I will never understand the mentality of one minority persecuted by religious conservatives engaging in a policy of exclusion for another minority who have been persecuted by those very same religious conservatives. And atheists SUPPORT LGBTQs. How many atheists ARE LGBTQ?
You would be surprised that there are actually a number of atheist/agnostic that definitely don't support or even tolerate LGBTQIA folks. They typically try to argue “science and biology” because ironically they, like religious extremists, only focus on sex and reproduction.
I am not surprised by that (See Dawkins, Richard et al). That being said, LGBTQIA support among atheists is at a higher rate than many other demographics.
That’s why I said 3 Stooges and not Moe, Larry and Curly. 3 Stooges encompasses Shemp (who was a Stooge before Curly), Joe, Curly Joe and almost Emil (he would have played Larry’s brother Harry and appeared in publicity photos of he, Moe and Curly Joe in character). :)
I loved ‘em all. Wish they could’ve finished “Blazing Stewardesses” before Moe finally died.
Emil told Moe his idea for his “Harry” character. He said Harry was so smart that he was stupid. Moe laughed and said “OK, that’s funny. You’re gonna get your chance.” Sadly, it never happened. They started filming and Moe got sick, so they waited until he recovered. They started filming again and then Moe died. That was the end of the 3 Stooges.
Here's the reason. Christian Fucking Privilege. For the organizers, the mere existence of atheists seems to be the problem. Kind of hypocritical, to push for normalizing LGBTQ people as just a regular part of the wider society while demonizing the non-religious.
The most generous read on the organizers is that they are afraid that if they welcome atheists, the progressive and affirming Christians will shun them. Hey, St John's pride festival organizers: the progressive and affirming Christians generally have no problem with atheists.
At some level or other, St. John's has to recognize the fact that the bible has NOTHING GOOD TO SAY about the LGBTQ+ community, gay-positive congregations notwithstanding. Indeed, there are likely a LOT more churches that are virulently anti-LGBTQ+ than there are those who support us. Clearly, St. John's likely feels threatened by the fact that Recovering From Religion is about those who either want out or are out of that trap, and they can't deal with it.
And until they can understand this dynamic, the problem will persist.
The Bible has very little to say at all about LGBTQ+ people. It talks about fornicating in other religions' temples mostly. Those are the passages that have been weaponized by Christian fundamentalists and distorted to be about LGBTQ+ people.
BRB, I am off to do some fornicating in a temple now.
It actually said nothing about LGBTQs. Sexual orientation/gender identity was unknown in biblical times.
It wasn't until 1946 and the Revised Standard Version that the words homosexual(s)/homosexuality even appeared in a bible. Too bad for 'phobes that the King James Version is the only one that is considered the real bible by biblical literalists. And King James (James I) was gay. :)
The Bible was actually anti Female Religion. Those were the Priestesses performing ritual Union of the Goddess with her chosen Male. Sex was a holy ritual. Archaeology shows that the Israelis had both male and female Gods but during the Jezebel Coup incident they went completely Patriarchal hierarchical and misogynistic.
All 3 were based on the same original Bible which was plagiarized from the Summerians. Summer had numerous Gods and Goddesses and Abraham came from Summeria. There seems to be a split between groups based on herds usually Patriarchal and breeding focused vs groups based on farming and fertility Female focused.
Some of the progressive and affirming religious people ARE atheists :)
The Unitarians have been welcoming atheists since 1926, and LGBTQ+ people since 1970. Some Quakers are atheists, and the Quakers have been welcoming LGBTQ+ people since 1966.
They invited a pro-Palestinian group and one of their board members is some sort of nondenominational clergy. I think they're shooting themselves in the foot here.
This is more than a bit ... okay, I'll be polite and say, "unusual." A gay-supporting religious group (could St. John's be Catholic?) doesn't want an organization that helps people find their way OUT of religion to participate in their festival. On one level I can see it: a church likely would feel threatened by those who would see the number of their congregants decline. On the other hand, St John's isn't the only game in town, and there may be churches out there who are far less accepting of the LGBTQ+ community and need to recover from religion.
In any case, I think St. John's is being a dick about this, and I'm glad to know that RfR is taking positive action.
St. John's is the capital and largest city of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is located on the eastern tip of the Avalon Peninsula on the island of Newfoundland. The city spans 446.04 km2 (172.22 sq mi) and is the easternmost city in North America
I really don’t understand this unless there were religious board members who felt threatened by having an atheist group in their midst. As noted above, their bylaws state they don’t endorse religion. But someone had their panties in a bunch and I’ll bet it was a believer.
