Santorum, Apparently Forgetting Everything He's Ever Said, Says 'Government Control Of Your Lives' Has 'Gotta Stop'

Seriously, someone please have a discussion with Rick Santorum about self-awareness.

Speaking today at CPAC, Santorum actually said this (referring to the Obama contraception flap):

"It's not about contraception. It's about economic liberty, its about freedom of speech its about freedom of religion, its about government control of your lives and its gotta stop!"

For real. He said that.

The same Santorum who said he would invalidate all gay marriages.

The same Santorum who said that the right to privacy as it relates to having consensual sex with another adult in one's own home "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."

The same Santorum who said about contraception, "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

The same Santorum who said he would "advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so."

The same Santorum who said this:

"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

Watch Rick's nutty remarks from CPAC:

Hate Groups Rally Outside Southern Poverty Law Center To Protest Being Labeled As Hate Groups

It seems like a premise for a Christopher Guest movie.

A clan of organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are rallying outside of SPLC headquarters today to protest being designated as hate groups.

This anti-equality group of "the nastiest gay-bashers in America" plans to hold a press conference on the day after Martin Luther King Day.

They claim to be setting up at the Civil Rights Memorial, which is dedicated to the 40 people who died in the struggle for the equal and integrated treatment of all people.

Now, remember, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a 40-year-old civil rights organization, which classifies as hate groups "organizations that denigrate or assault entire groups of people, typically for attributes that are beyond their control."

The white organizers, which include Peter LaBarbera's Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), are bringing along a set of black pastors in a presumed bid to embarrass the SPLC.

I am not sure any group of people could be any less self-aware. It's truly mind-boggling.

Peter LaBarbera states: "The SPLC is engaged in a thinly-veiled, one-sided campaign to demonize adherents of traditional Judeo-Christian morality. He noted that despite the considerable hatred and anti-Christian bigotry emanating from homosexual activists (e.g., Dan Savage's vile hate-site, Santorum.com), the SPLC has never labeled a "gay" organization or website as "hateful.""

If you're wondering whether these groups might perhaps have a valid reason to protest, you need to only look at some of the SPLC's summaries to get a feel for their ideologies:

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH):

In 2007, LaBarbera claimed that there was “a disproportionate incidence of pedophilia” among gay men — a devastating accusation, but one that is entirely false, according to all the relevant scientific organizations. LaBarbera has compared the alleged dangers of homosexuality to those of “smoking, alcohol and drug abuse” and the AFTAH website describes it as a “lethal behavior addiction.” AFTAH has also claimed that an anti-bullying bill in California promoted cross-dressing and sex-change operations, among other things, to kindergartners and other children.

Abiding Truth Ministries:

...This group is headed by Scott Lively, who is the originator of the most remarkable smears of gay people of all — the completely false claims that Hitler was gay, that “the Nazi Party was entirely controlled by militaristic homosexuals,” and that gays were especially selected for the SS because of their innate brutality. Meeting with Ugandan lawmakers who would later push the so-called “Kill the Gays” bill in that country, Lively told them that the gay rights movement is “an evil institution” that seeks to replace a healthy society with “a culture of sexual promiscuity.” Before starting Abiding Truth, Lively headed a failed effort to pass an Oregon referendum that would have listed homosexuality, along with pedophilia, as “abnormal behavior.”

Illinois Family Institute (IFI):

In 2006, IFI’s then executive director Peter LaBarbera — now with AFTAH — demanded the closing down of all “homosexual establishments” and the repeal of all “sexual orientation laws,” shorthand for statutes that ban discrimination against gay people. When another religious right organization, Focus on the Family, toned down some of its anti-gay rhetoric in 2010, Higgins wrote that it was displaying “surprising naivete,” using the same language as pro-gay “homosexualists” and failing to confront “the pro-homosexual juggernaut.” She also attacked McDonald’s for running a gay-friendly TV ad, saying it was “hell bent on using its resources to promote subversive moral, social, and political views about homosexuality to our children.”

Mass Resistance:

Mass Resistance leader Brian Camenker has claimed that groups that back anti-bullying school programs actually want to lure children into homosexuality and, very possibly, sadomasochism. In 2006, he said that gay people were trying to pass legislation that would allow sex with animals. Camenker has falsely claimed that no gay people died in the Holocaust and that the pink triangle that the Nazis forced imprisoned gay people to wear actually signified Catholic priests. He has also repeatedly linked homosexuality and pedophilia despite the falsity of that claim. In 2008, he claimed without any evidence that “skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence” since same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts had cost that state increasingly large sums of money.

