Sunday, March 15, 2009

Watchdog Groups Demand 'Ex-Gay' Organization Dismiss Leader, Alan Chambers, After Exodus International Participates In Anti-Gay Hate Conference

Exodus Under Fire After Group Remains Silent As Speakers At Ugandan Event Seek To 'Wipe Out' Homosexuality And Imprison Gays

"Ex-Gay" programs are promoted regularly here in Venango County by Jane Richey of radio station WAWN and Diane Gramley of the American Family Association.



from Truth Wins Out:

NEW YORK - The three leading watchdog organizations that monitor "ex-gay" ministries today called on the largest such group, Exodus International, to fire its leader, Alan Chambers. The coalition charged in a letter to Bob Ragan, chair of the Exodus Board of Directors, that Chambers allowed the organization to be used and give credibility to a conference that promoted human rights abuses against gay and lesbian people.

Representatives from Ex-Gay Watch, Box Turtle Bulletin and Truth Wins Out signed the letter, which stated:

We, the undersigned organizations, have monitored the ex-gay industry for more than a decade. To our great horror, prominent members of the ex-gay organization Exodus International participated last week in a conference in Uganda that promoted shocking abuses of basic human rights. This included draconian measures against gay and lesbian people such as forced ex-gay therapy, life imprisonment for people convicted of homosexuality and the formation of an organization designed to "wipe out" gay practices in Uganda. The conference also featured Scott Lively, a Holocaust revisionist who at the event also blamed the 1994 Rwandan genocide on gay Pink Swastikaeople.

"Alan Chambers has shown a serious lack of leadership by allowing Exodus to become part of such a horrible event," said David Roberts, Editor of Ex-Gay Watch. "The participation of board member Don Schmierer in the Ugandan anti-gay conference undermines any credibility they may have had, and puts them right in the middle of serious human rights abuses. What on earth were they thinking?"

"I'm outraged that Don Schmierer used his position with Exodus to legitimize calls for further criminalizing and forced 'therapy' for gays and lesbians," said Jim Burroway, founder and editor of Box Turtle Bulletin. "Exodus' failure to speak out against the conference's recommendations and denounce the Holocaust revisionism of Scott Lively is inexcusable. Those who allowed this to happen must be held accountable."

"Exodus has turned a deaf ear to the violence committed against Ugandan sexual minorities," said Truth Wins Out's News Director, Mike Airhart. "Worse, it stood in public solidarity with those who are responsible for vigilante violence and state-sanctioned denial of freedom."

"Alan Chambers has consistently taken Exodus International in unsavory directions that have brought great shame on the organization," said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out. "Exodus' participation in the Ugandan conference only confirms that it is time he is removed from his position of leadership."Uganda Map

The coalition's letter went on to say:

The facts incontrovertibly show that Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, was aware of the list of speakers and abhorrent content prior to the conference. Exodus board member Don Schmierer, who spoke in Uganda, made no objections to the radical and dangerous platform offered. Instead, these mortal threats to the lives of gay and lesbian people were met with a deafening silence. Exodus, in effect, gave this insidious conference its tacit approval.

The coalition also called on Exodus to take the following steps:

* Remove Board member Don Schmierer (Pictured Right) for speaking at a hate conference that promotes physical harm and psychological torture against GLBT people

* Boldly articulate Exodus' policy against human rights abuses including forced therapy

* Promise to end future participation in all conferences that call on the persecution and criminalization of gay and lesbian people

Ex-Gay Watch is a group of writers who monitor the actions of ex-gay organizations. The result of this work appears at exgaywatch.com where civil debate and comment are welcome.

Box Turtle Bulletin is an online watchdog effort by a group of writers who specialize in news, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric. It is available at www.boxturtlebulletin.com

Truth Wins Out is a non-profit organization that defends gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from anti-gay lies. TWO also counters the "ex-gay" myth and educates America about gay life. More information can be found at www.TruthWinsOut.org.

See the Open Letter HERE

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Religion and Republicanism Losing Converts

Are Radicals Ruining The Image Of Christianity? And Are Local Extremists Ruining The Image of Venango County?

from Wayne Besen:

In pandering to the fanatical and the fearful - both religion and Republicanism may have compromised their future.

First, the Republican Party seems in an awfully big rush to implode with Rush Limbaugh as its mercurial mouthpiece. The GOP's other savior, Michael Steele, is just a big mouth who seems more suited to Limbaugh's talk show gig than chairman of the Party. The GOP's first African American leader, Steele, promised a "hip hop makeover" that would attract even "one armed midgets." It is Steele, however, who is the incredibly shrinking chairman, with his promised "Big Tent" turning into a circus act.


This carnival of "conservatives" has led the once-mighty Republican Party to O.J. Simpson-like popularity levels. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll this past week put Republican approval at just 26 percent, compared to Barack Obama's 68 percent.

The state of the modern GOP was best captured on CNN's D.L. Hughley Show, when the host interviewed Frank Schaeffer. A former member of the Religious Right and author of Crazy For God, Schaeffer said the GOP had created a "hard-assed neo fascist kind of direction in America."

He went on to say, "The Republican base is now made up of religious and neoconservative ideologues and the uneducated white underclass with a token person of color up in front of the TV to obscure the all-white, all reactionary, all backward, and there is no global warming, rube reality."

The Republicans Schaefer is referring to have lately come out of the woodwork in Utah, where State Sen. Chris Buttars called GLBT advocates, "the meanest buggers". A right wing organization, America Forever, placed full-page ads in the Salt Lake dailies comparing gay men and lesbians to "druggies" and "hookers." Of course, Utah Republicans might know about these things. A new study reveals that the conservative state leads the nation with 5.47 Internet pornography subscribers per thousand.

Similar to the Republican Party, religious organizations have catered to the crazies for far too long. The "ex-gay" organization, Exodus International, is a perfect example. It travels the world to proclaim its "love" for homosexuals. Yet, a Board member, Don Schmierer, spoke at a Ugandan conference that pledged to "wipe out" gay practices. Schmierer joined Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively to urge Uganda to continue its persecution of gay people, including life prison sentences for the "crime" of homosexuality.

Last week, the Vatican defended the excommunication of a 9-year old Brazilian girl's mother and doctors, who helped abort the pregnant child's twins. The procedure was recommended because delivering these babies might have killed the 80-pound girl. The local Archbishop, Jose Cardosa Sobrinho, justified this despicable decision by saying, "God's law is above any human law."

Such transparently vindictive versions of "love" is why Christianity has lost followers in Europe and is now draining them in the United States. A new survey by researchers at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. documents that the percentage of Americans identifying as Christians has dropped to 76 percent of the population, down from 86 percent in 1990. Fifteen percent of Americans now say they have no religion at all.