The object of Pride events is to show support for the LGBTQ+ community, not the religious community. They have their own holidays.
So many LGBTQ folk have been shamed and made to feel damaged by their various religions that you'd think a pride group would not only know that but welcome the participation of a group whose mission is outreach to those harmed by religion for being who they are.
It's always more disappointing and painful when bigotry is practiced by supposed allies, as appears to be the case here. I'm glad RfR decided to put up a booth near the event AND to explain why they're being left on the outside. Their mission is important to help LGBTQ folks recover from the damage done to them by religious bigotry. It's just sad this "pride" event is inflicting more of the same.
This is a big 'ol pile of weirdness, that's for sure.
I never really drew a direct connection between my queerness and my atheism. Unlike a lot of folks here, I don't have lingering religious trauma; I wasn't raised religious in the first place. Atheism is just my default state. I didn't spend much time around people who were devoutly religious, either; I knew people who were, but they had no power over me, so I never suffered anything more than their impotent disapproval. It's something I've never made a secret of. I never had to come out as an atheist. It was never something I had to worry about, and I didn't even realize it 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 be a point of contention until I was a teenager.
My sexuality and gender identity, on the other hand, have been the sources of pretty much every bit of dysfunction in my life since roughly the moment I hit puberty... and the overwhelming majority of bigotry I've encountered, either personally or by proxy, since becoming aware that I was part of the LGBTQ+ community, has had its roots in religion. There are, of course, exceptions (Dr. Dick to the red courtesy phone, please), but they're just that. Exceptions. The category "anti-LGBTQ+ atheist bigots" is absolutely eclipsed by that of "anti-LGBTQ+ religious bigots."
It would never occur to me to think of religion as some kind of sanctuary for LGBTQ+ people, because damned near everyone I've met in the greater community who had a religious background at all has undergone 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 kind of religious shift as a direct result of being queer. Some of them switched denominations, some switched religions (generally in favor of Satanism, wicca, or some other pagan faith)... but most ended up either atheist or agnostic. I've yet to meet a single person who became religious, having started out nonreligious, because they were queer. 𝘓𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘴 the other way 'round, but never 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.
So it's fucking weird that a group organizing a Pride event would reject RfR on the grounds that they think it'd make attendees uncomfortable. That just isn't a sentiment I've ever heard a single queer person express in my life. I can think of plenty of people who'd be uncomfortable seeing 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩-sponsored Pride tables, but not a single one who'd so much as raise an eyebrow at an atheist display. Right up until the moment I read today's headline, in fact, I'd been operating under the assumption that casual blasphemy was a staple of every Pride celebration, precisely because of the long history of organized religion persecuting queer folks. It genuinely baffles me that a group seeking to offer comfort to victims of religious trauma would be unwelcome at Pride.
This reeks of personal bias from the organizers, and their circle-the-wagons reaction to Hemant's inquiries just reinforces that impression.
OT: I won't stay long, but I wanted to drop in and let those who care know I haven't dropped of the face of the Earth and my health hasn't gotten any worse. Last week was extremely busy at work and this week I took off to try to master a technology very much in demand in my career field. (I'm not going to make it, but I should make as much progress as I can stand.)
Now everyone can go back to ranting about people who have a knee-jerk reaction of fear to non-religious groups and then try to deny they don't but refuse to admit they were wrong and play the victim.
There are now two updates to this story. In short: after telling the RfR at the last moment that they were excluded, the SJP says that there is now no time to reconsider this decision and that the RfR must wait until after the event is finished.
That's like telling a prisoner on death row that the appeals judge will review his case after the execution date.
Wasn’t that the intent of waiting a month to rescind their approval? To run down the clock so the group couldn’t appeal their decision. If they were sincere about their concerns, they would have denied the application from the start and dealt with the group’s request to reconsider. But they didn’t, they approved the application, held on to it for a month, then informed the group they were denied when it was too close to the event to be able to put aside time to review their appeals.
It is unfortunate that even LGBTQ folks have a difficult time with atheism. I thought the follow up email was polite, it seems more like someone took offense to it because they knew they were in the wrong.
I hope their booth right outside goes over well, this is one instance where being too aggressive will backfire. Stay positive and supportive but don’t ignore their rudeness. Good luck RfR.
