t fairies or unicorns or angels and, by the way, people feel presences. Therefore, if you dismiss claims of miracles then you’re just part of a “culture war” according to miracle man, and you need to show more respect to people’s beliefs.

What’s funny is that these people don’t show adequate deference for their own beliefs. The woman with cancer did not choose magic dirt as her only course of treatment. The parents of the little girl didn’t keep her home. If an angel can visit you in a hospital and heal you there it can just as easily get into your bedroom. Why go to the hospital at all if what “we’re really dealing with is something bigger than medicine.” Also, that’s a pretty inconsiderate angel.  Why did the angel wait until after the little girl had been in the hospital for a long time to show up?  That angel could have saved the little girl’s life and her parents a lot of money on medical bills if she would have been more punctual.  Was the angel busy? 

Angels and dirt only get the credit after medical intervention. Miracle man can claim that skeptics aren’t respecting others beliefs but the next time he becomes seriously ill, I’m guessing he won’t refuse medical attention and wait for his angel.

Respecting someone’s belief does not require a suspension of observation or a false equivalence between the scientific method and feeling presences. I can respect your personal belief in so far as it helps give your life meaning and purpose but I will not resort to feelings and angels in the place of scientific explanations. I think this kind of soft spirituality, in which anything coincidental or not immediately explicable is connected to metaphysical, is not as dangerous as virulent and violent religious fundamentalism. But I also think it allows people to claim evolution is a matter of belief or deny global warming or belittle scientific inquiry. The miracle man on the show even says he “feels like he’s being led into a mad scientists laboratory” when he’s in a room to see how light on a computer monitor can look like an angel. Yep, totally crazy mad scientist stuff there, buddy. These scientists in the “culture war” are so kooky. Stick with the nurse that feels things.

Miracle Detectives misses the opportunity to be a show that actually informs viewers about the human capacity for wish projection and delusion. There is much to be mined in the series to show how people really, really want something to be true so they talk themselves into sincerely believing in things that aren’t there. It could also expose the crude profiteering of “shaman” selling magic dirt. Instead, it has a “scientific” woman furrowing her brow and claiming the light could really be an angel. I prefer Showtime’s version of this series: Bullshit! 

Et Tu, FOX News?

If you are a conservative group and even FOX News is ridiculing you, you're way outside of the mainstream.  I like this conversation from last week on FOX News' Red Eye.  It's not really funny - though it tries so hard - but it has some valuable insight.  Recently SLPC certified hate groups, like the FRC and Peter LaBarbera of AFTAH, have made a big show on their websites about pulling out of CPAC because GOProud is a part of the conference.  Surprise surprise, no one at CPAC cares.  It's funny how quickly anti-gay groups are losing relevance even among conservatives.  It's a real sign of progress when even FOX News doesn't buy the anti-gay hate. 

 

What's even funnier is Peter LaBarbera is throwing a hissy fit.  He makes the tired old claim that, "Guilfoyle, with all her legal training and Catholic schooling, would have at least challenged Gutfeld’s sophomoric thesis of Moral-Opposition-to-Homosexuality = “Hate”.  No one - not FOX News, not the SPLC, not any gay rights activist - is equating moral opposition with hate.  They are calling hate hate.

I emailed Peter to correct him.  I know it won't do any good but it's catheratic to call him on his crap.  Here's an excerpt:

"Fox News' Red Eye did not equate moral opposition to homosexuality with hate.  There's a difference between the two.

Moral opposition to homosexuality looks like this:
I believe gay sex acts are wrong according to my religion.  Therefore, to please god people who are attracted to others of the same gender should remain celibate.  There's nothing hateful about that. 

Hate, on the other hand, includes things like this:
- Targeting an entire group of people with baseless stereotypes
- Advocating for civil and legal persecution because people do not adhere to your religious prescriptions
- Using bogus research like the work of Paul Cameron
- Supporting discrimination in housing and employment based on your "moral opposition."  That goes farther than mere moral opposition. 
- Designating an entire class of people as 'less than'.

"I morally oppose your "religious" viewpoints.  However, I do not advocate that you be fired (if you had a real job), excluded from the military, denied housing, denied hospital visitation rights, or treated unfairly by the law in ANY way based on my moral opposition to your religion.  If I did support unequal treatment under the law, that alone would be hateful, not my moral opposition." 

The use of hate - as opposed to so-called "moral opposition" - has been well documented by several different sources, including this.  I've started exploring the topic of What Is Hate in more depth and I hope to continue in the coming weeks, including examinations of things such as Islamophobia.  For now, I'll close with a funny video of Peter LaBarbera's local news calling him out for running a hate group. 

Anti-Gay Chicago Groups Make 'Hate List': MyFoxCHICAGO.com

 

 

What Is Hate?

This is a topic I have dealt with several times before and one I hope to continue to explore in more detail.  It’s certainly more than I can explore in one or even five posts so I am going to dedicate several articles to the topic in the coming weeks.  To begin, last month the Southern Poverty Law Center designated five Christian Right, anti-gay groups as official hate groups.  The SPLC has had a long history of identifying hate groups in the United States.  The list, especially the anti-gay part of it, is relatively short.  They have very strict criteria and a high (or low) bar for inclusion.  In addition to the five new inductees, the SPLC also listed several anti-gay groups to watch. 