It may be that socially conservative churches and their anti-gay pastors are directly responsible for much of the erosion of Christianity. Sure, their mega-churches may be growing. But, for every new person they attract, they likely turn off ten others to all religion with their vituperative sermons.


Focus on the Family's "ex-gay" road show, Love Won Out, is a perfect example of how the radicals are ruining the image of Christianity. The conference may lure a few self-loathing dupes who briefly claim they have "prayed away the gay." But, for every temporary convert (It rarely, if ever, lasts a lifetime) they turn off thousands of gay people to all religious belief. How does Focus on the Family justify this as a "win"?

Even as the Religious Right rapidly contracts, conservatives are foolishly demanding that Republicans veer further right. Come to think of it, Rush Limbaugh may be the perfect leader for a party intent on alienating the majority while talking endlessly and aimlessly to itself.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Life's Short, Have An Affair

Adultery, not same-sex monogamy, is the real threat to marriage

By Deroy Murdock for the NH Union Leader:

TRADITIONAL-MARRIAGE defenders claim that gay marriage jeopardizes husbands and wives. It’s as if when two Massachusetts men wed, they exchange 24-karat-gold crowbars, all the better to pry straight couples apart.

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R - Pennsylvania) has said that same-sex marriage “threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages.” Mixed-sex-matrimony guru Maggie Gallagher wrote on Townhall.com last June 20, “If the word ’marriage’ can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like ’monogamy’ or ’fidelity’?”

But as outspoken as these and other social conservatives are about Allen and Steve’s clear and present danger to Adam and Eve, they have held their peace about an enterprise that profits from adultery.

AshleyMadison.com calls itself a “dating site specifically designed to help married people cheat on their spouses.” Its slogan is “Life’s short. Have an affair.” It boasts 3.5 million registered users, among whom some 400,000 active members each pay up to $249 quarterly. Participants post photographs and profiles and seek other husbands and wives itching for extra-marital copulation.

“We made tens of millions of dollars” last year, company president Noel Biderman says from its Toronto base. “We are very profitable and successful.”

Surely AshleyMadison.com has enough shame to conduct its shady business in the shadows. Wrong! AshleyMadison.com advertises on CNN, ESPN, NBC, and even the conservative-leaning Fox News Channel.

Its current TV ad features a lady in a restaurant whose monstrous dinner companion yaps into his cell phone, hushes her when she tries to talk, ogles another woman, and eventually says, “Happy anniversary, honey,” before sauntering alone out the door. This disenchanted wife eyes a sympathetic gentleman on a barstool and smiles alluringly at him.

This woman clearly is empathetic. Her boorish husband deserves to have his cell phone pulverized with the chef’s rolling pin.

If this ad discouraged spousal self-absorption, it would be a home run. Ditto if it promoted marriage counseling, or suggested that everyone exercise extreme caution before picking a spouse. But something completely different is for sale.

Even a business this depraved should remain free to operate. But it should be humiliated, and shunned. Viewers should ask TV networks that broadcast this website’s ads if they are proud to share in the spoils of infidelity.

Socio-cons should stop theorizing about gay marriage’s supposed danger to straight matrimony and instead denounce this insidious assault on that institution.

Even if same-sex marriage undermined conventional marriage, this would be by unintended consequence, not deliberate broadside. Straight-marriage advocates’ obsession with gay marriage versus their quietude about AshleyMadison.com is like declaring war on toasters that might malfunction and ignite, but ignoring arsonists who toss lit flares around Malibu during a Santa Ana wind.

According to the Nexis database, key gay-marriage foes are mum about AshleyMadison.com.

Over the last six months, for example, Rick Santorum appeared in 22 stories that mention “gay marriage,” but in zero citing AshleyMadison.com. Maggie Gallagher materialized in 41 gay-marriage stories and zero on AshleyMadison.com. Former governor Willard Mitt Romney’s, R-Mass., numbers are 276-0, respectively. For Focus on the Family, the score is 389-0. All of the above were absent from the 67 Nexis-archived stories on AshleyMadison.com between September 5, 2008 and March 5, 2009.

Clearly, straight-marriage fans fret about what two men wearing wedding bands might do to a man and women with rings on their fingers. Whether this concern is scientific or superstitious, surely they must acknowledge that seeing Bob and Steve together in a porch swing is trivial compared to Adam mounting his new AshleyMadison.com adulteress as Eve waits at home, watches dinner grow cold, and wonders why he’s so late.

Conversely, if Adam caught Eve cavorting on the kitchen counter with her new AshleyMadison.com buddy, that would not be a blow for marriage.

AshleyMadison.com is a genuine threat to traditional matrimony. That’s where those who claim to defend that institution should aim their fire.

Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. E-mail him at deroy.Murdock(at)gmail.com.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Stop Legal Discrimination in Pennsylvania!


from Keystone Progress:

The bad news:

There is no Pennsylvania law preventing discrimination in employment, housing or accommodations because of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. If you are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered, you can be fired from your job, refused service, or denied housing without any recourse under PA law.

The good news:

Pennsylvania took the first step on March 11 toward making that discrimination illegal.

HB 300, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in housing, employment, and public accommodations passed the State Government Committee in the PA House of Representatives today. Current Pennsylvania law provides basic legal protection against discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, handicap or disability, education and the use of a guide dog. HB 300 offers the same anti-discrimination protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people that are offered to other Pennsylvanians.

The work before us:

Governor Rendell has promised to sign anti-discrimination legislation if it reaches his desk, and a majority of the Senate and House will vote to pass it. We just need to get Leadership to schedule a vote.

That's where you come in. Take a moment to sign our e-petition to House and Senate Leadership asking them to schedule votes on this vital legislation as soon as possible.

=======================================================================================

The American "Family" Association of Pennsylvania, based here in Venango County, is pushing churches to cross church / state legal boundaries by promoting a vote against this legislation from the pulpit. To get a look at the church bulletin insert, click HERE

Caution in viewing is advised, however, since bigotry and discrimination can be harmful to the heart and mind!

Silencing The Christians -- Huh? TAKE TWO

from our friends at Good As You:

Blogger Addie Stan has come across a new robocall that the American "Family" Association is using to support their hostile, fallacy-filled propaganda piece, "Speechless: Silencing the Christians." Listen in:




So wait a minute. They make a documentary with scene after scene focusing on how wicked LGBT normalcy supposedly is:



They set up a dedicated website where folks can watch the hurtful nonsense. They push to get it on any TV or computer screen that will have them. They solicit funds to get the damn thing aired. Then they issue a national robocall in support of the whole endeavor. Yet WE'RE the "radical" ones who are pushing an "agenda"? Riiiiiiiiight, Timmy.

AFA robocalls: Making drunk dialers, crank callers, and even the most pesky of telemarketers seem pleasant in comparison.