I’m only on my 1st cup of coffee as I write this, as usual, so if it’s a little bit fuzzy, well, so am I.
I find it puzzling that the gay group would not communicate exactly what was going on, though I think it’s not an unreasonable assumption to think that they didn’t want to offend their religious allies at St. John’s pride. But that in itself seems rather the soft bigotry of lowered expectations about their religious allies…
To borrow a phrase from George Bush, aka Shrub.
I suspect that for the Atheist group, their concerns about religion are about dominionism, guiltifying, shame producing, fire and brimstone and you’re going to hell religion, not liberal religions that support gay people and do not support dominionism, Idiocracy, theocracy, and the melding of church and state.
The failure of the gay group to communicate implies to me that they knew that they were wrong about this, and did not wish to engage. As I have said many many times in many forums over many years, I don’t really care what people believe, although I think that all religion is bunk. What I care about is what religious people do with their religion. Do they use it as a club ? Do they use it to affirm their own superiority? Do they use it to hurt and exclude?
But if it’s make your life better, and you a better person, then I’m all for it. But the problem with conservative religion is it doesn’t make people better people, it frequently makes them worse people. And they do use it to hurt people.
I doubt the atheist group would be going up to the religious groups and explaining to them what horrible people they are. That’s a conservative religious thing. That’s a frothing at the mouth anti-theist sort of a thing. And although such people are out there, and frequently have good reasons for what they feel, I don’t think they are representative of all atheists. But they do show the harm that religion has done to people, and continues to do to people.
But I’ve never been harmed by my associate with Unitarians, Quakers, And all of the religious people that I have known in my life that were not dominionIsts or people who use their Bible as a club.
That the atheist group is willing to set up a table not so far from the pride celebration and explain their point of view speaks very well of them and what they want to do. That the pride committee wants to exclude them does not speak well of the pride committee.
Maybe I’ll have some more thoughts once the coffee kicks in.
Leviticus 20:13. That is an unvarnished death threat against me and those I love and those who love me. OMNIEVERYTHING jesus left it n the bible. So obviously he is okay with death threats? How is this any different from never sugfering a wtch to live? The witch line brought 3 CENTURIES of burning people at the stake. How many were burned as queers?
I can’t disagree with you, and I certainly understand it. And your pain. But we both know that Christianity is not a monolith at all, but a number of Christianities, just like Judaism is a number of Jewish faiths. I’ve said this many times, no one reads the bible and decides “I’m going to be that guy.” They are already that guy.
I don’t blame the liberal denominations for the crap that’s in their Bible. They clearly don’t take it seriously, but they don’t have the power to remove it.
I have to agree. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have been taken by the general religious community as treating gay men to be worthy of death, regardless of what the original intent of those verses may have been. There is considerable social inertia behind that as well, and it is a foundational reason why the LGBTQ+ community has been as castigated as it has for the last who-knows-how-long.
And overcoming that inertia will take a LOT of energy.
Hypocrisy so thick you have to scrape the ooze off of it.
When your basic premise for existence as a tax free organization is based on a fantasy, it’s pretty fucking hard to take your “holy policies” seriously. Shitler has emboldened these idiots.
St John’s response sounds identical to MAGA. They waited an entire month to rescind an acceptance. So the close the time loop. Then as a second polite request is sent for an explanation, the insecure baby from St John’s calls their request for a response in 2 business days aggressive! Trump, is that you? Shameful episode for St John’s Pride event.
Perhaps choose someone who doesn’t get his panties in a knot over a reasonable request.
Far too many people are using the MAGA playbook to 'make friends and influence people'. Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender is exactly how Trump and his ilk have made it to this dystopia today and DARVO is exactly what they did here.
I've seen this sort of thing before, where some individual or group refuses to discuss or deal with something, then when others take whatever action they deem necessary, the first person or group claims to be the injured party. Folks and groups that do this often wind up with quite a few burned bridges behind them; and while certainly the organizers of this festival have an obligation to protect other tables and attendees, this isn't protection.
I recognize that being a member of the LGBTQA+ community is difficult no matter what other circumstances may be present. I know that many times these individuals suffer at the hands of wider society for being different and and as a result of this suffering these individuals exhibit some level of defensiveness. I do find it highly worrisome when there is abruptly a level of 'concern' over how a specific group isn't 'supportive' enough of the LGBTQA+ community after previously being acceptable for space at this festival; and investigation into that kind of support should have occurred prior to being granted a table to begin with, and an explanation should have been provided with the letter notifying the group of the change to begin with. At this point, I cannot help but feel that the truth is being hidden here, and that the festival organizers are deliberately disincluding atheists for reasons they want to keep hidden.
