Box Turtle Bulletin

It’s sad churches like this never make it to news stations and websites.

Rob in San Diego

Marriage is a religious right, it’s just that our government has meddled to far in it. Which forced us to demand equal rights. If the church does not want to officiate any weddings, same sex or straight then that is their right. So long as they are being equal about it then that’s fine. Let their heterosexuals suffer, now they know how we feel.

msrowena

You’re “pullen” my leg! This is actually pretty heartening. We hear so much about the roadblocks in MSM and elsewhere, that sometimes the small voice in the night is so welcome.

Argo

From the linked N&O article:

The vote was unanimous and brought tears to the eyes of some of the 100 or so members who stood to vote in favor of the “statement on marriage ceremonies.”

It also brought a tear to my eye; unanimousâ€”bless them.

Lindoro Almaviva

Rob:

Marriage has not been a religious right since the first civil marriages were perfiormed in france during the french Revolution. I am not sure i agree with your assertion that the government had meddled into something, given how they run their own marriage institution and thus have the right to change it and modify it as they see it fit.

In my opinion, the mistake that was made was to allow religious figures to “kill two birds with the same stone”. If people had to go to the justice of peace before they had to go to their pastor, people in this country would actually realize the difference.

Soren456

A rare useful statement to Christian bigots.

It is so tiresome to read Christian apologists, in response to some new Christian outrage directed against us, insist “well, that’s not MY Christianity; we’re not ALL like that.”

And there it ends.

At least these people have the character and the integrity to turn from apology and to face their bigot brothers with a statement that can’t be ignored.

Timothy Kincaid

Soren456,

I share your frustration.

For far too long, moderates and mainline Christians have let the radical extremist conservatives dominate the conversation. They’ve taken an attitude of tolerance and been reluctant to publicly rebuke a fellow Christian.

It is way past time for moderates and mainliners to stop just saying, “oh, well I see it differently” and to start saying, “your hate-filled position is contrary to everything Jesus taught and your lies about gay people are inspired by Satan”.

They need to stand up – like the UCC pastor in Raleigh – and denounce homophobia and bigotry and lying and do so in terms that make it clear that treating people with contempt is not an option for Christians.

Fortunately, it is beginning to happen. Just in the past couple of years, I’ve seen real change. No longer are city council meetings and school board gatherings a battle between the “militant homosexual activists” and all of Christendom. Now it seems that the advocates for equality and dignity are more often the pastor of a church than from a gay community center. And when that happens, we win.

David

There’s just no pleasing bigots.

Atheism is a prejudice, like homophobia and racism.

Priya Lynn

David, atheism is not a prejudice as with religion there is no evidence to judge.

Timothy Kincaid

No,David. Atheism is a belief system. And just like a theistic belief system it can be casual or committed, sincere or lazy, and principled or unethical.

Yes there can be atheists who are hateful and bigoted just like there can be Christians who are hateful and bigoted. But the belief that there are no deities and no supernatural is not, in itself, bigotry.

Ivan

@Timothy Kincaid.

No.

If atheism is a belief system then by the same reasoning bald is a hair colour, “off” is a TV programme and not playing football is a sport.

Humanism is a belief system) based on how to live a good life based on evidence, rationalism and reason without recourse to the supernatural) but atheism is simply a non-belief in gods and has no other characteristic, good or bad, whatsoever.

Ben In Oakland

More accurately, Ivan…

Atheism is a lack of a belief system. It’s a demand for evidence, which is somehat the oppositre of belief.

There is no “system” to it, any more than there is a system to not believing in Santa claus or the Easter Bunny.

Erin

“Thereâ€™s just no pleasing bigots.

Atheism is a prejudice, like homophobia and racism.”

What does Atheism have to do with this article? And also…you’re trying to say anyone who doesn’t approve of those who use religion to harm and discriminate against others are just being anti-religious bigots and hate all religion. Sorry, that logical fallacy has been pointed out time and again. No one here is falling for it. Gay acceptance is not the opposite of religion. Many religious people practice it all the time. If you want to comment on the article, go right ahead. I for one, am not going to fall for your attempt to divide us by bringing up the Atheism vs religion argument. That is an argument for another day and another website.

Priya Lynn

Well, I think that about sums it up.

Timothy Kincaid

Good points. True, atheism is not necessarily a belief system. Though, as practiced, it can meld with humanism into a structured way of ethical living. (and I distinguish between uncertain or doubtful agnostics and those who are commited to their beliefs about deities)

And I suppose I could argue that a great deal of self identified Christians and other theists also lack any system. So I’m not sure my answer fails entirely.