Silencing The Christians -- Huh?

This gem comes from Dave White by way of The Advocate and refers to a new film being promoted by our friends Diane Gramley of the American "Family" Association of Pennsylvania and Jane Richey of "Christian" radio station WAWN:

In my last column I wrote about a special that aired on one of my cable system’s religious channels called "Speechless ... Silencing the Christians" and was all excited to watch the follow-up special on the “radical, militant, homosexual rights activists” called, oddly enough, simply "Silencing the Christians." Unfortunately I missed it. So I went hunting online and found that you can watch the entire one-hour special on your computer. I also found out that lots of stations refused to air the damn thing, so blithely unconcerned about my entertainment that they forced me to watch it via a tiny laptop YouTube-size box.

On this show I learned that there’s some magical book out there called "After the Ball" that lays out a blueprint for the radical homosexual takeover of American culture. (I looked it up on Amazon and it’s conveniently out of print so that all references to it on this special are difficult to fact-check unless you happen to own a copy yourself.)

A female host with one of those mean-matron smiles spends the hour telling the audience that gays are committing violence against Christians but that there’s no proof that gays have ever suffered violence from bigoted Christians themselves; that gays are awful to the “ex-gays” (“Why doesn’t the tolerance work both ways?” pleads one “ex-lesbian” who came out of “the lifestyle” after finding herself playing for an all-female church softball league. I know, amazing); that stopping being gay is like quitting smoking; that reading the picture book King & King to any child will cause that child to develop a permanent frowny face (proved by a montage of really upset-looking kids who just had to learn that gays exist); and that anti-gay bullying in schools actually turns little kids gay, but measures to stop anti-gay bullying are discriminatory against Christians.

If you have a spare hour to waste, you should totally watch this one. It’s The Gay Agenda for a new generation.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

BIG NEWS: House State Government Committee Passes Legislation to End Discrimination

Will Venango County's Own Rep. Scott Hutchinson Stand On The Side Of Fairness & Equality For All?

from Equality Advocates Pennsylvania:

(Harrisburg, PA) – Members of the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee today passed legislation out of their committee prohibiting discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in housing, employment, and public accommodations by a vote of 12 to 11.


“Thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people across Pennsylvania thank members of the State Government Committee for their commitment to basic fairness,” said Jake Kaskey, policy and outreach coordinator of Equality Advocates Pennsylvania. “This legislation has broad support from all corners of Pennsylvania, so we look forward to the bill moving to the floor of the State House for a vote.”

Rep. Dan Frankel (D-Allegheny County) introduced the bill, House Bill 300, which would amend the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” as protected classes, on March 4 with a record 79 co-sponsors from both parties and from across the commonwealth.

“I'm very pleased committee members took the first step in providing basic protections for all Pennsylvanians,” Frankel said. “Pennsylvania is at a competitive disadvantage when it does not protect all of its citizens against discrimination, and I look forward to the entire House voting to pass this important legislation.”

House State Government Committee Chairperson Babette Josephs (D-Philadelphia) held public committee hearings on similar legislation in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Erie last session. “I'm excited that the committee has finally passed this important legislation,” Josephs said. “Ensuring every citizen of this state has the opportunity to work, and retain housing, is a core principle of fairness for all Pennsylvanian.”

House Bill 300 will now move to the entire House of Representatives for a vote.

“We are very encouraged to see this important legislation successfully passed through the State Government Committee,” added Andy Hoover, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. “We hope the full House takes up this bill quickly and deliberatively.”

Current Pennsylvania law provides basic legal protection against discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, handicap or disability, education and the use of a guide dog. Thirteen Pennsylvania municipalities have already enacted civil rights laws including protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, but nearly eighty percent of the state’s twelve million residents live or work in communities that do not provide these protections. Twenty states in the country have similar laws, including our neighboring states of New Jersey, Maryland and New York.

Pennsylvanians from every corner of the state are meeting in the Capitol Rotunda at 1:00pm on Tuesday, March 17, to rally in support of House Bill 300.

The Value All Families Coalition is comprised of diverse statewide, regional, and local organizations that support equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Pennsylvanians.


For More info Contact:
Jake Kaskey, Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, 215-731-1447 x14 (o) 215-407-5313 (m)
Andy Hoover, ACLU-PA, 717-236-6827 x13 (o), 717-514-2747 (m)

And Now For Some Good News: Young Evangelicals Are Ditching the Christian Right's Bigoted Agenda

Evangelical students have moved past their elders into more tolerant territory.

by Pam Chamberlain for the Public Eye:

Last October a chartered bus rolled deep through the South, its passengers college-aged young people drawing inspiration from the Freedom Riders of the 1960s. The black vinyl advertising plastered on the side broadcast the riders' goals, "Equality Ride 2008: Faith in Action: Social Justice for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered People." The bus brought young LGBTQ activists and their allies face to face with students at 15 Christian colleges in an attempt to generate more acceptance of homosexuality at evangelical schools.

2008 was the third year of the Equality Ride, a project of Soulforce Q, the youth arm of Soulforce, an organization Mel White cofounded "to cut off homophobia at its source -- religious bigotry." A former evangelical minister and speechwriter to Jerry Falwell (the founder of the Christian Right group Moral Majority), White was a closeted gay Christian who came out in 1993, left his evangelical ministry, and began work for the Metropolitan Community Church, an LGBTQ Christian community. He has made his life's work the reconciliation of evangelical Protestant Christianity and homosexuality. Soulforce recognized that encouraging young people to engage in conversation with their peers who hold conservative views about homosexuality could be transformative for both sides. Since 2006, the riders have visited 50 Christian schools, welcomed by some and arrested for trespassing by others.

The Equality Riders hoped to meet people where they are and engage students in honest discussion -- and, if that avenue is thwarted, protest the school's anti-gay policies with direct action in the tradition of Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. As an added objective, they sought sympathetic media attention. The Ride won good notice in the gay press and stories in the local media in targeted college towns.

Capturing Evangelical College Students' Views

Are the Equality Riders on to something more than a press opportunity? Where are evangelical Protestant students these days? While often characterized as homogeneously conservative, they are more diverse in their religious and political views than one might think. Evangelical college students are an interesting research niche. Despite the wealth of recent polling data about young evangelicals, accurate conclusions are hard to come by. Because current methodologies rely on land phone lines and internet questionnaires, students polled are overwhelmingly White, and what little we know about young evangelicals of color, the fastest growing group, is that they may have differing opinions from their White counterparts. This has been a problem for pollsters and their audience alike, and we will have to wait for research refinements. For the figures quoted here, then, we should assume they reflect younger White evangelicals.