Ultimately, yes, it is absolutely up to the organizers of the festival to determine who is and is not allowed to join the festival; that is their right and obligation both. But the reasons for revoking RfR's table seem to be very arbitrary and nonsensical, and I'm concerned they're burning a bridge they can ill afford to lose; in the end, that will hurt both the atheist community and the LGBTQA+ community.
I will never understand the mentality of one minority persecuted by religious conservatives engaging in a policy of exclusion for another minority who have been persecuted by those very same religious conservatives. And atheists SUPPORT LGBTQs. How many atheists ARE LGBTQ?
You would be surprised that there are actually a number of atheist/agnostic that definitely don't support or even tolerate LGBTQIA folks. They typically try to argue “science and biology” because ironically they, like religious extremists, only focus on sex and reproduction.
I am not surprised by that (See Dawkins, Richard et al). That being said, LGBTQIA support among atheists is at a higher rate than many other demographics.
Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and Steven Pinker. The 3 Stooges of transphobia.
(apologies to the real 3 stooges)
So, you’re leaving “Shemp” out again? He never gets a break.
That’s why I said 3 Stooges and not Moe, Larry and Curly. 3 Stooges encompasses Shemp (who was a Stooge before Curly), Joe, Curly Joe and almost Emil (he would have played Larry’s brother Harry and appeared in publicity photos of he, Moe and Curly Joe in character). :)
Okay, I can see I’m messing with the wrong Stooges fan here…<slink’s away>
*Psst come sit by me.
So, the 3 Stooges are a bit like the Hitchhiker's Trilogy. Tha actual number is irrelevant, they are all part of the 3.
Hitchhiker’s Trilogy any good, Joe?
I loved ‘em all. Wish they could’ve finished “Blazing Stewardesses” before Moe finally died.
Emil told Moe his idea for his “Harry” character. He said Harry was so smart that he was stupid. Moe laughed and said “OK, that’s funny. You’re gonna get your chance.” Sadly, it never happened. They started filming and Moe got sick, so they waited until he recovered. They started filming again and then Moe died. That was the end of the 3 Stooges.
FB page "We freaking love Atheism" often post pro-LGBTQ memes and the same group of people try shouting it down with transphobic posts.
Transphobes are assholes.
They invited a pro-Pal group. They're probably the ones who are anti-atheist. https://stjpride.ca/statements
I R
𝐼𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑤𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡...𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠 — 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑟- 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠-𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 — 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔.
Here's the reason. Christian Fucking Privilege. For the organizers, the mere existence of atheists seems to be the problem. Kind of hypocritical, to push for normalizing LGBTQ people as just a regular part of the wider society while demonizing the non-religious.
The most generous read on the organizers is that they are afraid that if they welcome atheists, the progressive and affirming Christians will shun them. Hey, St John's pride festival organizers: the progressive and affirming Christians generally have no problem with atheists.
At some level or other, St. John's has to recognize the fact that the bible has NOTHING GOOD TO SAY about the LGBTQ+ community, gay-positive congregations notwithstanding. Indeed, there are likely a LOT more churches that are virulently anti-LGBTQ+ than there are those who support us. Clearly, St. John's likely feels threatened by the fact that Recovering From Religion is about those who either want out or are out of that trap, and they can't deal with it.
And until they can understand this dynamic, the problem will persist.
The Bible has very little to say at all about LGBTQ+ people. It talks about fornicating in other religions' temples mostly. Those are the passages that have been weaponized by Christian fundamentalists and distorted to be about LGBTQ+ people.
BRB, I am off to do some fornicating in a temple now.
It actually said nothing about LGBTQs. Sexual orientation/gender identity was unknown in biblical times.
It wasn't until 1946 and the Revised Standard Version that the words homosexual(s)/homosexuality even appeared in a bible. Too bad for 'phobes that the King James Version is the only one that is considered the real bible by biblical literalists. And King James (James I) was gay. :)
Also, I should point out that Jesus healed the young male lover of a Roman Centurion. A Gentile, to boot.
Yes, and that is simply a historical fact.
