Glatze not presenting credible death threats

Timothy Kincaid

December 10th, 2013

Those of you who have felt concern for the physical safety of Michael Glatze and his family can rest at ease. After some communication, it has become clear that Glatze either cannot or will not confirm that he has actually ever received a direct threat to his personal life or wellbeing.

He has read unkind things written about him on the internet and he’s hurt. And he does appear anguished that people may doubt that he loves his God.

I also believe that he genuinely does think that his testimony is relevant and challenging and that gay people want him dead. But the threats – as best I can tell – are amorphous and the fear seems otherwise based.

I wish Michael Glatze peace and healing. I think the kindest thing is to give him our best wishes and hope that his marriage and his life go well.


December 10th, 2013

The best I can give him is apathy.


December 10th, 2013

it really must be unsettling to be such an colossal amount of nothing.

Regan DuCasse

December 10th, 2013

I’m so over the ex gays who claim such profound conversion, treating anything short of fawning praise for it, a ‘threat’.
They need an exhausting amount of validation for it.
And THAT is not normal.
Affecting heterosexuality is hardly an accomplishment.
Everyone has a sexual orientation, big deal.
Being a gay person who is socially well adjusted despite the kinds of efforts that Glatze engages in creating a hostile, distrustful environment for gay people IS an accomplishment.
He couldn’t cut it as a gay man. He needs to own that and then go away.
I’m heterosexual myself, I don’t know why anyone would think that’s some kind of Holy Grail of existence.
It’s NOT.
Heterosexuals are common, not morally exceptional.
And that’s all.

Paul Douglas

December 11th, 2013

Once again Regan, you rock. Michael Glatze should just embrace his new found & obviously joyous heterosexual lifestyle and shut up. Man up Michael and be like most heterosexual guys and just live your own life. You have so much to look forward to! Why bother proselytizing the rest of us about it?

Christianist fundagelicals have embraced a martyrdom cult. They thrive on stories of overcoming satan, the culture, persecution and all kinds of opposition to their relationship with their god. Testimony Time is one of their favorite rituals and they subtly compete to present themselves as formerly the most despicable person one could imagine until their god came down and miraculously saved them. I imagine Michael’s “Testimony” will grow with time and repeated iteration. Fundagelical faith is based on emotion and subjective numinous experiences that they have allowed to be interpreted by a certain radical, activist segment of the christian religion (one that has been highly visible, political and on the ascendancy in the world over the past 40 years). They do not assess evidence the way most people do: any experience or information they receive has to be filtered through the lens of what their 2000+ year old hodge-podge collection of bible writings (might) say and of course how their flavor-of the-season “Pastor” explains it to them. The only way to escape this prison is for religionistas to start letting go of the assumptions they cling to, and to start to look at the events in their lives and the world around them based only evidence and parsimonious explanations. Not easy for humans in general but especially difficult when you’ve become addicted to the confirmation bias that religious dogma tends to inculcate in your thinking patterns.
I suspect Michael has a long struggle ahead to figure himself out. The emotional drug of religion makes it harder and harder to do that IMHO.
Full disclosure: I am an ex-christianist.


December 11th, 2013

It is too much effort even to say I don’t care.

Timothy Kincaid

December 11th, 2013


I counted no fewer than three slurs. Your message gets lost in your name-calling.

Please don’t do that.


December 11th, 2013

Timothy, I have read Paul’s post several times and can find no slurs. What do you regard as a slur? Just curious

Timothy Kincaid

December 11th, 2013


I was refering to “fundagelicals”, “religionistas”, and “christianist”.

These are all slang terms created to do nothing but indicate one’s contempt for others. In short, name calling.

They are similar to “homosexualits” and “Obamabots” and similar terms that are offensive and often used by those who oppose civil equality.

Calling names is fun in a childish sort of way and allows one to experience a shared hatred of ‘the other’, but it distracts from serious discussion or legitimate debate.


December 12th, 2013

Not to digress, but I think the term “christianist” is a quite accurate and useful term for those who want to use the power of the state to impose their version of Christianity on the rest of us.

Timothy Kincaid

December 12th, 2013


Though it’s a bit better defined than the other two, unless you know someone who actually goes by that term or who accepts its meaning to include their efforts, it remains a slur and a phrase designed merely to express dislike. It is quite like “homosexualist” in that way.

And while it might be fun for Peter LaBarbera and I to sit some time and scream “homosexualist” and “christianist” at each other, it would be even more fun to use “poopie-head” and “booger-eater”.


December 13th, 2013

Unfortunately, this video is the kind of Christ centered support Glatze missed out on in his life. And though the kid who stars in this video is partially disabled, gay and bisexual people do not fall into this category. Nonetheless, had Glatze had true authentic Christian support known only for a short time during and after Jesus departed the scene, his life struggles most likely would not have been nearly as difficult as he has chosen to make them out to be.



December 14th, 2013

I take your point. However my understanding of those terms is not so much to create contempt (though of course they probably do) but to differentiate between Christians who are utterly unlike each other. You yourself have complained when people say things generalising about Christians and their beliefs, claiming this is unfair to most Christians who do not agree with the more extreme points of view. Hence people have tried to differentiate by I suppose creating a name for those vocal and powerful groups who claim to be speaking on behalf of all Christians, when they clearly do not.

How then do we refer to these people who seem to genuinely believe that their version of Christianity trumps all, unless we do recognise them as a sub class and give them a different name??

Timothy Kincaid

December 14th, 2013


It is better to use clear language like “conservative Christians” or “social conservatives” or even if you want to make your point using strong language “theocrats” works.

When we get in the habit of making up names to call others, we have almost no hope of appealing to them.

How well do you respond to “homosexualist” or “homofacist” even when those who use those terms insist that they aren’t speaking about “all people who are struggling with same sex attraction”?

And it is my experience in reading the terms that no one is actually using “Christianist” as a means of distinction between two different camps of Christians. Rather, it is used in place of the wold “Christian”, always is used as a slur or term of contempt, and seldom – if ever – is used by anyone who considers themselves to be a Christian.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.