Just another WordPress.com site

Raging homophobe Mike Adams is at it again. This time he’s taking aim at the University of North Carolina for publishing a list of pro-LGBTQXYZ churches.

Adams, a criminology professor and Christian turned atheist, turned Christian again, took issue with a list of approved churches distributed by the university’s  LGBTQIA Office. That’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersexed, and Allied, for those of you who are not in the know.

Professor Mike Adams of UNC-Wilmington. It's just too bad that these homophobes have to be so handsome. He opposes the official state endorsement of churches based on their gay friendliness. Is there any way we can fire this man?

Adams viciously attacked the church-endorsement program, saying:

“…they investigate and then endorse churches based on their stance on homosexuality. And they print lists of approved gay-friendly churches using official university letter-head. Then they circulate their approved church list on state-owned computers to other state employees who then recommend the approved churches to their students.”

Uh..yeah. So? Isn’t that what a state-run, tax-payer funded university is supposed to be doing?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not a believer in that ancient religion of cannibalism. I don’t think that this guy named Jesus became a zombie and walked out of his tomb. Or that a guy named Jonah was swallowed by a fish and lived to tell the tale. I also don’t believe in talking serpents, or exorcising demons. And I certainly don’t believe in this concept called “sin”, or that I need to be saved from my sins. So please don’t think that I’m suddenly getting hip to Christianity.

Typical service at Christian churches across America. Not here in Provincetown, of course. The churches here fly the rainbow flag out front, so you know that they are filled with normal people who have completely abandoned the Bible and all of the weird/dangerous things that it teaches. This picture is from one of those gay-hating churches found in other parts of the country that I've never actually visited. I'm talking about the Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon churches in places like Oklahoma and Nebraska.

I might be able to join this religion called Christianity if I weren’t required to believe all of those things listed above. Like the resurrection, for example. I would really like to drop the concept of sin from any version of Christianity I might choose to join. Also, I think all people should be able to go to heaven, regardless of whether they accept Christ or not. Buddhists and Jews go to heaven. Heck, even atheists go to heaven, despite the fact that we don’t believe in it. The only ones who aren’t going to heaven are these judgmental Christian fanatics who actually believe what the Bible tells them.

Isn’t that right, Queer Christian?

I haven’t found God, or anything like that.  But I do think that pro-gay churches play an important role in our community–namely, they serve to confuse people about what scripture actually teaches. Which is a very good thing. The Bible is pretty clear about homosexuality, in both the Old and New Testaments. There is essentially no ambiguity. But that shouldn’t stop queer activists from infiltrating churches, changing doctrine, reforming attitudes, and generally placing the targets of their aggression on an un-Biblical path for years to come.

The primary purpose of gay-friendly churches is to drive home the point that Christianity itself has nothing to say about the morality of sexual behaviors. Yes, some denominations have a lot to say on the subject. Those are the hateful, evil, intolerant denominations. Those denominations are filled with child molesters and crypto-Nazis. They care only about what you do with your private parts.

But other denominations think it’s all fine. Since some denominations think it’s okay for a man to sodomize another man, that means that Christianity has no agreed-upon teaching. Some individual churches do, but those are on the fringe. Christianity itself is silent–even supportive–of homosexuality. Or whatever your particular bag may be.

Of course, only an illiterate person who can’t read the Bible would believe this, but that’s okay. I’ve heard that the members of the pro-gay congregations haven’t cracked their Bibles in quite some time. Kudos to them for that. The Bible is hate speech and should be avoided.

And if the LGBTQIA office of UNC-Wilmington wants to further that goal, I’m all for it. Please endorse gay-friendly churches.

The University of North Carolina at Wilmington celebrates perversity. I mean, diversity.

Professor Adams disagrees.

“If I were to stand up and start recommending churches in the classroom, that would be a serious problem.”

Well, yeah. But that’s because he’s a Christian. A Christian who believes the Bible. And those types of Christians should not be endorsing churches in their capacities as state employees. In fact, they shouldn’t be state employees. Or employees anywhere.

Under normal circumstances, I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. In fact, I often insist that it’s a constitutional principle, despite its absence in the constitution. Let’s just say that it’s written in invisible ink, readable only to the wise judges of the Supreme Court. If I had to admit that the separation of church and state was not actually in the constitution, I might then be forced to admit that most of the things progressives believe to be part of the constitution are actually not there at all. For example, there is no right to privacy, no right to safe space, no right to birth control, no right to abortion, no right to a court-appointed defense attorney, no right to marriage, no right to serve in the military, no right not to have my feelings hurt by the mean things that right-wingers say. There are no sexual rights listed in the constitution at all.

And that’s highly problematic for me. So let’s play along for a while and pretend that the separation of church and state is actually there…somewhere in the penumbras.

And it took Justice Hugo Black to find it!  Justice Black was an Old South segregationist appointed to the court by President Franklin Roosevelt. He is perhaps best known for writing the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, in which he upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps. (Justice Black always endorsed the policies of the man who appointed him. He was essentially a rubber stamp for the executive branch.)