The Bible was actually anti Female Religion. Those were the Priestesses performing ritual Union of the Goddess with her chosen Male. Sex was a holy ritual. Archaeology shows that the Israelis had both male and female Gods but during the Jezebel Coup incident they went completely Patriarchal hierarchical and misogynistic.
Not just the bible. All 3 Abrahamic faiths are patriarchal in nature.
All 3 were based on the same original Bible which was plagiarized from the Summerians. Summer had numerous Gods and Goddesses and Abraham came from Summeria. There seems to be a split between groups based on herds usually Patriarchal and breeding focused vs groups based on farming and fertility Female focused.
Have fun.
Yep, I love this guy. He's a former clergy who saw through the hate.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-164876703?source=queue
The “dynamic” these fools have the most trouble with is people capable of cogitation.
So much for progressive, affirming Christians. Deep down, the religion's fangs and claws are still there.
Always, at its core, the purpose is to control.
Some of the progressive and affirming religious people ARE atheists :)
The Unitarians have been welcoming atheists since 1926, and LGBTQ+ people since 1970. Some Quakers are atheists, and the Quakers have been welcoming LGBTQ+ people since 1966.
I’d guess that half the Reform Jews I’ve known were atheist.
They invited a pro-Palestinian group and one of their board members is some sort of nondenominational clergy. I think they're shooting themselves in the foot here.
This is more than a bit ... okay, I'll be polite and say, "unusual." A gay-supporting religious group (could St. John's be Catholic?) doesn't want an organization that helps people find their way OUT of religion to participate in their festival. On one level I can see it: a church likely would feel threatened by those who would see the number of their congregants decline. On the other hand, St John's isn't the only game in town, and there may be churches out there who are far less accepting of the LGBTQ+ community and need to recover from religion.
In any case, I think St. John's is being a dick about this, and I'm glad to know that RfR is taking positive action.
St. John's is the capital and largest city of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is located on the eastern tip of the Avalon Peninsula on the island of Newfoundland. The city spans 446.04 km2 (172.22 sq mi) and is the easternmost city in North America
I really don’t understand this unless there were religious board members who felt threatened by having an atheist group in their midst. As noted above, their bylaws state they don’t endorse religion. But someone had their panties in a bunch and I’ll bet it was a believer.
The object of Pride events is to show support for the LGBTQ+ community, not the religious community. They have their own holidays.
Ever so much this, that they could not do so for one day, says nothing good about them.
🎯
As someone who is both gay and an atheist I say fuck these small minded people.
Hear hear! Religion causes brain damage.
Or as Leon Spinks called it: dain bramage.
Just complete insanity.
Never mind a lack of genuine empathy and compassion.
The idea of sin is used by churches to pound hatreds into the hearts of its followers.
It sure seems so.
So many LGBTQ folk have been shamed and made to feel damaged by their various religions that you'd think a pride group would not only know that but welcome the participation of a group whose mission is outreach to those harmed by religion for being who they are.
It's always more disappointing and painful when bigotry is practiced by supposed allies, as appears to be the case here. I'm glad RfR decided to put up a booth near the event AND to explain why they're being left on the outside. Their mission is important to help LGBTQ folks recover from the damage done to them by religious bigotry. It's just sad this "pride" event is inflicting more of the same.
This is a big 'ol pile of weirdness, that's for sure.
I never really drew a direct connection between my queerness and my atheism. Unlike a lot of folks here, I don't have lingering religious trauma; I wasn't raised religious in the first place. Atheism is just my default state. I didn't spend much time around people who were devoutly religious, either; I knew people who were, but they had no power over me, so I never suffered anything more than their impotent disapproval. It's something I've never made a secret of. I never had to come out as an atheist. It was never something I had to worry about, and I didn't even realize it 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 be a point of contention until I was a teenager.
My sexuality and gender identity, on the other hand, have been the sources of pretty much every bit of dysfunction in my life since roughly the moment I hit puberty... and the overwhelming majority of bigotry I've encountered, either personally or by proxy, since becoming aware that I was part of the LGBTQ+ community, has had its roots in religion. There are, of course, exceptions (Dr. Dick to the red courtesy phone, please), but they're just that. Exceptions. The category "anti-LGBTQ+ atheist bigots" is absolutely eclipsed by that of "anti-LGBTQ+ religious bigots."