If anyone is still unsure about these organization's hate group designations, I'd ask you to try the following thought experiment: If you substituted the word 'black' or 'Jewish' for 'homosexual' or 'gay' in the above descriptions, would there be any doubt that these groups are bona fide hate groups?

Great Moments In Juxtaposition: Pope Condemns 'Superficial Glitter'

On Saturday, the pope said this:

"Let us ask the Lord to help us see through the superficial glitter of this season"

While wearing this:

In this place:

Ask A Humanist, Vol. 7: Isn't It Hypocritical For A Non-Believer To Celebrate Christmas?

As a non-believer, I've heard many a wisecrack from my Christian friends as the holidays approach. They're all in good fun. There are good ones about decorating the 'Darwin tree,' singing science carols, or toys being delivered by Sagan Claus.

While these are just friendly jabs between friends, they say a lot about society's attitudes on religious rituals, customs, and appropriation.

We have all witnessed the War on Christmas that erupts each year (mostly fabricated by Fox News and the Christian right). We have all been beaten over the head with Black Friday commercialization and the ensuing endless stream of secular Christmas specials devoid of any mention of Jesus (save for good ol' Charlie Brown).

There is a sentiment felt by many Christians that non-Christians shouldn't be able to join the party. For a long time in America, it was the Jews who sat on the sidelines while Santa delivered sack-loads of toys to their Christian neighbors. Now, as the non-religious population has become a sizable demographic (the so-called 'religious nones'), many Christians are dismayed, and perhaps bewildered, to not see them sitting on the sidelines as well.


Heritage

Just as non-practicing Jews often participate in the rituals associated with their heritage, many non-Christians who grew up in Christian households still find comfort in the rituals associated with their Christian heritage.  We do, after all, come from Christian cultural roots.

I grew up in a religious household. We celebrated Christmas each year in the same way that most Christians do. We decked the halls, wrote letters to Santa, decorated a tree, hung wreaths, lit candles, baked cookies, opened Advent calendars, set up a table-top nativity scene, sang carols, wrapped gifts, and reflected upon the birth of Jesus and the real meaning of Christmas.

My parents participated in these same rituals and customs growing up, as did their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on. I imagine that my family's Christmas customs are nearly as old as the customs themselves.

Like non-practicing Jews who light the Menorah at Hanukkah, the customs associated with Christmas are important to who I am and where I came from, whether or not I personally accept Christianity's claims. (I don't -- and this conclusion was not arrived upon easily.)


Nostalgia

I have wonderful childhood memories of Christmastime. It is a time of wonder and joy for any child who experiences it. Some of these memories are as powerful, and as comforting, as any memories I have.

It is no coincidence that retailers infuse the air with the smells of cinnamon, pine, and cider during the Holidays. We are psychological beings, and our memories carry deep associations with sights, sounds, and smells of our experiences. Just as we might like playing a particular song that connects us with a specific joyous experience, partaking in the sights and sounds of the holidays can elicit many of the feelings we experienced at a simpler, more innocent time in our lives. We also find pleasure in sharing these memories, and making new memories, with our own children.

Participating in the customs and rituals associated with Christmas, despite our religious conviction (or lack thereof), is a beautiful way of appreciating and strengthening our bond with the past, of passing this gift of heritage along to our children, and of extending these bonds into another generation. Whether or not the next generations choose to believe in the tenets of Christianity is up to each of them. I don't wish to deprive them of that opportunity.


Appropriation

So, sure, all this sounds great, but still, isn't it just a case of having your cake and eating it too?

If participating in the customs of my ancestors despite lacking the same beliefs is wrong, then a whole lot of customs we participate in each year are wrong as well.

The Christmas narrative in and of itself has many similarities to other religions that pre-date Christianity, suggesting that elements may have been borrowed. Jesus was not the first miracle-worker born to a virgin who would later be crucified and resurrected.

