Exodus International yesterday announced a merger with Transforming Congregations, an ex-gay ministry affiliated with the United Methodist Church, and OneByOne, a similar outreach affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Transforming Congregations and OneByOne work to stigmatize gay Christians within their denominations and to promote the unscientific myth that sexual orientation is determined by parenting and abuse. The three organizations claim that the ex-gay myth is “Biblically orthodox” even though there is no Biblical support whatsoever for ex-gay reparative therapy, a practice that traces its origins to mistaken conjecture by 19th-century psychotherapist Sigmund Freud.
The three organizations also continue to shun thousands of former ex-gays who have passed through their ministries with their sexual orientation unchanged.
According to Charisma News Online, the organizations all but admit that the merger is in retaliation against the growing influence of spiritually and emotionally mature gay Christians:
In recent decades, both denominations have seen increasingly vocal segments of their memberships lean toward a more liberal theology that embraces homosexuality. But Exodus leaders say the merger could help the ministry better reach those groups with more effective resources that promote a biblically orthodox view of sexuality.
Transforming Congregations and One by One will function essentially as departments within Exodus’ church-equipping ministry.
Exodus lobbyist Randy Thomas sidesteps the failure of the organizations’ ex-gay ministries to change anyone’s sexual orientation, and further sidesteps the damage done to former ex-gays’ spiritual and emotional lives by Exodus’ fundamentalist rhetoric and ostracism against gay Christians.
“While the culture war has taken us into a polarization of either condemning the sin or condoning the behavior, Exodus and these groups are speaking into it redemptively and we’re saying we can hold on to truth but at the same time have compassion, have grace, have mercy and have resources available to those who do want to overcome homosexuality,” he told Charisma.
The three organizations glamorize or reject the Bible’s inconsistent and sometimes murderous messages regarding homosexuality:
Exodus leaders say navigating the fine line between loving homosexuals and communicating to them the truth of Scripture is the real challenge facing Christians.
And the organizations expose their ultimate goal: The destruction of healthy gay couples, with antigay marriage laws that deny the religious freedom of gay and gay-affirming people of faith.
Complicating that even further are concerns that with six states now allowing same-sex marriage, gay rights will one day trump religious liberty, leading to laws that punish those who preach that homosexual practice is sinful.
Instead of defending religious liberty for all regardless of orientation, Exodus and its partners claim that their freedom includes a supposed right to take away the religious liberty of others.
Speakers at Exodus’ anti-freedom press conference included representatives of the three ministries as well as Ron Dennis, founding board member of Exodus International and now current Board Member of Transforming Congregations, and Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist Convention’s “national strategist” for “gender issues” which, not coincidentally, consist of antigay activism and efforts to repeal women’s equality.
Related posts
31 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I’m the Executive Director of one of the organizations that merged with Exodus (Transforming Congregations), so obviously I have a stake in this discussion. I am not going to try to address Mr. Airhart’s generalizations or falsifications about my ministry. If anyone reading would like to see what we actually believe and say about causation and change, you can read that on our website – http://www.transcong.org/1faq.htm
Comment by Karen Booth — July 19, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Ms. Booth, thank you for the link to your FAQ.
1. Robert Gagnon and his work are not “scholarly.” His work consists of partisan and factually selective rants involving reinterpretations of cherry-picked Bible verses. His work is about as scholarly as that of Sarah Palin or Al Franken.
2. It is telling that your linked FAQ mocks the word “dialogue” with scare quotes.
3. Your distortion of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 to suggest that there were ex-gays in the Bible is
laughablesad.4. Your organization’s very name and purpose are misleading — falsely implying that either a participant’s sexual orientation is changed, or that they are no longer gay simply because they refrain from sexual behavior and suppress sexual and romantic thought.
Your organization claims that sexual orientation is heavily if not exclusively influenced by environment — but then, like Bill Clinton, things get slippery. Your FAQ fails to honestly state specific environmental influences. Instead, you allow the parent-bashers of Exodus and Focus on the Family to speak for you. As a unit of Exodus, you are now liable for Exodus’ defamations against parents and relatives of gay persons. Do you intend to publicly affirm or repudiate the parent-bashing of your parent organization — or do you intend to continue playing word games?
