A few months ago I posted a blog post containing a video of over 300 Minnesota Catholics gathering together to sing out in support of marriage equality and in opposition to that state’s proposed marriage discrimination amendment. I wrote,
If any of [the singers in the video] minister publicly in their churches — as volunteer cantors (songleaders), lectors (readers), ushers, greeters, or communion ministers — or if any of them work for the Catholic Church in a professional capacity as pastoral associates, liturgists, business managers, teachers, music directors, etc., participating in this video could get them pushed out of ministry or even fired.
Just in case any of you, dear readers, thought I was exaggerating, I present to you now Exhibit A: the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that last week, the Minnesota campaign finance board took the unusual step of exempting a man, known only as John Doe, from the state’s public disclosure requirements. Minnesota law requires the disclosure of the names and employers of campaign contributors, but exemptions can be granted if it can be proven that disclosure would cause “specific harm.” In the case of John Doe — who donated $600 to Minnesotans United for All Families, the campaign working to defeat the marriage discrimination amendment — he believed that he would be fired from his job at a Catholic-run institution if his pro-equality contribution became public, and the board agreed.
The Star-Tribune reports that Doe cited a rather compelling precedent:
In making its decision, released Friday, the state campaign finance agency examined the case of Trish Cameron, a former teacher at a Catholic School in Moorhead. Cameron told agency officials that she had revealed to her supervisors during a private annual self-evaluation that she personally objected to the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage, although she would said she would not bring that belief into the classroom.
“A week later,” the campaign finance agency wrote, “Ms. Cameron was asked to resign.”
Francis DeBernardo of New Ways Ministry sums up my own reaction to this news:
“While it is praiseworthy that the campaign finance board has taken this measure to protect this man’s employment, it is a sad commentary on the state of [the Catholic] church when a person is forced into anonymity to express a moral decision.”
Indeed.
My sympathy is with Catholics, who have polled to be among the more Equality-supportive major denominations (I believe I last saw 56% support for Marriage Equality), as so many members of their church leadership give them an awful reputation.
Catholics are responsible for this situation and only Catholics can fix it. They should stop donating money to the Church until the church stops waging a war against gay marriage and it’s supporters. I really have no sympathy for Catholics. They created this situation for themselves by being complacent.
The bigotry in the Catholic hierarchy can be traced directly back to Ratzinger.
Lets hope they elect a more ‘christian’ pope next time round.
Paul – I really have no sympathy for bigots who make sweeping judgmental statements about MILLIONS of people: i.e., “they” and “only” and “should.” No better than a Catholic bishop; if anything, worse, because you’re so righteous that you don’t know about Catholics for Equality and other organizations that are fighting day in and day out while asses like you sabotage from the sidelines. Get back to stealing babies, seducing wives, and boring the hell out of passing billy goats. It’s more productive, witty, amusing, and intelligent than the bile you’ve spewed here.
@Peter Hargmier— Ratman may be the current face of the Holy Bigotry but the precedents are centuries old.
It reminds me of the Soviet Union. If you disagreed with the Party Line, you were thrown out. Jesus never condoned this kind of treatment.
Glad to see my home church fighting the good fight. Gives me at least a semblance of hope for the future of the Church and a chance to really modernize and be in sync with its members.
Also, proud to see the picture taken with my camera at the rally against the NOM Summer for Marriage Tour is on the site, haha. (I’m on the left).
Reed,
Did you forget to take your meds today? Paul’s comments were completely rational. Why should he have sympathy for catholicks? Why should any of us non catholicks have sympathy for people who stay in an abusive, patriarchal relic of feudal Europe that is openly promoting hostile political legislation all over the world against women’s reproductive rights and marriage equality among other things.
Your comments were juvenile and egocentric. We noncatholicks really just want to be left alone by your religion and it is not unfair to hold the laity responsible for allowing their leadership to conduct itself the way they do. This is the 21st century, not the 14th.
Reed,
What’s with all that garbage about stealing babies and crap? Does rightful criticism of a bigoted and oppressive organization normally make you go apoplectic and incoherent?
The Catholic church preaches bigotry and promotes inequality. You may believe differently than they do but you help support the ideals they preach by your presence in their pews, your name on their membership rolls and the money you put in their coffers. If you actually want to change things tell your church to move into the 21st century or you’ll dump them. Otherwise they have no motivation to do anything.
I’m sorry, Paul’s comments are NOT rational. Paul’s comments are no different from the comments made against gays. When my son came out to his mother and her church in TX he was exorcised (not Catholic, btw, Pentecostal). No other opinions were brooked. He has been with us for the last 3 years where he is doing just fine, thanks — but — I do not condemn either his mother or several other people in that church who did NOT condone or involve themselves in the exorcism (which was forceful and which his mother finally put to a stop forcefully because of the level of violence being used), and who, although their beliefs said that he was evil or even demon possessed due to being gay, actively came to a different conclusion than their faith leaders.