The date of Christmas was chosen to coincide with winter festivals that pre-date the holiday. The ancient Roman festival of Saturnalia featured gift-giving, visiting with friends and loved ones, the lighting of candles, and a feast. Pagan Scandinavia celebrated Yule, for 'a fertile, and peaceful season,' with customs such as the Yule log, singing, and the Yule boar (reflected today in the Christmas ham). Koleda, an ancient Slavic ritual celebrating death and rebirth, featured a custom of roving from home to home singing songs and receiving gifts. Christmas customs related to greenery, lights, and charity pre-date Christmas and were likely adopted from Roman New Year celebrations.

Anyone with a knowledge of religious customs throughout the ages would agree that there are not many Christmas customs that did not exist prior to the holiday's origin.

Despite the mixed religious roots of Santa Claus, he is largely a secular phenomenon, along with Rudolph, Frosty the Snowman, and other recent staples associated with the season. Puritans, in fact, opposed celebration of Christmas at all for nearly two centuries because of its secular and pagan associations.

We can point to any number of holidays that Americans participate in despite not really 'deserving' to celebrate them. We don't need to be religious, or Irish, to wear green and drink a pint of Guinness on St. Patrick's Day.  We don't need to be Mexican to have nachos and a Corona on Cinco de Mayo. We don't need to believe in pagan supernaturalism to dress up on Halloween and trick-or-treat. The eggs and bunnies associated with Easter (named, of course, for the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism) are customs that millions of non-pagans enjoy each year.

So, really, this business of appropriation is nothing new. As it says in Ecclesiastes 1:9 (although I'm sure it was said before), "There is no new thing under the sun."


The Message of Christmas Is A Good One

Just as one doesn't need to be African-American to acknowledge the importance of what Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for, one needn't be a Christian to acknowledge the importance of the philosophies associated with Jesus.

You really couldn't ask for a greater message: Love everyone, regardless.  Extend kindness to all, even those who you may feel are undeserving. Always strive for justice and peace. Be charitable, and be forgiving. 

Whether or not I actually believe that a historical Jesus preached this message, and whether or not I accept that this figure was born of a virgin, was the son of God, worked miracles, was crucified, was resurrected, and ascended bodily into heaven, the philosophies associated with Jesus are certainly worthy of observance.

We could do much worse than spending a portion of our year with a heightened sense of awareness of these sentiments. These philosophies are certainly not unique to Christianity, nor were they new philosophies at the time Jesus would have lived, but his message, as well as his story, was a big part of my family's heritage and was a big part of my own childhood. Acknowledging this through the the observance of long-practiced family customs and rituals is anything but dishonest.


Doing What Works

There are many Humanists and non-believers who choose to refrain from participating in religious holiday traditions. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. There are degrees of non-belief.

While I may reject supernatural and religious dogma as a basis for morality, I don't reject religion as a whole. I don't discount the benefits many receive from religion, and I certainly understand and accept the concept of sacredness.

I am lucky in that I live in a society that holds dear the right to religious freedom. In my home, we exercise this right by participating in customs associated with a variety of religions. Our kids love to play dreidel for chocolate gelt during Hanukkah. They have lit the Menorah. They learn about the vast array of religious customs and observances around the world, and throughout history, and some interest them more than others.

A religiously literate child will not grow to be a xenophobic exceptionalist. She will very likely grow to be tolerant, charitable, kind, and will likely value peace and justice.  Much like this Jesus person that is celebrated this time of year.

More 'Ask a Humanist' entries...

• Vol. 1: What Happened To Make You Angry At God?
• Vol. 2: Aren't You Denying Your Children the Opportunity to be Religious?
• Vol. 3: What About Death?
• Vol. 4: Isn't Humanism a Faith?
• Vol. 5: Why Do You Care What People Believe?
• Vol. 6: Isn't It Sad To Live Without Faith?

Jon Stewart on Fox News' Reaction to the Violence in Norway

In this clip, Jon Stewart perfectly crystallizes the rampant and unfettered hypocrisy that has infected both politics and the cable news channels that cover politics. With blinders on, these organizations incessantly fling accusations of which they themselves are guilty, and cry victim when they are not too busy doing the victimizing.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
In the Name of the Fodder
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The GOP Hopefuls: Islamophobia, Hypocrisy, and the Politics of Fear

During the New Hampshire Republican debate, we heard from two potential candidates who were not at all shy about their reluctance to hire Muslims.

Herman Cain, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO, stated that he would not be comfortable with a Muslim in his administration. Cain said, "You have peaceful Muslims and you have militant Muslims – those that are trying to kill us. And so when I said I wouldn't be comfortable I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us."