Recently polled younger evangelicals seem more conservative in their theological positions than those polled in the 1980s. At the same time they are more inclined than their parents to support social justice efforts such as environmental stewardship, anti-poverty programs, or HIV/AIDS treatment. While they mostly believe that homosexuality is a sin, at least some of them support employment and housing rights for LGBTQ people.

Younger evangelicals are emphatic about being "prolife," with a 2008 poll showing two thirds believing abortion should be illegal in all, or most, circumstances. This is about the same percentage as their older counterparts. To place this in context, a majority of Americans have supported the legality of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

Same sex marriage remains a controversial topic in the country at large with the majority of Americans opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally and a slight majority favoring civil unions. Evangelicals in general oppose same sex marriage at predictably higher rates than the broader population, with only 10 percent in favor. They see same sex marriage as a profound threat to the traditional family and a useful rallying point. However, young evangelicals are more than twice as likely (24 percent to 10 percent) as their elders to support gay couples being allowed to marry, and another 32 percent supports only civil unions.5 So a majority of young evangelicals support some legal recognition of gay partnerships.

Marriage and women's roles are symbolic issues for evangelicals of all ages who continue to struggle for indicators of social stability against evolving social mores. They worry about the growing acceptance of contraception, abortion, and changing family structures. The evangelical tradition in general perceives these trends as indicative of the destructive forces of modernity, such as increased tolerance of divorce and sex before marriage. For their leaders, these trends must be resisted rather than accommodated, and this tradition is nurtured at Christian colleges.

Of the over 4,000 colleges and universities in the United States, perhaps 400 are Christian colleges that identify as evangelical Protestant schools. Students attending these colleges enter environments where conservative Christian values are celebrated, and often codified. Most of these schools explicitly prohibit drinking, smoking, sexual activity, and homosexuality, and some require students and staff to sign faith statements. Yet there is more diversity among these colleges than their stereotype might suggest. As Alan Wolfe, religion professor at Boston College notes:

Conservative Protestant colleges and universities have become too varied and interesting to pigeonhole into the categories of America's culture war. They can no longer be caricatured as simpleminded defenders of the old-time religion and hostile to reason, any more than secular colleges can be characterized as globally hostile to religion and traditional moral values.

Evangelical students' views reflect this diversity. They seem to be able to hold both conservative and liberal views simultaneously. According to Alyssa Bryant, an academic who works with the well-respected Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA:

Revealing their conservative side, evangelical students are predominantly in favor of the pro-life agenda, whereas their liberal inclinations emphasize the importance of providing for the welfare of economically disadvantaged people, protecting the environment, implementing gun control, and abolishing the death penalty.


John Skees, an evangelical student at Southern Methodist University in Dallas reflects a common belief among his peers in an op-ed published in his student paper:

For evangelicals, especially those who know at least one gay person, this issue [a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage] became greatly troubling. The vast majority of conservative Christians strongly believe that marriage should be restricted to between a man and a woman, but they also value human rights and don't think that the government should treat anyone unfairly.

It is safe to say that young evangelicals would be able to explain their positions by asserting that their faith justifies such dissonant views.


Over the three years of the ride, Equality Riders have met their share of hostile receptions, but media attention may have influenced a shift in administrative responses. In 2006, administrators at Liberty University, the Lynchburg, Virginia school founded by Jerry Falwell, arrested 20 riders for trespassing; in 2008 riders delivered books to the library and engaged in dialogue on campus with students. The Equality Ride visited Columbia International University, a Bible college in Columbia, South Carolina in 2008, after receiving letters from closeted gay students there who were scared to speak openly. Students who spoke to reporters responded in cordial yet firm ways, consistent with the school's policies. "We don't believe in what these people stand for, but we do love them … as people," said 19-year-old Israel Markle, reflecting a common catchphrase of modern Christianity, which advises that Christians hate the sin but love the sinner. This is an idea that the Christian Right (which includes many evangelicals) promoted politically for at least the past ten years, but often in an abrasive and judgmental way that many younger evangelicals find offensive. At another stop, a Mississippi College student joined the Soulforce vigil on her campus:

It is out of my compassion for people -- and the moral obligation that I, as a Christian, felt -- that I got involved with their visit to campus … I am a Christian and a straight ally and I am not afraid to love with reckless abandon.

Her student paper at the Southern Baptist school reported that:

Some students thought Soulforce was making a conscious effort to stir up anti-gay sentiment and cause general unrest. One student asking to remain anonymous said, "I really don't care if they walk all over campus, but it's all a show. If they weren't here we wouldn't even be talking about gay bashing, we'd just get on with our lives."

Yet it was a student at Palm Beach Atlantic University in Florida who managed to articulate the contradictions evangelical students experience around homosexuality. Kelly Ribiero found herself challenged and inspired by the Soulforce riders.

As much as I know that homosexuality is sinful and wrong, my mind keeps wandering back to the many times Jesus met with prostitutes and thieves. Even though this was looked down on in His time, He still treated them with love and respect. We need to do the same for people of different beliefs today ... Soulforce's visit did nothing to change my views on homosexuality ... [But] how amazing it must be to believe in something so much you are willing to go through anything for it ... Soulforce, thank you for coming to my school and challenging me in my Christian walk.

It could well be that the current crop of younger evangelicals are influenced significantly by their peers as well as by their parents or their professors, which happens in many youth subcultures. For instance, 37 percent of young evangelicals report a close friend or a relative who is gay, about the same percentage of all young adults, according Public Religion Research, compared to 16 percent of people over 35. And knowing someone who is gay is closely linked to greater acceptance of same sex marriage. If this kind of peer influence continues, the trend of coming out as gay at younger ages may be a tipping point for young evangelicals' views on homosexuality.

Who Speaks for Evangelicals?

Although often described in general terms, evangelicals across generations are not unanimous on social issues, even on abortion and same sex marriage. They hold a range of political views, some of which can be associated with age or religious practice. The tradition of evangelicalism has been a strong one in the United States, with especially rapid growth in the past 25 years among nondenominational church communities. The most commonly held religious beliefs are: a personal, redemptive relationship with Jesus through a "born again" experience, the inerrancy of the Bible, and the responsibility to share their faith with others. The Pew Forum on Religion and American Life estimates that about 26 percent of Americans identify as evangelical Protestants.

But not all evangelicals hold the same conservative political views. Forty-one percent of all evangelicals, counting both people of color and Whites, voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Nor are they all motivated to join a conservative political movement. When conservative Christians do become active politically, and also become involved with one or more of the many Christian social movement organizations such as the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, or Focus on the Family, they are generally referred to as the Christian Right. This is a politically mobilized conservative movement of Protestants and Roman Catholics who often place cultural issues like abortion and same sex marriage as top priorities in voting choices.

