Persecuted by a Simple Statement

christian, atheism, atheist, god, bus ads, iowa
If somebody said to you, an atheist, an agnostic, a pagan, or otherwise, that many people in the United States are Christians and accept Jesus as their messiah, would you be offended?

Of course not, this is a simple statement of fact. This would no more offend a reasonable person than stating that water is wet and the sky is blue. I find it hard to imagine even unreasonable people being offended by this.

So why would a Christian be offended by the statement that there are people that don't believe in any gods at all? So offended, in fact, that they may choose to lose their job in this time of high unemployment rather than accept that simple statement as the fact that it is.

The Des Moines Regional Transit Authority in Iowa has suspended an employee who refused to drive a bus that carried an ad for an atheist group.
Angela Shiel, 41, was suspended on Monday after she refused to drive a bus that featured on its side an ad paid for by the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers.

The ad reads "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."

According to the Des Moines Register, Shiel said driving with such an ad "goes against everything I believe in."

"For me to drive a bus that is totally against my beliefs personally - that's why I didn't take it," she added.

The fact that atheists exist goes against everything you believe in? Really? You believe there are no atheists? I didn't realize that was part of the Christian belief system.

I am the Downfall of Society

gay, marriage, traditional, iowa, king, kiron, republican, prolife, abortion, homophobia, homosexual,
Iowa Representative, Steve King, has the most unusual view of US values I have ever seen. Sure, I've seen the "gay marriage will destroy civilization as we know it" argument a few times before, but this qualifies as a whole new level of weird.

from The Iowa Independent:

CEDAR RAPIDS — Speaking at an anti-abortion event in eastern Iowa Monday night, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, warned that legalized same-sex marriage would lead to a complete dissolution of society and religion.

“I will tell you that I first came into this political arena with the belief innocent human life was the most important thing that I could be involved in,” said King, a Kiron Republican who represents the 5th Congressional District in western Iowa. “I still believe that is the most important value. But I also recognize that if we don’t save marriage, we can’t remain pro-life.

“The values we have we pour through marriage into our children and into the next generation. Our religious values. Our values of faith. Our values. Our work ethic. Our entire culture comes through a man and a woman joined in holy matrimony, being blessed with children and pouring those values into the children and then living vicariously through them as they go off and we are blessed with grandchildren.”

I'm no Kiron Republican, but I'm pretty sure gay couples have the lowest rate of abortion, not the highest. I'm also a little disturbed (or confused, possibly amused) that our values include "living vicariously" through our children. Is there some reason that we can't live our own lives, even after our children have grown up?

Also, what about people like me? I don't have children, I won't have children, so clearly I won't be living vicariously through anyone. Apparently, I will be bringing about the downfall of western civilization- by living my own life, right up to the end.

Iowa, and Mike Gronstal, For the Win!

gronstal, gay, marriage, iowa, homophobia, homosexual, traditional,
From the Box Turtle Bulletin (click link for video):

Iowa State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is already on record as saying that as long as he’s Majority Leader, there will be no vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He reiterated that stance today, in no uncertain terms.

Yeah, Gronstal!

The Sky Is Falling

christian, christianity, baptist, religion, same sex, marriage, gay, tradition, vermont, iowa, mathew staver, kris mineau, homophobia, homosexual,
Or not.

The Baptist Press (news with a christian perspective) is just full of warnings as to how same sex marriage will change everything. They're not exactly full of specifics, but the warnings they've got down.

Some say the sky hasn't fallen in the nearly five years since "gay marriage" was legalized in Massachusetts, but Kris Mineau, a citizen and conservative activist in that state, begs to differ. In the interests of fairness, I haven't been to Massachusetts lately, so I checked, and yes, the sky still stands above Massachusetts.

Sure, he says, things may look the same on the surface, but if you dig a little deeper, you'll see dramatic cultural changes. Teachers are teaching children about homosexual families over the objections of parents. A major adoption agency has chosen to shut down rather than be forced to place children with homosexual couples. "The sky is falling in Massachusetts in two key areas: parental rights and religious liberty," Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, told Baptist Press.

An awful lot of things taught in public schools are potentially offensive to people. Teachers are also teaching evolution, aka science, to students over parents' protests. Teaching that women have the right to education and careers could be offensive to fundamentalists of any stripe.

Also, familiarizing students with same sex marriage in a place where same sex marriage occurs is like familiarizing students with diversity in race and religion. They're going to be exposed to it, it wouldn't hurt them to know about it.

. . .

Mineau's Exhibit A is Robb and Robin Wirthlin, a husband and wife at the center of a Massachusetts public school dispute that has gained nationwide attention. Their son came home in 2006 and told his parents his teacher had read the class a children's story about a prince "marrying" another prince. The book ends with a picture of the two men kissing. and they managed to turn their shock and bewilderment into a national tour. Joe the Plumber before Joe the Plumber, if you will.

The Wirthins were shocked shocked!, yes, but bewildered when the school told them they would not be given advance notice in the future about any such books. do parents typically receive notice of every book their child will be reading? no. they do not. They filed a lawsuit in federal court against the school, but a lower court ruled against them, asserting that "diversity is a hallmark of our nation" and that such diversity "includes differences in sexual orientation." The parents, the judge ruled, could always homeschool their son or send him to private school if they didn't like the public school options. A federal appeals court upheld the decision.

Exactly. They did have a choice. They didn't have to turn one book into a media circus, they could have simply home schooled their child or sent him to a private school that agreed with their religious position. Or, even simpler, they could have explained what their values were and why they thought the book was wrong. But why take the reasonable route when you can parlay shock and bewilderment into a national tour?

. . .