Cain was backing off from his previous statements to Scott Keyes of Think Progress. Keyes asked, "Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?" Cain answered emphatically: "No, I will not. And here's why. There is this creeping attempt...to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government."

Newt Gingrich jumped in with the following statement: "Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period." He continued: "We did this in dealing with the Nazis. We did this in dealing with the Communists. And it was controversial both times and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say, 'No.'"

The first thing that strikes me as silly about this debate is the ridiculous hypocrisy. Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich are not comfortable with Muslims in the administration because, in part, they don't want Islamic beliefs creeping into US law, or informing policy decisions. Yet, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich are perfectly fine with their own supernatural beliefs creeping into US law and informing policy decision.

You can't have your pizza and eat it too.

According to Cain and Gingrich, and other GOP hopefuls, it is perfectly acceptable that the President of the United States claim that God chose them to lead the country, that God is the only entity that can give or take rights, and that an immortal soul enters the egg at the moment of conception, but it is entirely not okay if a cabinet member believes in Allah.

Right out of the gate, their comments show a complete disregard for the Constitution's No Religious Test Clause, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Religious tests, in this case would include asking an appointee if they were a Muslim.

The comments also show a complete disregard for the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Of course, all of this does not address the elephant in the room. Gingrich and Cain (and many other Americans, for that matter) believe that Muslims are out to kill Americans. It is true that Muslims have been behind attacks on Americans (here, and abroad). We can all agree that Muslims have killed Americans. Muslims will likely kill Americans again (as will Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics). But our constitution does not permit us to discriminate against all Muslims simply because some of them have harmed us in the past.

If you apply this logic to any other set of circumstances, it seems absurd. For example, we know, based on sex crime statistics that most child molestations are committed by men. However, knowing this, we can't discriminate against men, denying them jobs where they might be in contact with young children. What we can do in this situation is to take all constitutional and legal precautions to prevent the hiring of someone who might potentially harm these children, or who harmed children in the past. We can perform background checks, check references, conduct numerous interviews, and screen them in any way that is lawful and non-discriminatory. We do what we can do, and then we just have to have faith -- something Cain and Gingrich should know about -- that we have taken the appropriate measures to minimize risk.

We also have to remind ourselves that the remarks of Cain, Gingrich, and other Islamophobes are inflammatory and not reflective of reality.  Let's look at some statistics:

According to a recent study by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, more non-Muslim Americans were involved in terrorist plots last year than Muslim Americans. There were also more than 20 terrorist plots by non-Muslims in the United States in 2010. Twenty Muslim Americans committed, or were arrested for, terrorist crimes last year, which was down sharply from 2009 when the number was 47.

What we ought to be worrying about is non-terrorism-related murder, if we want to protect Americans.  "Since 9/11, there have been approximately 150,000 murders in the United States, more than 15,000 per year," said the study.

With Muslims making up around one percent of the US population, "it is clear that Muslims are engaging in terrorism at a greater rate than non-Muslims -- though at a low level compared with overall violence in the United States."

Foiled attacks or involvement in a terrorist plot by Muslim Americans stand out because they garner so much media attention, "creating the impression -- perhaps unintentionally -- that Muslim American terrorism is more prevalent than it really is," the study said.

The study "puts into perspective the threat presented by domestic radicalization of Muslim Americans," said David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center.

"Americans should take note that these crimes are being perpetrated by a handful of people whose actions are denounced and rejected by virtually all the Muslims living in the United States," he said.

William Saleton, writing at Slate, describes Cain's Islamophobia as strikingly hypocritical, given his personal experiences with group exclusion:

Cain is familiar with this kind of group exclusion. It was done to him 60 years ago. He had to sit in the back of the bus and drink from "colored" water fountains. He graduated second in his high school class but was refused admission by the University of Georgia. It didn't matter how smart Cain was or how hard he worked. He was black, and the white society around him had decided that blacks were inferior. He was treated as a member of a group, not as an individual. In a word, he was prejudged.

Today, the Ku Klux Klan is still around, but its racism has become more sophisticated. It uses data. "The black male is the greatest perpetrator of both petty crimes and violent crimes in the black communities," says a Klan Web site. Even "Jesse Jackson said that when he's walking down the street at night and he hears footsteps behind him, he's relieved to turn around and see a white person instead of a black person." From this, the Klan concludes, "Minorities … as a people (though there are always exceptions to the rule) are incapable of maintaining or even comprehending the rule of law and order."