It would never occur to me to think of religion as some kind of sanctuary for LGBTQ+ people, because damned near everyone I've met in the greater community who had a religious background at all has undergone 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 kind of religious shift as a direct result of being queer. Some of them switched denominations, some switched religions (generally in favor of Satanism, wicca, or some other pagan faith)... but most ended up either atheist or agnostic. I've yet to meet a single person who became religious, having started out nonreligious, because they were queer. 𝘓𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘴 the other way 'round, but never 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.
So it's fucking weird that a group organizing a Pride event would reject RfR on the grounds that they think it'd make attendees uncomfortable. That just isn't a sentiment I've ever heard a single queer person express in my life. I can think of plenty of people who'd be uncomfortable seeing 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩-sponsored Pride tables, but not a single one who'd so much as raise an eyebrow at an atheist display. Right up until the moment I read today's headline, in fact, I'd been operating under the assumption that casual blasphemy was a staple of every Pride celebration, precisely because of the long history of organized religion persecuting queer folks. It genuinely baffles me that a group seeking to offer comfort to victims of religious trauma would be unwelcome at Pride.
This reeks of personal bias from the organizers, and their circle-the-wagons reaction to Hemant's inquiries just reinforces that impression.
OT: I won't stay long, but I wanted to drop in and let those who care know I haven't dropped of the face of the Earth and my health hasn't gotten any worse. Last week was extremely busy at work and this week I took off to try to master a technology very much in demand in my career field. (I'm not going to make it, but I should make as much progress as I can stand.)
Now everyone can go back to ranting about people who have a knee-jerk reaction of fear to non-religious groups and then try to deny they don't but refuse to admit they were wrong and play the victim.
*rant*
Thanks for the update.
*end of rant*
Worst.
Rant.
Ever.
We asked about you just the other day, wondering where you'd gone to. Glad it was nothing bad.
There are now two updates to this story. In short: after telling the RfR at the last moment that they were excluded, the SJP says that there is now no time to reconsider this decision and that the RfR must wait until after the event is finished.
That's like telling a prisoner on death row that the appeals judge will review his case after the execution date.
Wasn’t that the intent of waiting a month to rescind their approval? To run down the clock so the group couldn’t appeal their decision. If they were sincere about their concerns, they would have denied the application from the start and dealt with the group’s request to reconsider. But they didn’t, they approved the application, held on to it for a month, then informed the group they were denied when it was too close to the event to be able to put aside time to review their appeals.
Doesn’t sound innocent to me.
The whole thing smells fishy. And I don't think it's the PEI mussels at the fishmongers.
Mussels! Yum!
It is unfortunate that even LGBTQ folks have a difficult time with atheism. I thought the follow up email was polite, it seems more like someone took offense to it because they knew they were in the wrong.
I hope their booth right outside goes over well, this is one instance where being too aggressive will backfire. Stay positive and supportive but don’t ignore their rudeness. Good luck RfR.
I’m only on my 1st cup of coffee as I write this, as usual, so if it’s a little bit fuzzy, well, so am I.
I find it puzzling that the gay group would not communicate exactly what was going on, though I think it’s not an unreasonable assumption to think that they didn’t want to offend their religious allies at St. John’s pride. But that in itself seems rather the soft bigotry of lowered expectations about their religious allies…
To borrow a phrase from George Bush, aka Shrub.
I suspect that for the Atheist group, their concerns about religion are about dominionism, guiltifying, shame producing, fire and brimstone and you’re going to hell religion, not liberal religions that support gay people and do not support dominionism, Idiocracy, theocracy, and the melding of church and state.
The failure of the gay group to communicate implies to me that they knew that they were wrong about this, and did not wish to engage. As I have said many many times in many forums over many years, I don’t really care what people believe, although I think that all religion is bunk. What I care about is what religious people do with their religion. Do they use it as a club ? Do they use it to affirm their own superiority? Do they use it to hurt and exclude?
But if it’s make your life better, and you a better person, then I’m all for it. But the problem with conservative religion is it doesn’t make people better people, it frequently makes them worse people. And they do use it to hurt people.
I doubt the atheist group would be going up to the religious groups and explaining to them what horrible people they are. That’s a conservative religious thing. That’s a frothing at the mouth anti-theist sort of a thing. And although such people are out there, and frequently have good reasons for what they feel, I don’t think they are representative of all atheists. But they do show the harm that religion has done to people, and continues to do to people.
But I’ve never been harmed by my associate with Unitarians, Quakers, And all of the religious people that I have known in my life that were not dominionIsts or people who use their Bible as a club.