Two important things to remember are that not all evangelical Protestants are motivated to act out their theological beliefs in the voting booth and that being an evangelical -- even a conservative evangelical -- is not equivalent to being a member of the Christian Right. John Green, at the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, estimates the size of the U.S. Christian Right is about 15 percent of the electorate. Moderate evangelicals, who are also politically motivated but place more emphasis on social issues like poverty and the environment, constitute another 10 percent of the electorate, according to Green. This latter group may have members who vote with the Christian Right in certain circumstances, but who are not as consistently conservative. Many evangelicals, even those with conservative views, do not vote regularly, just like the rest of the population. The millions of evangelicals who create this complex set of voting patterns are represented in Washington by the National Association of Evangelicals.

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is the public face of American evangelicalism. Based in Washington, D.C., NAE has coordinated over one hundred denominations, ministries, and academic institutions since its founding in 1942. Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs at NAE for 28 years, stirred controversy in early December 2008 by publicly siding with more open-minded evangelicals on a nationally broadcast NPR radio talk show. Referring to young evangelicals' potential influence, he predicted, "[T]hey will determine the future of this huge movement that, well, by some surveys' estimates, if you include children and the rest, a hundred million people, one-third of all Americans." In fact, according to Cizik:

[T]hese younger evangelicals, they disagree quite strongly with their elders on [same sex marriage] ... The influence of their generational peers is clear. Four in ten young evangelicals say they have a close friend or family member who is gay or lesbian. And so, much different than their elders, younger evangelicals they, well, 52 percent favor either same sex marriage or civil unions.

Cizik aligned himself with younger evangelicals on same sex marriage, a "hot button" social issue for the Right, and went on to suggest that evangelicals need to clean their own house when it comes to heterosexual marriage before they continue to judge same sex marriage. "I am shifting, I would have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don't officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don't think."

In the interview with NPR's Terry Gross, Cizik attempted to shift the focus away from the divisive issue of same sex marriage and instead look other aspects of marriage among evangelicals. Divorce and unwanted pregnancies are nearly as prevalent among evangelicals as in the population at large. "We have become so absorbed in the question of gay rights and the rest that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself, heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to reevaluate this and look at it a little differently."

For his attempts to position some evangelical attitudes as more open-minded than generally thought, Cizik came under fire from member organizations of his employer, the NAE. Its president Leith Anderson announced, "He cannot continue as a spokesperson for NAE, and the implication of that is that he resign." Nine days after his interview, Cizik did just that. Although it's unclear what Cizik's goals were in bucking the evangelical leadership, it's perhaps more clear that his opinions, also held by many moderates, including those in a younger cohort, are threatening to the politicized conservative evangelical establishment.


That establishment is aging. Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and Paul Weyrich, all founding fathers of the Christian Right, died within the past year and a half. While megachurch pastors, political movement spokespeople, and others are jockeying for media attention, evangelical Christian college graduates will be a major source of future leadership. They will be expected to maintain evangelical traditions and step up to direct evangelical social and political movements as well. A 1982 study of nine evangelical colleges by James Hunter uncovered students increasingly moving away from traditional conservative evangelical religious beliefs, an effect of growing secularization, even at these enclaves of evangelical thought. The update of the study, published in 2002, by James Penning and Corwin Smidt, revealed some interesting changes among students at the identical set of schools polled by Hunter.

The more recent study seemed to suggest that evangelical students had returned to more conservative religious views, in line with their parents. While students continue to believe that a personal faith in Jesus was the only hope for heaven and that the devil actually exists, a higher percentage of the more recent cohort of students believed that the Bible is to be taken literally. In fact Penning and Smidt suggest that by 1996, at least, younger and older evangelicals' views had converged on most issues except homosexuality. In recent years, however, younger evangelicals appear to be once again shifting their attitudes regarding religion and politics in ways that currently are difficult to explain.

Since the mid-1990s the acceptability of homosexuality in the culture at large has shifted as well. What once was a debate over LGBTQ people's civil rights in housing, employment, and health care has focused to a pinpoint on same sex marriage (thanks largely to opposition campaigns by the Right and a mainstream LGBTQ movement that frames gay marriage as a priority issue). As Richard Cizik said, young evangelicals appear to distinguish between their concern about same sex marriage within the church, which only a minority supports, and their more common support for civil unions as a civil right under the law.

But more importantly perhaps, younger evangelicals place less emphasis on issues like abortion and same sex marriage. Rather, according to David P. Gushee, professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University, they are attracted to "a broader agenda," that includes the environment, poverty, and human rights, the very issues Cizik championed. Signs indicate some are moving into more moderate positions, or perhaps it shows that there are more moderates being mobilized to vote.

Who Speaks Most Effectively to Evangelical Youth?

Young evangelical voters are being organized both through top-down and bottom-up strategies. At one extreme is an organizing strategy embodied by theocrat Lou Engle, a seventh-generation Pentecostal minister featured in the documentary Jesus Camp who, balding and father of seven, is definitely not one of the young people he seeks to mobilize. Founder of The Call, a series of mass youth rallies billed as spiritual events warning about the end times, he deliberately mobilizes young people politically by encouraging opposition to abortion and same sex marriage, two powerful examples of evil in his mind. Engle joined forces with Proposition 8 supporters in California to bring his theocratic message of spiritual warfare to young evangelicals. Highlighted in this magazine's last issue, Engle's efforts indicate the importance of the youth vote to Christian Right leaders. Organizers of events like the November 1, 2008 rally in Qualcomm stadium in San Diego where Engle spoke in favor of Proposition 8 hoped to attract tens of thousands of attendees. The stadium was nowhere near full, but the fact that the rally took place at all signals the desire of major conservative funders who backed the event to attempt to reach religious youth. Robust attendance estimates at other Call rallies indicate that at least some young evangelicals are attracted to more demanding and judgmental voices.

By contrast, Shane Claiborne's "A Simple Way" is an example of the kind of grassroots Christian organization that has resonated with some younger evangelicals. He arguably has done more to bring dialog about gay issues to young evangelicals than the Equality Riders. Claiborne, a 1997 Christian college graduate and self-described "radical Christian social activist," has authored several books and cofounded an intentional religious community in inner-city Philadelphia. Attracting large crowds at any speaking engagement, he toured the country in a vegetable oil-run school bus during the 2008 presidential year with a campaign called "Jesus for President." He visited campuses, primarily evangelical schools, asking students to choose to support a candidate based on their own Christian values. Further he asked the candidates themselves to endorse Jesus, whom Claiborne calls America's Commander-in-Chief.