5. Your FAQ cherry-picks estimates of the proportion of same-sex-attracted persons in the general population and excludes a count of persons who are predominantly but not exclusively same-sex-attracted. Furthermore, your FAQ resorts to the political strawman argument that anyone claims 10 percent of the population is homosexual.
If your website or literature repudiate Exodus and cite specific environmental influences — or if your site proposes ex-gay therapy that is at odds with the discredited therapies of Exodus and NARTH — please by all means cite specifics.
Comment by Mike A — July 19, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
The “Find Help” page of the Transforming Congregations web site features testimonies by people who blame abuse for their orientation.
http://www.transcong.org/3testimonies.htm
The page also features a testimony by Ms. Booth in which she parrots the religious-right strawman argument of a gay gene, sidesteps scientific evidence of biological causation, and makes a false generalization: “I learned that the scientific studies that have been done – for example those with male and female identical twins – show more of an environmental than biological cause for same-sex behavior and preference.” This false generalization appears to be derived from Focus on the Family’s repeated misrepresentations of scientific research. Rather than parrot false generalizations, Booth should have cited specific findings from specific studies after confirming with the researchers that her interpretations were valid.
Comment by Mike A — July 19, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
It is interesting that the TC website only welcomes antigay “sexual strugglers” to church — persons who are committed to a life without romance or intimacy. Gay Christians are most definitely NOT welcome.
http://www.transcong.org/5becometc.htm
“Offer a warm and welcoming place to the sexual strugglers in your congregation. Those who succeed in changing attribute much of their success to a supportive church family – brothers and sisters in Christ who understand their struggle and compassionately encourage them to persevere and overcome.”
And it is interesting that the TC website opposes individual freedom, implying that the government and conservative church have a right to regulate private sexual behavior and relationships:
http://www.transcong.org/1faq.htm
“They [ex-gays] don’t believe sexual intercourse is a “right,” or the be-all and end-all of life. Nonetheless, all of the above is ‘change.’”
Here we see what sort of “changes” are being sought by TC:
– A change from individual freedom to government and church control of private life.
– A “transformation” from truthful depiction of relationships into bigoted descriptions of tawdry sexcapades.
– A rejection of romance and sexuality within a loving monogamous long-term relationship, in favor of sexless and romance-less sterility and constant suppression of one’s sexual and romantic thoughts.
Comment by Mike A — July 19, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
I think it’s funny that College Jay’s blog is on that site; and he is not an “ex-gay” or a “post-gay” or whatever names you’re using right now. He’s a Side B Christian, the type of Christian that is sexually honest but does not engage in behavior that is contrary to their beliefs. I believe Jay supports equality too.
But whatever lies you need to tell to get your point across, amirite?
Comment by Emily K — July 19, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
And you, Mike, cherry pick quotes from my website and come to your own prejudiced conclusions. Again, I am not going to argue here with you. I trust folk can make up their own minds by visiting my website without my having to interpret for them.
Comment by Karen Booth — July 19, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Karen, like every other organization purporting to offer “change” or even the possibility of change, you misinterpret the evidence, deliberately or out of ignorance (as a biology major unforgiveable). The twin studies taken together point to a strong genetic factor together with environmental factors that include pre-natal (eg hormonal influence on fetal neurological development). As a biology major do you really believe that “behaviour” can influence fundamental brain structures looked at in the Swedish studies?
You people are losing the “cultural war” on gay equality, gay marriage, gays in the military etc because you trade in despair and lies and ordinary people can see that a mile off. Anyone unhappy with being gay has a right to seek help, even to try to change. But YOU don’t have a right to lie about the chance of change.
Comment by Paul McMichael — July 19, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Karen is unwilling to correct or clarify the half-truths, generalizations, stereotypes, and criticisms of individual freedom that are on her website.
Why?
Perhaps, because they are intentional.