Paul and apparently you do not understand that the world is much bigger than us and our issues. Faith is a powerful thing and it is more difficult than you can imagine apparently to differ from your faith, say nothing about “punishing it” for a position that you agonized to reach.
I do not condemn Catholics for not being stronger, and I am honored and deeply appreciative that they are as strong as they are. 56% is a clear win. That 56% of American Catholics support gay marriage and equality IN DEFIANCE of their church hierarchies is a remarkable thing and something that everyone of us should be thankful for — rather than whining that we want more.
Regards,
Reyn
PS In the spirit of full disclosure, I was ordained in the Protestant movement many years ago, I do not make my living in any way that is connected to the church, I went on to graduate and post graduate work in an unrelated field, in which I work.
Reyn,
It is the uncritical support of beliefs that cannot be verified or proven to be true that is irrational. It is supporting a religious hierarchy financially that oppresses you and those who love that is irrational. It is kowtowing to ignorance, lies and deceit done in the name of bronze-age deity that contradicts what the human race has learned about psychology, sociology, human sexuality, and biology over the past 300 years that is irrational.
No Reyn, the world is not “much bigger” than our issues, but it contains many issues related to fairness, justice and planetary survival that are interconnected with our issues. Probably the most egregious issue the roman catholick church has irrationally held to is population control which is directly connected to their irrational obsession with controlling women’s reproductive rights. Our planet cannot support an ever increasing augmentation of the population ad infinitum. It is observable to any rational thinking person and science confirms the likely limits of how much food can be produced, how the sequestered carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere is causing global warming and the risks to other life forms of our profligacy. Yet “faith” your “powerful thing” that is based on NOT being rational, is directly blocking any progress we might make as a species to mitigate our own impact on our planet. I think Reyn it is you that does not understand the profound impact of irrational religious belief on society or the problems we face.
Paul,
Ah – so your post wasn’t really in support of gay rights, it was in support of atheism — I didn’t understand that until the “uncritical support” quote here in this latter post.
That’s your business, I don’t care that you are an atheist, I have no right to care that you are an atheist — likewise you have no right to care that I am a theist. You have no right to care that others believe, and they have no right to care that you don’t. That sir is the basis of religious freedom, regardless of what those on the Right say.
We all support organizations and belief systems with which we do not fully agree. That is a simple fact. I am a Leftist, but I support the 2nd Amendment (yes, I am using the phrase to indicate that I support the right to bear arms — yes, guns are used to do terrible things – yes we need stronger controls – but I still support the 2nd amendment – and yet, I’m solidly to the Left.) Does that mean that I should either give up my support for gun rights, OR leave the Left? Not going to happen, in either case. We all practice some level of cognitive dissonance, and that’s really ok as long as we don’t harm anyone.
I don’t like the RC position on gays any better than you do. Neither do many of my straight RC friends. But the war is being won by winning people over, not by brittle protestations and nasty attacks on those whose cognitive dissonance, which I truly do believe is demonstrably universal in humanity, at some level supports us without stripping them of other things that make their experience of life better in their opinion.
I frankly think an argument about atheism belongs ELSEWHERE than a gay rights blog — but since you have brought it up in what I thought was a conversation about civility and not reducing ourselves to the level of those on the other side, let me say that while I agree with many of your political statements (regarding population, gay rights, reproductive freedom, etc) — and while in fact some of it tangentially relates to parts of my professional research (Futurism and energy) — I am FAR more irrational than you think sir. I did not go from Protestantism to Catholicism, or to Islam, or to in fact any of the Unitarian’s traditional rainbow of faiths. I went all the way out.
Before you ask, yes I believe in invisible unicorns and the fey and all the gods and goddesses that you could conjure up — I’m a polytheist by choice (not a henotheist) and while I primarily salute the goddess and her consort, I recognize all the primitive deities and pantheons that are part of earth based faith – and any others that got missed.
And as I said before, that is no more your business than your atheism is mine. Nor does it, nor can it change my take on the issue of being glad for the support we get, not critical of those who support us.
Regards,
Reyn
Reyn, that story about your son is disturbing. I think it would be rational to blame any of the congregants who did nothing to stop it. And if they didn’t believe it and continue to support this church I also think they are somewhat to blame. To know it is wrong and do nothing is wrong.
Reyn said “I frankly think an argument about atheism belongs ELSEWHERE than a gay rights blog.”.
As religon is regularly brought up on gay rights blogs as an excuse for oppressing gays its reasonable to counter that religion is untrue. If no one every brought up religious condemnation of gays we’d never bring up atheism.