In listing these new hate groups, the SPLC made it clear that moral/religious/theological opposition to homosexuality alone is not enough to qualify as a hate group.  Saying, for example, that homosexuality is sinful according to one’s religion does not qualify as hate.  What does get a group listed as a hate group are things like relying on bogus “studies” and manufactured “research” to negatively depict a subset of the population.  In their Intelligence Report, the SPLC describes its criteria as:

“Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.”

In that report, 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda, they cover why each group fits all or part of those criteria.  The report also links to 10 Myths about Homosexuality that are promulgated and repeated, groundlessly, over and over again on Christian Right websites.  Again, only five groups have the designation of being anti-gay hate groups.  The two groups that have garnered the most attention are the Family Research Counsel (FRC) and a “group” I have spent a lot of time covering called Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).  Note: I put group in quotes because it’s more or less one guy, Peter LaBarbera, with a nasty website. 

Immediately after being declared a hate group for perpetuating the myth that gay men are pedophiles, AFTAH threw up a post suggesting that gay men are pedophiles.  Of course, that myth has already been discredited about a million times.  The FRC is notable because they are a large, powerful group that holds an annual “Values Voters” summit in DC with a long list of GOP luminaries.  Equally of note is the fact that Focus on the Family is not on the list because they have moderated their anti-gay rhetoric and essentially pushed James Dobson out the door last year.

Predictably, these groups have played the victim.  Almost uniformly Christian Right groups on and off the list have claimed that the SPLC is really a hate group and that they are being targeted because they oppose the so-called “homosexual agenda.”  None of these groups, however, address the real reasons they were put on the list, including using the research of discredited “psychologist” Paul Cameron (hilariously featured in Borat) or inaccurately linking homosexuality to childhood abuse.  The use of these stereotypes and fake “research” is well documented and all over their websites so it’s not like they can claim they don’t spread falsehoods.  So, all they can really do is claim that they are somehow the victims of persecution at the hands of the SPLC. 

The FRC launched a site “Stop Hating/Start Debating” with a long list of big wigs within the Christian Right movement as well as some notable politicians signing on.  Their claim, of course, is that they are just arguing their moral viewpoint and that there deserves to be a dialogue.  Of course, the Stop Hating site includes no place for comments or feedback.  In fact, most anti-gay sites, including AFTAH, offer no place for comments while gay rights organizations always have space for comments. 

In the Family Research Council Statement on Attack by Southern Poverty Law Center they claims,

“This is a deliberately timed smear campaign by the SPLC.  The Left is losing the debate over ideas and the direction of public policy so all that is left for them is character assassination.  It's a sad day in America when we can not, with integrity, have a legitimate discussion over policy issues that are being considered by Congress, legislatures, and the courts without resorting to juvenile tactics of name calling. The Left's smear campaigns of conservatives is also being driven by the clear evidence that the American public is losing patience with their radical policy agenda.”

Never mind for the moment that all signs point to greater acceptance of gay people across the board in the United States, note how the FRC says they are being smeared and attacked by leftists.  They do not answer the charges or construct a counter argument to the SLPC’s claims.  Other Christian Right groups have followed suit.

Concerned Women for America (CWFA) in their response claimed,

“A recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center demonizes mainstream pro-family groups as "hate groups," simply because of their stand against the pro-LGBT agenda and same-sex "marriage”."

[Note how marriage is always put in quotes.]  They give a deliberate mischaracterization of the SLPC report that specifically says those are not the reasons given for being added to the list.  Again, there is no defense of using faulty research or perpetuating stereotypes.  Instead, they assume a posture of victimhood and lie about the criteria used by the SLPC.

AFTAH’s response was particularly… odd.

“Below is a useful article by Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute — on the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) preposterous smear-job against mainstream pro-family groups (including AFTAH, IFI, Family Research Council, and AFA) as “hate groups” because we oppose homosexuality and LGBT (“gay”) activism.”

It’s hard to reproduce his quotes because they are so convoluted.  The games AFTAH plays with language are astounding.  To Peter LaBarbera no one is gay.  Gay people are not fighting for legitimate rights.  Unions between gay people are not marriages.  What AFTAH does is not hate.  Etc. Etc.  So “gay” “rights” same-sex “marriage” and anti-gay “hate” are all put in quotes, making LaBarbera sometimes very difficult to read.  The article he references is worth reading if for no other reason than providing a case study in Christian Right self-delusion.  They claim they are the ones under attack.  (Note: no one has ever suggested any Christian, no matter how conservative, be fired from their jobs, denied medical care, denied a civil marriage, kicked out of the military, on and on.  That doesn’t stop these groups from claiming that gay groups are actually the ones victimizing them.)

These groups, like AFTAH, the FRC, American Family Association, and the Illinois Family Institute, have advocated that gay people be deported from the United States, quarantined, jailed, fired – especially gay teachers, and purged from political office.  That’s not some liberal smear.  That’s not a hyperbolic interpretation of their reasonable, more civil arguments.  That’s documented, over and over again, as their official positions. 