That's how prejudice works in the information age. You use statistical averages to generate stereotypes and ultimately to justify differential treatment of people by category.

This is what Cain is now doing to Muslims.

Newt Gingrich stated in the NH debate, "The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed – when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, 'You’re my enemy. I lied.'"

I believe Gingrich, on three occasions, swore to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do him part. So much for loyalty oaths.

Newt is out of his skull to believe that he is going to pull some Minority Report shit and preemptively filter out individuals who are going to do harm to the United States. If that were the case, we would have needed a way to prevent rich white men from being hired in presidential administrations. But that's discrimination, Newt, even if it might have saved thousands of American lives (we've lost almost 3 times as many Americans in these oil wars as we did on 9/11).

The Islamophobia of the GOP hopefuls recalls the same scare tactics they have used to rally voters for decades. This is our Red Scare. Like clockwork it crops up every election cycle, this fear of the unfamiliar.  If it's not Commies, it's the gays, or drugs, or illegal immigrants, or socialism, or the Black Panthers.  They use it because fear is visceral. Nothing gets people riled up like the fear that something is out to destroy their American way of life, especially if you can threaten their religion and their lives in one fell swoop. There is now a cottage industry in peddling the fear of Sharia Law, and Gingrich and Cain are in the thick of it.

The bottom line is, if we wish to preserve the freedom guaranteed by our constitution, there is some amount of risk that must be accepted. If we want to go down the road of discriminating against people based on their religious beliefs, then that's a slippery slope. Which beliefs are considered to be indicative of danger to America? And if we are to start equating religious beliefs with danger, I would argue that many Evangelical Christian beliefs are dangerous, and that we should not allow Evangelicals into positions in government administration.

Is it not dangerous enough that we had a President who made war decisions (which led to thousands of American deaths) based on Biblical prophecy?  Is it not dangerous that we have three potential Republican presidential candidates who have each claimed that God sent them messages encouraging them to run for president? Isn't it dangerous enough that Michele Bachmann believes that if the United States turns its back on Israel, "a curse" will be placed on the land, citing Genesis 12:3? Isn't it dangerous that Rick Santorum strongly believes that Intelligent Design should be taught in school, and that the "right to privacy...doesn’t exist in [his] opinion in the United States Constitution" when it comes to sexual behavior?

This bunch at the NH debate is in lockstep with the extreme Christian Right -- moreso than any group of candidates in history. Their concern about dangerous religious ideas infiltrating government is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

Christian to Walk 160 Miles to Repent for Homophobia

This summer, British Christian writer Symon Hill will walk from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of sorts. He is walking 160 miles to repent for his former homophobic attitudes and beliefs.

Hill admits he used to campaign against gay ministers and Christian acceptance of LGBT people. He has since become convinced that he was wrong.

He writes:

Taking a circuitous route between 16 June and 1 July, I will give talks on the way, challenging the Church as a whole to repent of homophobia and to think differently about sexuality.

I will be praying for God's guidance and engaging in dialogue with those who disagree.

An email to The Guardian indicates that Hill's trek is garnering support and publicity from other churches and organizations who share the sentiment:

Churches in Birmingham, Oxford and London are to host events in June and July encouraging Christians to repent of homophobia and support full equality for gay and bisexual people. All three churches will host talks by Symon Hill, a Christian writer who is walking 160 miles on a pilgrimage of repentance for his former homophobia. The pilgrimage has been welcomed by the former Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, and the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

A call to Hill revealed that the churches mentioned in the email are "neither Church of England nor Roman Catholic. They are Methodist, Reformed and Baptist. So still churches, just not the right ones." I would argue that any churches are "right ones," but I do share the sentiment that this amounts to preaching to the choir.

Hill told the Guardian:

It has been harder than expected to find churches willing to host me. There have been churches who were very interested but later found the congregation or the vicar to be opposed to the idea. There are lots of people who support inclusion but avoid talking about for fear of creating a row.

Luckily, there are people like Hill willing to force the discussion.

Hill writes on his blog:

Along with the ednorsements from organisations, I continue to be humbled by the emails and comments I recieve from individuals. This evening, I recieved an email from a Christian mother of two adult children who are both gay Christians. She is proud of them, accepts their faith and their sexuality, and works with a support group for Christian parents with LGBT children, some of whom have difficulty reaching a position of acceptance.