Claiborne's hip appearance, from his dreadlocks to his hemp hoodie, is part of a package that has attracted many young evangelicals who seek more active congruity between what they believe and how they behave. "The most important camps for young evangelicals are not ‘Left' and ‘Right,'" Claiborne told me. "They are ‘nice' and ‘mean.'" He has attracted many who would call themselves "political misfits," and he preaches the inclusion of all marginalized peoples. "Young evangelicals have done something really dangerous. We picked up our Bibles and we read them. It put us at odds with the evangelical establishment… When we looked at the Moral Majority [and other groups], we saw the inconsistency of the church."

Claiborne identifies this movement as part of a "post-Religious Right America." In a debate about the future of the church and politics at the 2008 National Pastors Conference, Claiborne distinguished himself from Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate felon and prison reformer, about how to respond to the divisive conversations about homosexuality in evangelical churches. Colson's traditional response was, "There is a natural moral order corresponding to the natural physical order. Something which is so plain on its face is not normative." Adding that the church should not judge homosexuals but love them, Colson explained that, "We have to recognize that it is not the way men and women are made." On the other hand, Claiborne told a story about a young gay man he once met. "He felt that God had made a mistake when he made him. He got that message from the church, from society. He wanted to kill himself. That breaks my heart. If that kid can't find a home in the church, then who have we become?"25

Rather than organize through large pressure groups, Claiborne calls for individuals to create intentional religious communities. His speeches can be found on YouTube with hundreds of comments.26 His image is not always so attractive to the older Christians responsible for evangelical college students' education. His politics aren't always attractive to them either; while anti-abortion, he is anti-war, pro-gay, and pro-immigrant, and brings attention to economic inequality and environmental degradation (although not necessarily to governmental solutions), presenting all these issues together in a "support for life" theology similar to Roman Catholic "Seamless Garment" theology. He warns, "I don't really fit into the old liberal-conservative boxes … My activist friends call me conservative and my religious friends call me liberal."27

Although often welcomed by Christian college administrators, Claiborne's 2008 appearance at Cedarville University in Ohio (also a site for the 2007 Equality Ride) was canceled because of his unorthodox theological and political views. A spokesperson for the conservative Baptist college explained, "There can't be any confusion about our commitment to God's Word and our historically conservative doctrinal position."28

Is this clash, thoroughly discussed on evangelical blogs, emblematic of a generation gap as some would like to believe? Are younger evangelicals a kind of collective bellwether, presaging developments within the Christian Right and among conservative Christian voters? More likely we are witnessing a representation of the diversity of political and theological ideas across generations that constitute current evangelical Christianity. The Claiborne/Cedarville controversy is a sort of Jim Wallis vs. Mike Huckabee confrontation: any disagreements about politics remain under the umbrella of American evangelicalism. Indeed, Sojourner magazine editor Jim Wallis wrote the forward to Claiborne's 2006 book The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical. Wallis is a centrist who opposes abortion and gay marriage, yet shares positions with political progressives on issues such as peace, social justice, and poverty. On the other hand, Claiborne pushes the sectarian envelope by praising the Roman Catholic anarchist Dorothy Day as an inspiration, and those raised in the Catholic Church are members of Simple Way communities.29

We are at a moment when the broader public is just learning to distinguish among different sectors of Christianity and among different evangelical voices, including outright progressive ones from the African American community and the global South. Within the United States there are signs that a Christian Left is percolating and seeking alliances with spiritual and non-spiritual progressive activists.30

Without more reliable information about younger White evangelicals, it may be too tempting for liberals to categorize this group as across the board more liberal-leaning, if we use the litmus test of gay marriage as a core tenet of modern political liberalism and progressive thought. Leaping ahead of the incomplete research would be a mistake.

The Equality Ride targeted students whose identities as Christian are central to their lives. Such students' choice of attending a Christian school probably helps them resist some of the social pressures of modern life. A loving confrontation by fellow young people with contrasting views on homosexuality was designed to challenge orthodoxy and certainty. It's unclear what direct, long-term effects the Equality Riders will have on the evangelical students they met, but it will be important to pay attention to the political paths young evangelicals take. Those pathways will be influenced by who can afford to provide the asphalt. As long as spokespeople like Engle retain their funding, their visibility will upstage most modest efforts by the Shane Claibornes.

We do know that evangelical students will increasingly be taking stands on the social issues of the day and, as far as LGBTQ rights are concerned, they have moved past their elders into more tolerant territory. Ironically, it has not been the efforts of the evangelical leadership that has influenced their youth the most; it has been other young people. This shift in attitudes largely has happened because of the efforts of the LGBTQ youth movement.

In organizing itself, young members of this progressive arm of the LGBTQ community have succeeded in altering public opinion about their own issues -- safe schools, being out, family acceptance, equal rights. Where students run gay/straight alliances (GSAs) in schools, for example, there is less physical violence against LGBTQ students. Where students know peers who are gay, they are more open to LGBTQ rights. Despite Christian colleges' desire to protect their students from succumbing to undesirable aspects of modern life, young evangelicals at these schools are talking freely about issues that their predecessors could barely articulate.


It is hopeful news that a progressive political movement has influenced younger evangelicals' views. It's also enlightening to see that this influence does not necessarily take place through the most direct channels. It's been twenty years since the first gay-straight alliances appeared in schools, and attitudinal change has come slowly. That's why it will be so interesting to observe the direction young evangelicals take, not just with LGBTQ issues but in other arenas as well.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

13 Love Stories

Perhaps This Project Will Inspire Us To Start Telling Our Stories Here In Venango County!


13LoveStories.com is a unique multimedia advocacy project that profiles the moving stories of thirteen couples whose lives were profoundly affected by Proposition 8 - the recent California ballot initiative that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry.

In the media campaign leading up to the hotly contested November 2008 vote, something essential was missing: images of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer couples whose relationships hung in the balance.

13LoveStories.com presents a series of short films that redress the absence of such images. Featuring real voices and personal photographs, the films provide direct access to a diverse cross-section of committed couples in and around Los Angeles.

They have chosen to expose their private relationships to a wide public audience, hoping that their tales of love can help change attitudes and combat the injustice that they have all experienced through the passing of Proposition 8.

Here's an example:



Go to 13LoveStories.com for more.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Stand Strong Against Hate

With the American "Family" Association of Pennsylvania and "Christian" radio station WAWN located here in Venango County, we've got our work cut out for us.

by Lisa Neff for 365gay.com:

The U.S. map from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project is marked with bright symbols.

The little white pointed hat symbolizes the location of active Ku Klux Klan organizations.

The little blue swastika symbolizes the location of neo-Nazi groups.


An orange fist symbolizes white nationalist organizations.

A black and red boot symbolizes the sites where racist skinheads are organized.

A gold crown identifies locations where Christian-identity groups operate.

A red and blue flag symbolizes neo-Confederate activities.

A purple star shows the location of black separatist actions.

And a little green push-pin marks sites where the SPLC documented “general hate” in 2008.