Comment by Mike A — July 19, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Paul, as a former biology major I know this … if homosexuality were genetically “hardwired,” with no possibility for alternative influences (biological or environmental) and no possible variation of expression, then ALL identical twins studied would either BOTH be gay or BOTH be non gay. And that was not the case for any of them. For me, it’s a no-brainer.
I don’t discount a possible biological influence in same-sex attraction, but that doesn’t impact my Christian understanding. What IS in the world isn’t necessarily what SHOULD BE; God’s will or God’s best doesn’t always happen. So biology isn’t destiny for the person of faith.
And I think you oversimplify my understanding (and teaching) about “change.” Here is an excerpt from a blog interview I did in 2005. It was pretty early into my ministry, but I still essentially believe what I wrote at that time.
….
4. What empirical evidence is available to prove that homosexuals can be changed into heterosexuals?
When I hear the word “empirical” I think of scientific studies or experiments that measure physically verifiable results. Someone on another blog mentioned “penile erectile studies” as one example, which I suppose is a way to measure sexual attraction and response. To my knowledge, nothing like that has ever been done with either gays or ex-gays. But I wonder what the value would be in doing so. What would it prove/disprove? I’ve been set free from heterosexual sin. Would I still get aroused if I were made to look at or read sexually explicit material? Probably. Does that mean I’m the same person I was twenty years ago? No.
If instead, “empirical” means psychological or behavioral studies, then for both gays and ex-gays we move into the realm of self-report and self-identification. Both are entirely subjective. But numerous psychological/behavioral studies indicate that sexual behavior and even sexual self-identity (orientation) is fluid and can change over time. Dr. Robert Spitzer’s work is the most recent, but it has been subject to criticism, controversy and misrepresentation from many different perspectives. Bloggers can read more about his work and about a variety of other studies at http://www.freetobeme.com/ and http://www.drthrockmorton.com/.
Which leads finally to the whole question of what constitutes “change,” An article in our first archived newsletter reports an interesting discussion about that topic among Exodus leaders. My favorite quote is this one:
“Healing from homosexuality is the process that occurs when an adult, whose primary or exclusive sexual and/or romantic attractions have been towards persons of the same sex, experiences a significant decrease in same-sex attractions and an increase in opposite-sex attractions to the extent that a heterosexual life that is emotionally, sexually and psychologically fulfilling is made possible. Accompanying these erotic and emotional changes is a change in self-perception in which the individual no longer identifies him or herself as homosexual.”
Clinical perhaps, but the quote nonetheless shows it’s far more complex than simply saying “homosexuals can be changed to heterosexuals.” That’s a media sound-bite, not the understanding of most of us who currently work in ex-gay ministry. Instead, we prefer to speak and write about freedom from homosexuality. For some that means functioning happily as a self-identified heterosexual. For some it means living a fulfilling chaste life. For some it means occasional temptation that teaches submission, obedience and trust. For all it’s a process of sanctification. Mainly because it’s not about science or psychology; it’s about faith.
….
A statement I made at the recent Exodus merger press conference sums up what I think – for “ex-gays,” “post-gays,” whatever you want to call them (I call them Christians with sanctified sexuality), same-sex attraction no longer “dominates their being, determines their behavior, or defines their identity.” I stand by that.
Posters can read the full interview I referred to at http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com/2005/08/interview-karen-booth-of-transforming.html
Comment by Karen Booth — July 19, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
No Mike, I just won’t respond to your prejudiced cherry-picking.
Comment by Karen Booth — July 19, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Karen, your distortion of Dr. Robert Spitzer’s work — Spitzer has said most people cannot change — is just your latest half-truth.
Your organization’s notion of “freedom from homosexuality” requires that gay celibates lie about their orientation in order to be considered “faithful” and therefore welcome in your churches.
It’s sad that your organization and its sponsors exclude honest people like me from serving openly in your churches. Luckily for you and for ex-gays, the churches and synagogues that I support would allow you to serve openly.
As your churches decay from insecurity, exclusivity, and denial of reality, I trust that religious institutions which are rooted in grace, inclusion, and fact will continue their gradual growth.