And yes, that is hate.  That’s what hate is.  Depicting an entire group as somehow “less than,” going to extreme measures to produce phony “research” to perpetuate stereotypes, and calling for draconian legal persecution in basic areas of life including the ability to have a home, earn a living, receive medical care, get married, adopt kids, and serve in the military… all of these things are hate.  And if you do them as an official group you are a hate group.  Pointing these things out – as the SPLC and other groups have done in great detail – is NOT some parallel expression of hate.  The FRC is right, there should be a dialogue about policy matters and no one is saying these groups should not advocate for laws or candidates they support.  The hope, however, is that these groups will participate in politics without using known falsehoods.  I have doubts that they’ll actually be able to. 

The case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger provides another angle on how hate groups operate.  Perry is the Prop 8 case out of California currently in federal appeals court in the 9th Circuit.  The original district court decision noted the anemic defense of Prop 8 by anti-gay “pro-marriage” groups.  At one point, the judge in that case actually expressed his concern while the case was being argued asking why the anti-gay side didn’t have more witnesses. 

Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, a leading group in the campaign for Prop 8 and producer of the now infamous “coming storm” ad, refused to get on the stand and testify.  Why?  Because when you are in a courtroom being cross-examined under oath you can’t just make stuff up or you’ll face perjury charges.  The other side’s attorneys will reveal you.  It’s one thing to go on Hardball and lie or produce political campaign ads that contain nebulous, nefarious claims of a “coming storm.”  But these same groups will NOT testify ever in a court of law.  They refuse to because they know they can neither specify harm nor validate their claims.

Several times, while following the various struggles for gay rights, I have muttered to myself, “When will we fight back?”   It’s a reflexive mental exasperation after viewing some of the things these groups do.  And, I’ve pondered what I really mean by that sentiment.  Certainly there have been groups and civil rights activists for a long time fighting hard for equality.  But it’s not enough to just say gay people deserve equal treatment under the law.  It’s not enough to stress the separation of church and state or, more accurately, the freedom of conscience.  We as a movement and a people need to start pointing out the lies used against us including the fake research.  When a news shows cites this false research or treats the FRC as a legitimate group making legitimate points, we need to call them out on it.  The SLPC’s careful documentation of what counts as anti-gay hate is a huge step in the direction of really fighting back. 

I was pleased when I finally saw evidence of this on Hardball with Chris Matthews.  Matthews had on Mark Potok from the SPLC and Tony Perkins from the FRC to debate the new anti-gay hate groups list.  Not surprisingly, Perkins loosely cited research from the American College of Pediatricians as if it was real research and Matthews did nothing to call him out on it.  The American College of Pediatricians is a sham organization that produces fake “research” to support Christian Right claims.  Their name and website are deliberately designed to mimic the legitimate American Academy of Pediatrics. It’s astounding the lengths the College goes to to look like the real organization.  I pointed out this distinction in my paper Dominionism and Epistemology years ago.  One of the founders of the “College”, the notoriously anti-gay George Rekers, was involved in a scandal last year when it was discovered that he went on vacation with a young male prostitute from rentboy.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has thousands of professional pediatricians and child psychologists as members and represents the breadth and consensus of those fields.  The American College of Pediatricians is a sham group started by hard right activists specifically to pretend to be medical professionals while churning out bogus, biased “research” to support Christian Right claims. 

After a few days, and a lot of emails from pro-gay viewers, Matthews provided a follow-up statement on Hardball essentially apologizing for allowing Perkins to use a fake group and fake research – the very act that got FRC on the hate groups lists.  In that moment, I felt like that was substantive push back.  Headlines covering the correction said things like, “Chris Matthews BUSTS Tony Perkins' Lies About Fake Pediatricians Group” and “MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Clears Up Anti-Gay Misinformation”

If more journalists and politicians call groups like the FRC out for their crap or refuse to have groups on air that use such dishonest tactics, it will largely exclude the Christian Right from the debate.  Chris Matthews could very easily tell the FRC that he will not allow anyone to come on his show if they do something dishonest like referencing a fake group to back up their claims.

That is why these CR groups claim victimhood, as if someone is trying to silence them.  But, it’s not silencing if the standard is honesty.  What the FRC groups and others fear is a changing political and cultural landscape as well as the basic expectation that they tell the truth or rely on sound research from real academics published in peer-reviewed journals.  The problem is, there is no sound research showing gays harm kids, spread disease, are mentally ill, poison blood supplies, etc. So, if forced to be honest in their discourse their arguments are reduced to sectarian animus.

Merry Christmas from Ricky Gervais

This is a great, thought provoking holiday message from Ricky Gervais.  I think it's good because he's obviously not an academic making traditional Dawkins-esque arguments.  But, he still explains himself very well in a warm and humorous way. 

A Holiday Message From Ricky Gervais: Why I’m an Atheist

Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith.” I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,” comes across as both patronizing and impolite. (continue reading)