Study the map.


Notice all the black and red boots in California?

See the crowd of KKK cones in Texas and Tennessee?

Observe the swastikas that mingle in Florida with the Confederate flags?

Try to count the symbols and you may lose track. The SPLC identified 926 hate groups active in 2008, up more than 4 percent from the 888 groups in 2007 and far above the 602 groups documented in 2000.

The 54 percent growth in the number of active hate groups in the country last year was fueled by fears — over immigration, a failing economy and the successful presidential campaign of Barack Obama.

With Obama’s sweeping popularity across the country, the SPLC tracked scores of racially charged incidents — beatings, effigy burnings, racist graffiti, threats and intimidation.

With the failing economy, the SPLC documented hate-group propaganda that blamed minorities and immigrants for the subprime mortgage meltdown.

The SPLC identified the three most active and dangerous hate groups as Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi and racist skinhead organizations and the incidents associated with the hate groups range from intimidation to sexual assault to murder.

In my state, Florida, there are 56 hate groups, including a neo-confederate group called the League of the South in my county that advocates for a free and independent South and to see Southern life returned to a conservative Christian-oriented culture.

The SPLC report identifies 12 of the 926 groups as specifically anti-gay, including the West Coast affiliate of Watchmen on the Walls, an international extremist group implicated in the California killing of a gay college student.

The anti-gay list also includes some familiar names. Yep, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church are in the same league as the KKK and the White Revolution.

There are all kinds of hate groups — those that finance campaigns to rollback equality for gays and lesbians, those that encourage members to paint swastikas on synagogues and burn black churches, those that jump Latino kids on their way home from school and those that plot to kill a black presidential candidate.

The SPLC map released last week shows sickness in America, weak places where hate is on the march.

But the SPLC is working to create another map, one that shows where people have pledged to stand against hate, especially racial hate.

The green dots on the map-in-progress, when I looked on Feb. 26, could not obscure all the little white pointed KKK hats, the little blue swastikas or the orange fists.

But if enough people pledge to stand strong, they could obliterate the hate groups from the map.

No more black and red boots for racial skinheads. No more red and blue flags for neo-confederates.

In hard times, hate groups say, “We are the answer,” preying on fear and despair.

In hard times, we have to say, “Hate is not the answer” and stand strong.

To stand strong, go to StandStrongAgainstHate.org.

To Stand Strong in Pennsylvania, click HERE

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Misquoting Jesus -- The Bible Delusion

A review of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"

for Powell Books by Doug Brown:

Those who call the King James Version of the Bible the unerring word of God have a slight problem. The New Testament of the KJV (as the King James Version is usually referred) was translated into English from a version of the Greek New Testament that had been collected from twelfth-century copies by Erasmus. Where Erasmus couldn't find Greek manuscripts, he translated to Greek from the Latin Vulgate (which itself had been translated from Greek back in the fourth century). Here the problem splits into two problems. First, Jesus spoke Aramaic --- his actual words, never recorded, were only rendered in Greek in the original gospels. Thus, the KJV consists of Jesus' words twice refracted through the prism of translation. Second, Erasmus's Greek New Testament was based on handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies, etc., going back over a millennium, and today is considered one of the poorer Greek New Testaments. It is this second problem that Ehrman spends most time on in Misquoting Jesus, a fascinating account of New Testament textual criticism.

Many people have a vague notion that all the original biblical texts are preserved in vaults somewhere, and translators work from those original texts. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. The earliest surviving versions of the gospels are handwritten copies dating from centuries after the original texts were written. Also, we don't just have a single version of each gospel; we have many versions, and even more fragments. The trouble is, none of the versions agree with each other. As Ehrman puts it, there are more points of disagreement between manuscripts than there are words in the Gospels. So which one is right? How can one tell what the original authors intended?

One way is to try and establish which manuscript is the earliest, and call it closest to the author's intent. However, it may not be. Ehrman describes how the earliest copies of Christian texts were done by everyday folks, many of whom were barely literate; it is thus among the earliest copies that the greatest disagreements are found. In later times, professional scribes did most of the copying, resulting in fewer inter-copy disagreements. Also, we may have a document from the fourth century and one from the eighth; but the latter might have been copied from a second-century document, making it closer to the original. In general, though, if most early manuscripts have a given wording and later versions have another, scholars assume the early version is correct.

Another method of deciding which of two text versions is closer to the original is geographic comparison. If all the manuscripts from Alexandria have one version of text, but copies from everywhere else have another version, the Alexandria version is probably incorrect. Also, Ehrman controversially argues that if we have two passages, one with an easier interpretation and another with a harder, the latter is more likely correct. Scribes would often clean up passages that were hard to interpret, or that seemed to make Jesus hard to understand.

Then there is the issue of later scribes just plain adding in things that weren't there before. These additions often came from the verbal tradition of the early church, or to bring a given gospel in line with other gospels. One of the biggest apparent additions to the gospels is the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20). They are not present in early versions of the gospel, and include the famous passage that is the primary basis for Pentecostal and snake-handling churches, as well as for many a fly-by-night faith healer:

And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.

In addition to not being present in earlier versions, Ehrman states the writing style of these verses are different from the rest of Mark, and contain vocabulary not present in the rest of the gospel. Some later scribe possibly felt that the gospel ended too abruptly and added a more Messianic coda. And in doing so, condemned many an Appalachian pit viper to a life of abuse at the hands of people who think Jesus said something he likely didn't.

Alteration of texts by copyists was such a problem that many ancient scribes and authors would include warnings similar to today's anti-copying legal disclaimers. One figure in Misquoting Jesus is a page of a fourth-century manuscript on which a medieval scribe has scrawled a complaint in the margins about an earlier scribe altering the text: "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it." The book of Revelation contains one of the first copyright warnings, which Ehrman quotes: "I testify to everyone who hears to the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book; and if anyone removes any of the words of the book of this prophecy, God will remove his share from the tree of life...." The wording may have changed over the centuries, but the sentiment hasn't.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. So many hands have altered and edited the now lost originals that we will never know for sure what those originals said. I find it amusing that the Christian Right in America spends its energy attacking evolution, arguing that teaching evolution is teaching atheism. For Ehrman, learning about the Bible is what caused his belief to change. He still believes in God, but no longer believes the Bible is an inerrant source of the Word.

It would be interesting to know how many people became less religiously devout after learning science versus learning about Bible and church history. Instead of convincing believers not to read Dawkins and Darwin, the biblical literalists might better spend their energy keeping folks away from Ehrman (in fact, backlash books attacking Ehrman --- often personally --- and defending Biblical infallibility are already appearing).