Comment by Michael Airhart — July 19, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Mike, your lies (not even close to “half-truth”) about me and my organization are getting old. No one in United Methodist churches (connected or not to Transforming Congregations) is required to “lie about their orientation” to be either welcomed, considered faithful, or included in leadership. They are expected to refrain from certain behaviors, in this case same-sex intimacy.
United Methodist understanding and policy counterculturally separates the two – orientation and behavior. You may disagree with that decision, but that doesn’t give you leave to distort the facts to try to make your point.
BTW – I don’t remember ever saying or writing that Spitzer found ALL people or even MOST people can change. SOME people, however, DID change to varying degrees. (Yarhouse and Jones came to basically the same conclusions in their more recent study.)
For your less prejudiced readers, here’s Spitzer’s quote from the Wall Street Journal, which I think is germane to the discussion – “Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda. Gay rights are a completely separate issue, and defensible for ethical reasons. At the end of the day, the full inclusion of gays in society does not, I submit, require a commitment to the false notion that sexual orientation is invariably fixed for all people.”
Comment by Karen Booth — July 19, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
Karen, you have yet to document a single lie by me.
If someone is same-sex-attracted and celibate, they are not “free from homosexuality.” No one enjoys the special right to redefine a basic word such as “homosexuality” to suit one’s artificial worldview or echo chamber; facts are facts, and slogans such as “freedom from homosexuality” are intentionally misleading.
This is true especially when you and your superiors at Exodus use the phrase to convey the false notion that homosexuality consists of barhopping, promiscuity, disease, and depression. That, too, is a lie. Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas are not free from homosexuality, they are free of past irresponsible and selfish choices that most sensible gay people of faith reject.
You and I finally agree on something regarding Spitzer, after your efforts (and ongoing efforts by Exodus, uncorrected by you) to suggest that Spitzer, Jones and Yarhouse prove that anyone can “change” their orientation.
When people create heterosexual “identities” (masks) to conceal their actual orientation, they are lying. It is unethical for Christians to encourage such sexual dishonesty.
Comment by Michael Airhart — July 20, 2009 @ 12:41 am
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that powers not explicitly granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.
As I noted above, Karen Booth’s FAQ assumes the opposite to be true: There is no individual “right” or freedom relating to private sexual behavior unless Booth, her church coalition, and the government explicitly say so.
Comment by Michael Airhart — July 20, 2009 @ 2:26 am
Karen, you wrote:
“Paul, as a former biology major I know this … if homosexuality were genetically “hardwired,” with no possibility for alternative influences (biological or environmental) and no possible variation of expression, then ALL identical twins studied would either BOTH be gay or BOTH be non gay.”
It was universally assumed until recently that identical twins always have identical genes, but a study recently conducted by scientists in America, Sweden and the Netherlands shows that they don’t.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215121214.htm.
So, while it still hasn’t been proved that homosexuality IS genetically caused, the argument that it CAN’T be, based on the supposition that, if it were, “ALL identical twins studied would either BOTH be gay or BOTH be non gay” is no longer valid in the light of modern knowledge.
Comment by William — July 20, 2009 @ 5:07 am
Karen, you also wrote:
“Someone on another blog mentioned ‘penile erectile studies’ as one example, which I suppose is a way to measure sexual attraction and response. To my knowledge, nothing like that has ever been done with either gays or ex-gays.”
Actually it has been done. During the 1950s the late Czech psychiatrist Dr Kurt Freund (who later emigrated and became Canadian) developed psychological techniques to turn homosexual men into heterosexual men, and thought that he had succeeded, since they all assured him that they had changed. However, when he later tested them using the penile plethysmograph, he discovered that most of then were still as homosexual as ever.
“I’ve been set free from heterosexual sin. Would I still get aroused if I were made to look at or read sexually explicit material? Probably. Does that mean I’m the same person I was twenty years ago? No.”
But it WOULD mean that, no matter what heterosexual sin you had been set free from, you were still heterosexual.
Comment by William — July 20, 2009 @ 5:44 am
Hey Karen,
You fail to mention that Robert Spitzer, in his 2001 study, said himself that change is very rare and he does not recommend attempting it.
Karen, even though it may look like SOME gays have changed, it still does not change the fact that many have tried and have suffered great emotional pain afterwards.