In recent weeks supporters of a "gay marriage" bill in Vermont have said religious freedoms would be protected because ministers would not be forced to perform such ceremonies. The Iowa Supreme Court, in its "gay marriage" opinion, even said churches would still be allowed to define marriage as they wish. But Douglas Napier, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said such protections are far too narrow and that "gay marriage" by its very nature negatively impacts freedoms."

Religious liberties and the homosexual agenda are on a collision course," said Napier, who grew up in Iowa and practiced law there for 16 years. " ... I don't think anybody should think this doesn't affect them. It will affect them, and it will affect them in a very deep way."

Those two paragraphs are full of warnings, but no specifics at all. We never hear how, exactly, same sex marriage would affect freedom or religion, just that it will.

Let's review the Vermont same sex marriage bill:


§5144(b):

This section does not require a member of the clergy authorized to
solemnize a marriage as set forth in subsection (a) of this section, nor societies
of Friends or Quakers, the Christadelphian Ecclesia, or the Baha’i Faith to
solemnize any marriage, and any refusal to do so shall not create any civil
claim or cause of action.

What part of that negatively impacts religious freedoms? Well, okay, the freedom to deny equality to some people, but religious freedoms? Churches are specifically allowed to opt out of performing same sex marriages without repurcussions.

I suspect actual consequences are not mentioned in the Baptist News article, because nobody could think of any.

What follows is a list of debunked anecdotes, but this one is really popular, so I thought I'd address it:

-- In New Jersey, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights office after officials with an oceanfront religious retreat center owned by members of the United Methodist Church refused to allow the two women to use a pavilion for a same-sex civil union ceremony. (Civil unions are legal in the state.) The state in 2007 agreed with the couple and removed the tax-exempt status of the pavilion, located in Ocean Grove.

Thing is, the "oceanfront religious retreat center" was allowed to remain tax free as long as the church allowed public access to it. By denying the gay couple equal access, the church was risking their tax exempt status, and they knew that. I am really sick of churches attempting to have their cake and eat it, too, as if the rules that apply to the rest of us don't apply to them. You want to keep your tax free status? Fine, follow the rules. You don't want to follow those rules? Fine, give up your tax free status. That's not persecution, asshats.

. . .

This bit of irony was too rich to pass up:

"The list goes on and on," Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a religious liberty legal organization, told BP. "Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values.... People really need to wake up, because this, I think, is the greatest threat to our liberty that we face today -- bar none."

To paraphrase: "Oh noes! Teh Gayz are using the exact same tactics we use! And they work!"

Oh, and for the love of whatever, could the christians who do not think hate is christian value please speak up?

Go Iowa!

obama, gay, marriage, iowa, homophobia, homosexual, tradition, traditional,
From the Wall Street Journal:

The Iowa Supreme Court says the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.

I figured out what's going on. See, when Obama was elected, the entire country took a step to the left. This allowed Iowa (Iowa!) to stop treating gays as second class citizens, but a step to the left for California pushed them all the way around into conservatism.

Win some, lose some.

Quote Mining Will Now Be Referred to As Pulling a Fitz

fitz, opine, stupid, asshat, quote mining, gay, marriage, tradition, children, iowa, homophobia, homosexual, prop 8,
We will now refer to quote mining as "pulling a Fitz". In case you've missed my running argument with Fitz from the Opine Editorials, here it is. In this argument, Fitz, who is a lawyer and really ought to know better, pulls quotes from Varnum v. Brien. Being a bigoted Opiner, Fitz of course is trying to prove that gays shouldn't be allowed near children, gay marriage ruins straight marriage, and gays should get back into the closet and stay there this time, damnit!

Cute, but Fitzy, I'd like to see you pull this shit in front of a judge.

Fitzy's comment to Efficacy and Reasoning.

I really wish you were more knowledgeable about the state of this debate. Honest & Goodwill arguments have ceded many points relevant to both sides in this argument. Perhaps if you use some of the link I referenced before you can go beyond the blanket assertions of professional organizations regarding the state of the science & approach the level of sophistication exercised by leading (goodwill) opponents on either side.

. . .

Declaration of Alan J. Hawkins as Expert Witness for Defendant at 8–9, Varnum v. Brien, No. CV 5965 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Mar. 15, 2007),

. . .

The Iowa State Court had noted that those advocating for same-sex “marriage” did not dispute, and frankly offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings:

1. "Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures- including single parent families, adopted families, step families, divorced families and the like (note – Courts, social scientists & advocates of same-sex “marriage” themselves concede that same-sex families have not been adequately studied so that solid conclusions can be made)”

*2. "Children reared in a stable natural married family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk."Your opinion on this matter will be quite telling.

It will tell me whether I am arguing with someone persuadable by evidence, or someone who (as you assert) is more like those “bigots” you seem so readily to impute on any opposition.

Here's the thing: The Iowa Court found IN FAVOR of same sex marriage. Yes, in the same case that Fitzy cites to argue against same sex marriage.

Varnum v. Brien, page 62

It Is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:
I. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant's
opposing motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

2. Iowa Code §595.2(1) is hereby nullified, severed and stricken from Iowa
Code Chapter 595.

3. All remaining provisions ofIowa Code Chapter 595 are to be interpreted in a
gender-neutral manner so as not to exclude couples ofthe same sex from
eligibility for a marriage license.

4. Defendant is hereby enjoined from refusing to issue marriage licenses to
Plaintiffs or any other same-sex couples who a) are otherwise eligible for said
licenses pursuant to Chapter 595 as amended and interpreted by this order,
and b) who properly apply for such licenses.

5. Court costs are hereby taxed to Defendant.

Dated this 30th day ofAugust, 2007.

Way to pull a fitz, Fitz.