But we can agree that atheism, whatever it is, is not inherently bigotry.

Priya Lynn

David says that because atheism assumes belief in a god is wrong that that makes it bigotry, intolerant of religious beliefs and an attack on freedom of religion. Somehow it doesn’t occur to him that by that logic belief in a god assumes atheism is wrong and that makes christianity bigotry and an attack on freedom from religion.

From what I’ve got from David it seems he believes that in a just and tolerant society no one is allowed to believe belief in a god is incorrect.

Timothy Kincaid

Priya Lynn,

Yes, the logic is the same.

But where did David make that statement? Was it another thread?

In the context, was it in an offensive and attacking way that would be a violation of our comments policy? We don’t want atheists to feel that participation here will result in abuse any more than any other group.

If BTB can insist that we be respectful to conservative Christians, we certainly can insist on being respectful to atheists. There’s a big difference between an exchange of ideas and an exchange of insults and we’d rather have ideas.

Priya Lynn

Yes, it was in another thread. He’s made several long comments along those lines and has specifically said that atheism is by definition intolerant because it says belief in a god is wrong. If you want I can do some searches for “atheist” and “David” and find you some examples.

Timothy Kincaid

Priya,

I tracked back all of his statements over the past year and didn’t find long comments expressing what you say. Perhaps it was earlier. But in what I did find, it seemed to be strongly opinionated, but part of a back and forth thing. I didn’t get the sense that it was abusive.

But if it happens again and you feel it is abusive, please bring it to our attention. I try to read every comment, but sometimes I can miss something and I don’t want to be one-sided or unfair here.

Priya Lynn

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/27/21493

I did a quick search for “David” “atheist” “definition” and here’s the first post I pulled up:

“Atheism is the specific belief that God does not exist.

Which means that it is intrinsically a negation, a repudiation, a denial of all religious beliefs, and a derogatory judgment about all people of faith. Religion, after all, is simply the accumulated experiences, testimonies, and expressions of human beings experiences of the Divine. Atheism is intrinsically anti-semitic, anti-hindu, anti-buddhist, anti-wiccan, anti-jain, anti-christian, etc.

Atheism insists that all of those people, the majority of all humanity, are simply wrong about their own experiences. That is an explicit expression of contempt, at the very least. Like so many prejudices, it dismisses the experiences and testimony of those it targets as irrelevant to its preconceived, derogatory impression of them and their livesIt states â€œeveryone else in the world is wrong, our lack of experience invalidates everyone elseâ€™s experiencesâ€. Just like when homophobes say â€œIâ€™m not attract to my own gender, so no one really isâ€…Further, it is not uncommon for atheists on the â€˜net to articulate their desire for a world free of religion, to label people of faith â€œdelusionalâ€ or â€œa threat to humanityâ€ â€“ paralleling the abuse directed at GLBTQ people. Just like the way homophobes frequently articulate their desire for a world free of homosexuality…The fact is that atheism articulates a tremendous contempt for not only religion, but for all people of faith, and is essentially nothing more than a prejudice that targets the majority of all human beings…That is the terrible irony of atheists on the â€˜net posting as GLBTQ civil rights advocates. The moment they articulate their prejudice against religion, atheism, they intrinsically reinforce, nurture and sustain all prejudices, including homophobia.”.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/12/30/28774#comment-85914

“Atheism is intrinsically bigotry, so your accusation about Christianity is ironic.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of all support from civil equality for GLBTQ people comes from people of faith, including Christians, not atheists.”*

*not true:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/americans-opposition-gay-marriage-eases-slightly.aspx

“These political differences in support for gay marriage may stem from even larger differences by religion. Americans who say religion is “very important” in their lives oppose legal same-sex marriage by 70% to 27%. In contrast, Americans who say religion is not important to them support gay marriage by just as wide a margin…Notably, 81% of Americans who claim no religious affiliation favor legal same-sex marriage. That compares to 48% support among Catholics and 33% among Protestants (including those who identify as Christian but do not specify a particular Christian denomination).”.

I know there are a lot of other examples, but unfortunately almost every one of the entries in my search referred to “David Benkof” so I was not able to sift through them to find the others.

Timothy Kincaid

Priya Lynn,

I didn’t google but did a search in the comments database by date and only went back a year.

In the March 2010 example, David clumped all atheists together and assigned them attributes and condemned them for the judgments he assigned.

But the comment that you quoted isn’t an out-of-the blue comment. Rather it was his response to a challenge and questioning of his statement. As such (and not a stand alone comment) it is not objectionable. And it is not an inaccurate assessment of the views and expressed opinions of some atheists.