That the atheist group is willing to set up a table not so far from the pride celebration and explain their point of view speaks very well of them and what they want to do. That the pride committee wants to exclude them does not speak well of the pride committee.
Maybe I’ll have some more thoughts once the coffee kicks in.
I wish I was half as sharp as you before my first mug of tea 🤣
Thanks for the nice words.
"Bensnewlogin never has a second cup of coffee at home..."
I have 3 cups every morning, but I don’t just gulp them down. I’m not a savage.
Mostly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ4kCF22O2w
It wasn’t until I moved out on my own that I discovered that coffee could be a lot better if you didn’t buy it in a can.
Leviticus 20:13. That is an unvarnished death threat against me and those I love and those who love me. OMNIEVERYTHING jesus left it n the bible. So obviously he is okay with death threats? How is this any different from never sugfering a wtch to live? The witch line brought 3 CENTURIES of burning people at the stake. How many were burned as queers?
I can’t disagree with you, and I certainly understand it. And your pain. But we both know that Christianity is not a monolith at all, but a number of Christianities, just like Judaism is a number of Jewish faiths. I’ve said this many times, no one reads the bible and decides “I’m going to be that guy.” They are already that guy.
I don’t blame the liberal denominations for the crap that’s in their Bible. They clearly don’t take it seriously, but they don’t have the power to remove it.
I have to agree. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have been taken by the general religious community as treating gay men to be worthy of death, regardless of what the original intent of those verses may have been. There is considerable social inertia behind that as well, and it is a foundational reason why the LGBTQ+ community has been as castigated as it has for the last who-knows-how-long.
And overcoming that inertia will take a LOT of energy.
“the soft bigotry of lowered expectations…
To borrow a phrase from George Bush, aka Shrub.”
Which I regard as the single best thing Shrub ever said. Not that the bar is high, mind you, but still.
He was edumacated.
If that logic is your precaffeinated state, I look forward to your caffeinated one. Kudos to you.
"We value open dialogue"
🙄
Some people need a dictionary.
Yeah, "open dialogue" ... as long as that dialogue doesn't threaten to reduce the numbers of our congregation!
This need to be shared as much as possible, so that LGBTQIA+ atheists attendants know they are not welcome.
Or a conscience.
Hypocrisy so thick you have to scrape the ooze off of it.
When your basic premise for existence as a tax free organization is based on a fantasy, it’s pretty fucking hard to take your “holy policies” seriously. Shitler has emboldened these idiots.
St John’s response sounds identical to MAGA. They waited an entire month to rescind an acceptance. So the close the time loop. Then as a second polite request is sent for an explanation, the insecure baby from St John’s calls their request for a response in 2 business days aggressive! Trump, is that you? Shameful episode for St John’s Pride event.
Perhaps choose someone who doesn’t get his panties in a knot over a reasonable request.
Far too many people are using the MAGA playbook to 'make friends and influence people'. Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender is exactly how Trump and his ilk have made it to this dystopia today and DARVO is exactly what they did here.
I've seen this sort of thing before, where some individual or group refuses to discuss or deal with something, then when others take whatever action they deem necessary, the first person or group claims to be the injured party. Folks and groups that do this often wind up with quite a few burned bridges behind them; and while certainly the organizers of this festival have an obligation to protect other tables and attendees, this isn't protection.
I recognize that being a member of the LGBTQA+ community is difficult no matter what other circumstances may be present. I know that many times these individuals suffer at the hands of wider society for being different and and as a result of this suffering these individuals exhibit some level of defensiveness. I do find it highly worrisome when there is abruptly a level of 'concern' over how a specific group isn't 'supportive' enough of the LGBTQA+ community after previously being acceptable for space at this festival; and investigation into that kind of support should have occurred prior to being granted a table to begin with, and an explanation should have been provided with the letter notifying the group of the change to begin with. At this point, I cannot help but feel that the truth is being hidden here, and that the festival organizers are deliberately disincluding atheists for reasons they want to keep hidden.
Ultimately, yes, it is absolutely up to the organizers of the festival to determine who is and is not allowed to join the festival; that is their right and obligation both. But the reasons for revoking RfR's table seem to be very arbitrary and nonsensical, and I'm concerned they're burning a bridge they can ill afford to lose; in the end, that will hurt both the atheist community and the LGBTQA+ community.
This is turning into an ugly and unpleasant mess.
Someone should tell the operators of this festival who are denying the Atheists a table: Isaiah: "Come, let us reason together."