Ehrman isn't an atheist assaulting belief; he is just a scholarly believer saying he feels the evidence is clear that the gospels were written by men with personal agendas, and both accidentally and intentionally altered over the centuries by other men with agendas of their own. Then, from all the texts that existed, some other men with agendas selected the canon and deemed the other texts apocrypha. The main thrust of what Jesus said and did is undoubtedly in there, but that's all we can be sure of. For believer or atheist, I recommend Misquoting Jesus to anyone with an interest in where this ancient anthology that has helped shape our culture came from.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Good Old Traditional Values: Porn In The USA

By Ewen Callaway for ABC News:

Americans may paint themselves in increasingly bright shades of red and blue, but new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

Political Divide


Edelman spends part of his time helping companies such as Microsoft and AOL detect advertising fraud. Another consulting client runs dozens of adult websites, though he says he is not at liberty to identify the firm.

That company did, however, provide Edelman with roughly two years of credit card data from 2006 to 2008 that included a purchase date and each customer's postal code.

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states  online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog  and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election  Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

Old-Fashioned Values


Church-goers bought less online porn on Sundays  a 1% increase in a postal code's religious attendance was associated with a 0.1% drop in subscriptions that day. However, expenditures on other days of the week brought them in line with the rest of the country, Edelman finds.

Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

To get a better handle on other associations between social attitudes and pornography consumption, Edelman melded his data with a previous study on public attitudes toward religion.

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."

"One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says.

Friday, March 6, 2009

Preparing For War, Not Worship

from Wayne Besen:

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) introduced a bill this week to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a law that prohibits gay and lesbian military personnel from serving openly.

While this is welcome news, there is no guarantee of a "welcome mat" for gay and lesbian soldiers if the ban is lifted. In the years since Don't Ask, Don't Tell was adopted in 1993, there has been a rigorous effort to force religion into the barracks. Fundamentalist Christian groups have infiltrated some of our leading military bases and have made life uncomfortable for anyone who does not conform.

This first came to light in 2005 after the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs had become a bastion of Anti-Semitism and Christian proselytizing. The problem escalated as some cadets were reportedly harassed and called "filthy Jews." A chaplain who complained about the Biblical abuse was unceremoniously demoted and shipped off to Japan. To stop the attempted conversions, the military brass had to meet with the Anti-Defamation League.

Sadly, the proselytizing continues with powerful military leaders behaving more like missionaries, than soldiers entrusted with fulfilling military missions.

"Why is it acceptable that soldiers are unable to serve this nation without attending state-led religious practices they find offensive and false?" Specialist Dustin Chalker, an army medic based at Fort Detrick, in Maryland, asked in The New York Times.

The Times article said that many service members are made uncomfortable by the outsized influence of private groups, such as Officers Christian Fellowship and the Campus Crusade for Christ's Military Ministry.

"You can't and shouldn't eliminate the spiritual component in the military," argued Bruce Fister, Executive Director of Officers' Christian Fellowship, in the Times.

Excuse me, why is there a "spiritual component" in a pluralistic military whose goal is to safeguard a people governed by the United States Constitution? The very document that they are entrusted with protecting forbids a state religion.

The fact is, a service member can pray anytime he or she desires. Within a ten mile radius of almost any base is a plethora of evangelical or fundamentalist churches to choose from. Thus, no one will be denied their freedom of religion if the presence of these predatory organizations is expunged from military bases. It is time to drain the swamp.

Of course, we all know the purpose of these groups is to turn religion from a private, individual matter into a coercive team sport. "Team Jesus" is a better instrument to pressure cadets into converting - especially if it offers ambitious soldiers a competitive advantage to rise through the ranks. (At the Air Force Academy in 2005, the football coach actually did post a locker room banner that read, "Team Jesus.")

It is also problematic that a group with the name "Crusade" is allowed anywhere near our military. In case these religious renegades haven't noticed, we are fighting two wars in the Muslim world. The very word "crusade" is a potent rallying cry for Al Qaeda to recruit terrorists to murder U.S. forces. A group with a name like Campus Crusade sends the wrong message and may endanger our troops.

Finally, religion does not always equate with moral superiority. I wouldn't doubt if the porn lobby is secretly cheering for mass conversions on military bases. A new nationwide study of credit card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider shows that states that consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," said Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

As we contemplate the battle over allowing openly gay people in the military, we should also consider what type of military they would serve in. As a nation, we must ensure that the military's number one priority is preparing for war, not worship. If we don't grapple with this issue, Don't Ask, Don't Tell may become, Do Tell, Live In Hell for gay and lesbian service members brave enough to come out.

for more info, check out the Military Religious Freedom Foundation

Thursday, March 5, 2009

LGBT Non-Discrimination Bill Introduced -- Lobby Day March 17!‏

from Equality Advocates:


Did you know that across Pennsylvania, it is completely legal to fire someone from their job simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression? Although some local jurisdictions have protections against this type of discrimination, nearly 80% of Pennsylvanians live in areas with absolutely no protection.

Today, Representative Dan Frankel (D-Allegheny County) introduced House Bill 300 with 78 other co-sponsors from every corner of the Commonwealth. HB 300 would amend the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to protect people against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accomodations because of one's sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. For more information on today's announcement, click here. Recent polling shows broad-based support for this bill from every area across the Commonwealth, but our officials need to hear from us!

Join other LGBT and allied people from across Pennsylvania in Harrisburg for our statewide lobby day and rally on Tuesday, March 17 to "Rock the Dome" and speak, together as one community, and one voice, for fairness and equality for all Pennsylvanians! The Lobby Day and Rally is organized by the Value All Families Coalition, comprised of statewide, regional, and local organizations promoting LGBT equality.

Whether you're a seasoned activist or you've never spoken to your legislator before, we will provide all the information you need to successfully advocate to your elected officials on LGBT-related issues. We will provide all the training you need, a free lunch, and then together fill the historic Capitol Rotunda to rally for equality!

Join us at 11:30am at St. Michael's Lutheran Church (118 State Street)in Harrisburg for a complimentary lunch and advocacy training. At 1:00pm we will move to the Capitol Rotunda for the rally, and afterward speak with our legislators on the importance of passing this non-discrimination bill.

For those coming from Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, we are providing free transportation to Harrisburg on a first-come, first-serve basis. The bus will leave Pittsburgh at 7:30am from IBEW Local Union Number 5 at 5 Hot Metal Street in Pittsburgh (free parking available). Plan to be back around 7:30pm. Buses will be leaving from Center City, Philadelphia at 9:00am, location to be announced shortly. Contact Jake at Equality Advocates for more info: jkaskey@equalitypa.org

Our elected officials need to hear from every one of us about this important legislation, so I hope you will attend the March 17 Lobby Day and Rally!

If we stand up and speak out with one voice, we will see this important legislation move forward in the statehouse!

See you all on Tuesday, March 17!