I am only one of many, many people in Britain and around the world who are inspired by the radical inclusivity of Christ to work for the full equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, transgender, intersex and queer people within Christiainity. I do not think I could do what I am doing without the support of others, and I thank God for all of them.

For more information on Symon's pilgrimage, see his blog here.

The 'Sissy Boy' Experiment: George Rekers' 'Ex-Gay Therapy'

Via Towleroad:

"In 1970, a five-year-old boy named Kirk Murphy was subjected to an ex-gay experiment. Under the care of Dr Ivor Lovaas and George Rekers, then a doctoral student, of UCLA, he underwent therapy to eliminate supposed effeminate behaviors. In 1974, Lovaas and Rekers jointly published a paper about the boy they renamed "Kraig," heralding his treatment for "childhood cross-gender problems" a success and claiming he had been transformed from a gender-confused homosexual-in-waiting to a healthy, heterosexual young man. On the back of this study, Rekers built a career as an anti-gay activist and a supposed expert in childhood sexual development. He co-founded the Family Research Council and championed reparative therapy to turn gay men straight. In 2003, Kirk, aged 38 years old and gay, committed suicide."

If the name George Rekers doesn't ring a bell, you may recall a particular anti-gay psychologist and Southern Baptist minister who hired a rent-boy to carry his luggage.

The following is the first part in Anderson Cooper's The Sissy Boy Experiment, a devastating look at the "experimental therapy" designed to make feminine boys more masculine.

LGBT Mother's Day Ad Rejected by Sojourners (A Pro-Diversity, Anti-Prejudice Christian Organization)

Believe Out Loud, a project of Intersections International, is a "collection of clergy and lay leaders, LGBT activists, and concerned individuals, working together to help the Protestant community become more welcoming to gays and lesbians."  The organization has launched a campaign to get one million Christians to "break the silence and join the burgeoning chorus for full LGBT equality in the church."

The initiative has gained much of its recent support, in part, from the following video, which has a special Mother's Day message.  A family comprised of a boy and two moms, enter a church for the first time, and, after unwelcoming glares from the congregation as they search for a pew, are welcomed by the pastor of the church. 

The video serves as an introduction to the Believe Out Loud project, which aims to urge silently supportive clergy and church members to speak out and stand up in favor of welcoming LGBT Christians into the fold.

"Jesus Christ called each of us to love one another," claims the Believe Out Loud Web site. "It’s not enough for us to silently believe that all are equal in God’s eyes.  It is time for us to put our beliefs into action."

Seems reasonable enough.

Unfortunately, however, the progressive Christian Website Sojourners, refused to run the ad, claiming, “Sojourners position is to avoid taking sides on this issue. In that care [sic], the decision to accept advertising may give the appearance of taking sides.”

So, is this the same Sojourners whose tagline is "Christians for justice and peace?" The same one that claims in their Diversity Statement that they "believe that unity in diversity is not only desirable, but essential to fulfilling God's ultimate desire for God's people," and that, "We confess that both personal prejudice and systemic oppression are sin?"

Good luck with that, Sojourners.

Ted Haggard: Why Can't I Be Restored Like Tiger Woods and Mike Vick?

In an interview with The Christian Post, fallen megachurch pastor Ted Haggard wonders why sports figures like Tiger Woods can rehabilitate their images when he and other evangelists can't:

"The NFL's doing a better job at [restoring]. CBS is doing a better job at it. KMART is doing a better job at it,” he continues in his tirade. "Virtually every institution on earth is demonstrating that they are doing a better job at restoring people than the Church. And we're the only ones who market that we know how to do it. We are idiots. We are hypocrites."

Ted, I believe you nailed it.  Hypocrisy is precisely the problem.  Tiger Woods does not make his living telling others not to have extra-marital affairs.  Mick Vick does not earn a living pushing anti-dogfighting legislation.  However, you made a living, in part, by teaching that homosexuality is an abomination and actively lobbying against gay rights.

If there is a lesson to learn here, it's that perhaps the church should reconsider its rhetoric as it relates to LGBT issues and stop actively pushing legislation that is rooted in religious dogma.  Also, as a man of faith, Ted, you might want to become reacquainted with Matthew 7:1.