What is objectionable – and which I failed to adequately moderate – was his conflation of ALL atheists into one box.

In your first example I probably could have done a better job.

In your second example, from December 2010, David was responding to a previous comment which included because from what I can see â€œChristianâ€ is fast becoming synonomous with â€œAssholeâ€ and â€œBigot.â€ You left that part out.

I didn’t see the anti-Christian comment as being inappropriate(or all that inaccurate) in the context and with teh caveats with which it was written. But a rebuttal also wasn’t inappropriate. I disagree with his assertion, but it wasn’t an attack presented out of the blue without provocation.

The second example was acceptable, I believe.

It’s probably a bit late to be debating the accuracy or merit of the “more Christians than atheists” comment, but you are probably both correct. A far larger percentage of atheists (and Jews) than Christians support LGBT issues. But (without cranking the math) it is probably true that in total numbers, because self-identified atheists are a small percentage of our population, the majority of people who support LGBT issues identify as “Christian” to a greater or lesser degree. I guess it all depends on where you put the “non religious but kinda believe in God I think” people.

Ben In Oakland

Niot that it is all that relevant, but I gotta love this:

“Atheism is intrinsically anti-semitic, anti-hindu, anti-buddhist, anti-wiccan, anti-jain, anti-christian, etc. ”

Judaism is intrinsically anti-hindu, anti-buddhist, anti-wiccan, anti-jain, anti-christian, etc.

Hinduism is intrinsically anti-semitic, anti-hindu, anti-buddhist, anti-wiccan, anti-jain, anti-christian, etc.

Christianity is intrinsically anti-semitic (and that is a demonstrably historical truth), anti-hindu, anti-buddhist, anti-wiccan, anti-jain, anti-christian, etc.

Just because you have a keyboard and can write a complete sentence doesn’t mean that you have the slightest business sharing your thouights.

Or, as i like to say, don’t believe everything that you think.

Timothy Kincaid

Ah, but

The Universal Life Church Monastery is intrinsically pro-semetic, pro-hindu, pro-buddhist, pro-christian, pro-muslim, pro-wiccan, pro-jain, pro-atheist and pro-antitheist.

(Yes, they are pro-antitheist as they “are looking to change the negative perceptions of religion, faith and spirituality, by encouraging people to take control, stand up and speak truth to power by fearlessly stating their personal religious beliefs.”)

Universal Life Church Monastery wins. And as an extra bonus, you too can become an ordained minister online.

And, if ya think about it, the Universal Live Church Monastery is one of the largest religious organizations in the country. I’m sure all of us know one of their ministers.

Erin

Why should you moderate comments just for having logical fallacies? It’s not like he was throwing around hateful and obscene slurs. If his argument doesn’t work the rest of us can call him out on it, like we already did with his last comment.

Donny D.

Why are we even being diverted by this, originally a two-line post by someone who hasn’t stuck around to say any more. The situation of mainline Protestants versus the Fundamentalist Right is so much more interesting.

If you read the book unChristian, the authors establish that the 40% of young people aged 16-29 that were “unchurched” had some very negative things to say about “Christians”. The authors go into distinctions between all Christians and fundamentalists (the authors are both), but came up with findings that the “unchurched” young people had a large number of specific, negative opinions about Christians.

This carries over outside the Fundamentalist milieu. I’ve been hearing ever larger numbers of young people who declare ignorantly that “I don’t like Christians” for things that only the Christian Right believes in or does.

Mainline Protestants can practice the cowardice that they fool themselves into believing is good manners as much as they want to, but if they want to survive as churches and denominations, they can’t have large portions of the youth population thinking they’re a bunch of cynical bigots and prosyletizers. The average population of mainline churches will get older and older, and their denominations will shrink catastrophically, and many churches will have to close. So the only way they can hope to not turn their future congregants against them is being going out BEYOND current Christendom and tell “the World” that “We aren’t like them!, while in some clear way indicating the fundamentalists. They could advertise in a way that straight people would get that they welcome gay people to their churches. (That was the statement the authors of unChristian found “unchurched” young people agree with most often (91%), that “Christians are anti-homosexual”.) Mainline Protestants might find that their position toward gay people will be seen by many young straight people as a proxy for a lot of other things these young people are in favor of, like a generally accepting, non-censorious attitude. But mainline Protestants will never know for sure if they don’t get out into the public arena and in some way or another challenge or contradict the Fundies.

Timothy (TRiG)

Donny D,

Fred Clark (slacktivist) points out that the Evangelical mainstream is not so different from the Religious Right.

TRiG.

Timothy Kincaid