Seems a rather desperate act for someone to do who hates gay people. Use the select few who have claimed to have changed, ignoring the majority who have not changed, to say that ALL gays can change. Even when it causes great harm?
There is nothing biblical about that. There is no “God” in that. At least not when homosexuals are fully capable of learning to accept themselves for who they are with an inner sense of peace. Of course, you don’t care about others, no, you are much more interested in promoting false hope in the guise of doing “God’s will”; and then when confronted about it, crying persecution for your religious beliefs.
Gee Karen, does that mean if I go worship Satan and start killing people, and I get arrested for it, I can get off on all charges because I was only excercising my religious beliefs???
C’mon Karen, you must know better than that.
Comment by James — July 20, 2009 @ 7:54 am
Hi Karen:
“if homosexuality were genetically “hardwired,” with no possibility for alternative influences (biological or environmental) and no possible variation of expression, then ALL identical twins studied would either BOTH be gay or BOTH be non gay”
True, if a little tautological. Conclusion? A single gene is not responsible. However, aside from William’s comments above re: homozygotic exactness, the studies highlight the HIGHER level of concordance than for non-identical twins which in turn is HIGHER than for male siblings which in turn is HIGHER than adopted brothers brought up together. Hence, a big finger points to genetic component AND pre-natal environmental (hence biological) factors.
The weight of evidence is for homosexuality in some maybe all, gay men to be ‘hard-wired’. i.e. genetic and biological factors present before and just after birth, beyond the scope for an individual to change by an act of will (or prayer).
Incidentally, the absence of a single “gay gene” means there is no “straight gene” either.
Comment by Paul McMichael — July 20, 2009 @ 8:56 am
Karen Booth inadvertantly demonstrated her dishonesty in a couple of her statements here:
“numerous psychological/behavioral studies indicate that sexual behavior and even sexual self-identity (orientation) is fluid and can change over time.”.
Sexual self-identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing as she’s claimed here. Many “ex-gays” claim a “heterosexual” sexual “identity” (how they see themselves) but acknowledge that they remain exclusively same sex attracted. By dishonestly conflating these incompatible definitions Karen can tell further lies like this:
“No one in United Methodist churches (connected or not to Transforming Congregations) is required to “lie about their orientation” to be either welcomed, considered faithful, or included in leadership.”.
Because she’s dishonestly conflated orientation with “identity” she can now falsely claim a so-called “ex-gay” is not lying when they claim to have a heterosexual “orientation”.
Comment by Priya Lynn — July 20, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
William (comment #15 above), thank you for the reference to the recent study about twins. I hadn’t been aware of it before. It’s very interesting and I’ll have to give it a lot more thought.
Several previous revisions on my web site’s FAQ page were done after I was given new (to me) statistical information from several guys who frequent the Ex-Gay Watch site. Your information may cause me to rethink some things, too. Thanks.
Comment by Karen Booth — July 20, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Hi Paul (comment #18),
I think I already stated that I don’t rule out biological influences as a cause of same-sex attraction. So I think we may partially agree on that. But for me, biological influence can’t support the claim that desires and behavior are “hard wired.” As I said in the interview I referenced, it’s far more complex than that.
I also agree with you that the whole conversation about homosexuality is very different when you factor in women’s experiences.
Comment by Karen Booth — July 20, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Hi Priya Lynn (comment #19),
I don’t think I demonstrated my dishonesty in the statement you referenced, which was from an interview several years ago. I demonstrated my lack of knowledge (or failure of expression) at that time.
I’m fully aware that there is a difference between personally experiencing same-sex attraction or desire, acknowledging a homosexual orientation, and self-identifying as gay or lesbian.
I attended one of Dr. Mark Yarhouse’s presentations where he shared the statistical figures for studies of men and women who self-reported in the above categories, and the numbers were fewer for each subsequent group – attraction vs. orientation vs. identity. (Don’t ask me for the exact figures; I don’t have them at my fingertips. You can contact Dr. Yarhouse through the Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity if you want to verify my comments.)