Reyn,
The non religious on this site don’t give a goatshitt about what you or the religious believe. Don’t take offense, its nothing personal. What we DO care about is how religion is used to irrationally condemn/persecute/legislate against the civil rights of women and LGBT people. You will never find me and I would dare say the vast majority of non-theists on this site ever condemning people of faith who are supportive of women and LGBT people. But let’s be clear. Religion is not rational; it is not based on anything but personal anecdote, emotions, feelings and uncorroborated “once upon a time” stories. Its claims are unverifiable, its results (eg the effectiveness of prayer) are not replicable, and its assertions are largely at odds with the everyday world we all experience. Irrational as religion may be, as long as it is not a cudgel to bash people nor a roadblock to making the planet a healthier and safer place for all life forms to coexist, I have no problems with it. The reason the irrationality of religion DOES belong on any forum that deals with women’s or LGBT peoples’ rights is because religion is one of if not the chief impediment to us attaining our rights in the world today. The only arguments against LGBT people ever used Reyn, are either religious (“The Buybull says….”) or aesthetic (The “Yuck” factor). And guess what, Reyn? Both are completely irrational. So this is why I initially took umbrage with your statement:
“I’m sorry, Paul’s comments are NOT rational. Paul’s comments are no different from the comments made against gays.”
Paul’s (the original, not me) statements were completely rational and your equating his comments with “comments made about gays” made no logical sense at all.
Paul,
Thank you. EXACTLY my point. EXACTLY my point!!!!! Now please, go back, try to read my post again with an eye to understanding my point. It will make it easier for everyone.. I do NOT think a discussion of whether or not religion is ever appropriate is itself appropriate to a gay rights blog. You evidently do. I think the ONLY thing that most gay people pursue is equality – and I know that statistically, according to a Barna group study from 2009, about 60% of gay people consider faith “very important” in their lives ( http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2009/07/02/activists-work-to-show-gays-are-not-anti-religious ) so I find it unlikely that most of us agree with everyone becoming militant atheists. You have a right to be an atheist, but that doesn’t change the fact that others have the same right to be people of faith – whatever faith they want.
Oddly, I’m not trying, nor have I ever tried, to convert anyone (either in my days as a Christian or now) — you are. That speaks for itself. However, you have still hit EXACTLY my point. No one gives a goat’s a**, or a rat’s penis what I believe. I’ve news — no one gives a Satyr’s hairpiece or a Harpy’s eyelash about your views either. Not on this topic. Religion is a personal thing, always. It is a choice and should be respected as such.
Which does not change the idea that we (LGBTQ people) need to recognize and honor those who support us. I’m not sure why that idea is difficult for you, or for anyone. Ideological litmus tests are always disastrous for the groups applying them. 56% of RC members support gay marriage. That’s very straight forward — so what is wrong with celebrating that and respecting those people? Why would anyone want to drive those people away? Why would you, frankly? What does respect cost? Not much. What does rigidity and lack of civility do to further the cause of gay rights? As far as I can tell nothing.
So again, why?
Paul, I took away one of the tiredest of arguments by forestalling the “well you don’t believe in invisible pink unicorns do you?” Or its vaguely related appeal “You don’t believe in Zeus do you?” or its modern version “You aren’t a (fill in the name of another deity or whatever believed in by another religion) believer are you?” So often followed up by the incredibly silly “Well I just believe in one less god than you do” nonsense. I stated right up front — that — no, there isn’t anything you could come up with that I don’t accept at some level, and you believe in a LOT less things than I do. I do understand that was probably rather disconcerting — but while no one may care, it was germane to the discussion, as it forestalls, or should have forestalled, I thought, a useless exchange.
Apparently we simply look at the world from very different places. I believe and you do not — I support gay rights as a stand alone (and have argued for them since I was 14 years old, along with taking actions of all sorts including protests, condom distributions, and even, yes, interfaith vigils for gay youth), you believe in them, apparently, although perhaps I’m wrong, as part of a bundle of things. That’s your right but also mine.
I do not claim that atheism conflates with religion (as some people do) btw – but I must say, the tendency to insist that everyone else should agree does seem to be shared in common.
Regards,
Reyn
@ Priya Lynn
Thank you for your response. I understand your position, but I also understand that many gay people are people of faith and many, many, many straight people who support gay rights are people of faith. I understand that there are many denominations in Christianity that support gay rights; that the largest branch of Judaism is foresquare behind gay rights and that many non-Christian faiths (Unitarianism, Wicca, etc.) support gay rights.
A single brush is too big to paint with, and that is almost always true in politics. Nuance is required for success.
Kind thoughts,
Reyn
PS If for some reason you question my truthfulness, please visit my site, which I think links from my name. I’ve been at this a long time, and by simply providing information in a totally vanilla site have over the years helped (at least from emails I’ve gotten) several dozen people leave fundevanglicalism, which from the perspective of human rights, is the problem.
Reyn said “Thank you for your response. I understand your position, but I also understand that many gay people are people of faith and many, many, many straight people who support gay rights are people of faith.”.
Yes, its too easy to forget that, I do try to remember to make a distinction.
Reyn said “A single brush is too big to paint with, and that is almost always true in politics. Nuance is required for success.”.
I agree.