Again, members or attendees or leaders of United Methodist churches don’t have to lie about either their identity OR their orientation. They have to agree to refrain from same-sex intimate behavior. That’s exactly the opposite of conflation in my mind.
In most regards, we’re all talking past each other, and Dr. Yarhouse has some wise teaching about that as well. He posits that what is operating is two very different and mostly incompatible worldviews – what he calls the “discovery” and “integration” models.
The discovery model says a homosexual person is (for lack of a better term) “made or created that way.” Whether through genes or biological influence or environmental factors, he/she progressively discovers his/her feelings and sexual orientation, with the preferred (or sole) act of integrity being to embrace a gay or lesbian identity. (I’ve heard Wayne Besen make virtually the same case many, many times.)
The integration model says a person experiences same-sex attraction, recognizes they are authentic feelings, not typically chosen, but nonetheless then does choose how to act on or integrate those feelings into his/her life. Most ex-gays/post-gays obviously embrace this worldview. I do too because I think the various studies, people’s experiences, and traditional Christian faith affirm it.
Comment by Karen Booth — July 20, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Karen, that which does not harm others, like gay love, is by definition moral. That which does harm others, like your attempts to deny gay people same sex love, is by definition immoral. You’re purveying evil.
Comment by Priya Lynn — July 20, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
And Karen, regarding your claim that “various studies and people’s experiences” affirm your anti-gay worldview – now you’re lying again. Every major mental and physical health organization agrees that it is in gay people’s best interests to positively accept their orientation rather than to engage in self-hate as you advocate. Non-religious people look at facts first and then draw conclusions. Virtually everyone with this scientific perspective have come to the conclusion that gay people are best off seeking love in same sex relationships. Religious people like you accept the anti-gay viewpoint of primitive goat herders first and then cherry pick “evidence”, distort facts, spin, lie, and pre-judge to create a facade of “support” for your anti-gay animus. People who are rational thorougly reject your hatred and the lies you spin to support it.
Comment by Priya Lynn — July 20, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
I’ve enjoyed engaging some of the folk in this thread and will continue as long as folk are respectful. (That would not include you, Priya Lynn.) If no one wants to do that, I’ll happily withdraw.
Comment by Karen Booth — July 20, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Karen, there’s nothing respectful about oppressing those who harm no one.
Comment by Priya Lynn — July 20, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
And I might add Karen, respect is earned, not automatically given. You’ll get my respect when you start behaving morally.
Comment by Priya Lynn — July 20, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
I disagree with Priya Lynn’s generalizations about religion.
True, Karen Booth and her associates at Exodus reject tbe scientific method, distorting fact to suit their political echo-chamber of un-Christian ex-gay myths.
But there are plenty of people of various faiths who accept material and logical fact as a starting point and who adjust their religious beliefs to conform to reality.
I agree that respect must be earned. Karen, so long as you:
– ostracize sexually honest Christians from your organization’s member churches,
– promote half-truths to deceive people into accepting Freudian heresies and anti-historical reinterpretations of the Bible,
– excuse and justify the harm done to former ex-gays and to families and churches by your intentionally schismatic tactics, and
– reject the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of individual and religious freedom,
So long as you do all that, you won’t find much respect for you among mainstream Americans. And you will find no respect at all among mental-health professionals who must repair the damage that you do to people and families.
Comment by Michael Airhart — July 20, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Michael said “But there are plenty of people of various faiths who accept material and logical fact as a starting point and who adjust their religious beliefs to conform to reality.”
Yes, I agree – to a degree. I would argue that if they did this fully and ocmpletely they wouldn’t be religious at all. 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in god.
Comment by Priya Lynn — July 21, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Priya Lynn, do you have a reputable source for that statistic?
Comment by Mike Airhart — July 21, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
I’ve read it a number of places, I double checked before I posted and here is where I most recently found it:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/harris06/harris06_index.html
Its burried in the document, do a search for 93 and it’ll take you right to the relevent quote. You also might do a google search for:
Atheist, academy 93
or some such thing and it should give you several sources.
Comment by Priya Lynn — July 21, 2009 @ 2:48 pm