Black was a former member of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and a rabid anti-Catholic. He hated Catholics almost as much as I do. He once worked as defense counsel to a KKK member accused of murdering a Catholic priest. The KKK member was acquitted, thank goodness!

Hugo Black. He was a mixed bag. Although he supported segregation and the internment of Japanese-Americans, it appears that he also hated Catholics. And so do I. Without him, the phrase "separation of church and state" might never have entered case law, and we might have to actually refer to the first amendment of the constitution for guidance rather than to a letter written by a guy who wasn't at the constitutional convention. And that would be shitty because I prefer to believe that the separation of church and state exists.

The term “separation of church and state” first became case law when Justice Black cited it in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). The case involved a school district that used its buses to help transport children to Catholic schools. Keep in mind that Black was a Catholic-hater of the first degree, although that certainly had no bearing on his judgment at all. Black interpreted the constitution with an eye toward Thomas Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”. He plucked the phrase “separation of church and state” from Jefferson’s letter, albeit wildly out of context. Which is really odd, because Thomas Jefferson was not the author of the constitution. In fact, he had nothing to do with its text as he was serving as the US Ambassador to France at the time. But I don’t care. I like Black’s conclusion and I don’t care how he came to it.

In the majority opinion, Black wrote:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

For years, the doctrine established in Everson v. Board of Education has been used as a weapon against people of faith, and that’s great. That’s what it’s supposed to used for. But now it appears that it’s being turned around against us. Dr. Adams seems to be suggesting that his university, UNC-Wilmington, is endorsing particular churches just because they’ve issued a list of endorsed churches. And he’s saying that, according to supreme court precedent, the university can’t do that.

That just doesn’t sit right by me. It’s okay for governmental institutions to endorse churches, to prefer one religion over another, to influence a person to go to a certain church, and to spend taxpayer money in support of certain churches, as long as they are churches that I like. If they happen to be churches I don’t like–churches that haven’t abandoned the Bible, for example–then they should be shunned.

So let’s just put it this way. These aren’t normal circumstances. We’re not talking about a state-run university endorsing churches that preach hate. We’re talking about a state-run university that’s endorsing good churches; ie, churches that make gay people feel all warm inside. And so the endorsement of such churches is fine. Perhaps the university can do its part to grow the pro-sodomy churches and to perpetuate the belief that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity. That would be a great service to the community.

In other words, pay Justice Black’s “separation” no mind. That concept has outlived its usefulness now that it can’t be used as a weapon against people I hate.

Advertisements

Comments on: "I might have to rethink this “wall of separation” now that it inconveniences me." (14)

  1. I’m glad I found your blog. I recently wrote a post (www.pinkisforboys.com) about visiting my fundy in-laws in Virginia with my gender-nonconforming boys. I’m still recovering from that experience. If you’ve ever seen Disney’s Fox and Hound (where the cute little pups are best friends but you know that one day they’re going to grow up to hunt each other), then you know what it was like to see my children playing with their fundy cousins. I was tense and angry the whole time.

    People have used the Bible for way too long to enslave, kill, and otherwise deny people basic human rights. It has no place being in government, yet it’s being used as a political tool. Separation of church and state protects everyone. It never made any sense to me that anyone would argue to let the government have control over their religion–even if they like the religion the government choses.

    I’m a Christian because that’s where I experience God. I not going to try and talk you out of your anger against Christianity, church, religion, etc. It’s justified. Totally. I get that. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry. I’m sorry people have imagined hell just so that they could imagine people like you burning in it. It’s vindictive and wrong on so many levels–including theologically–and I’m sorry that’s out there. I’m sorry for you and I’m sorry for my boys as they grow up because I know they will be subjected to that hate… possibly within their own extended family.

    However, I want to throw out another perspective. The Bible is NOT straightforward at all on homosexuality. (If you want to know where I’m coming from/how accepting Christians deal with the verses in question, there’s a beautiful documentary called “For the Bible Tells Me So” documenting GLBT people coming out to their fundy folks. It rips apart the scriptures people think are so clear. I can also recommend Rob Bell’s Love Wins and http://www.johnshore.com.) There are lots of churches fighting for separation of church and state, fighting for the rights of everyone, and teaching love… not out of ignorance but because they believe it’s the only thing that makes any sense.

    Anyway, I enjoyed the blog and will keep reading.

    • Yes, people have been using the Bible to enslave and kill, as you say. That’s why I dom’t belong to any such Christian religion. Makes me wonder why you do.

      I’m sure your denomination is very nice and tells LGBTQXYZ people to feel good about themselves. But why don’t you just go whole hog and throw that Bible in the trash? It would make more sense than to just ignore the parts neither of us like.

      You know that Jesus even said that he is the the only way to the father? What the heck? So heaven will be a Jew-free zone, a Buddhist-free zone, an athiest-free zone, a Hindu-free zone. Sounds pretty discrimnatory to me. I would never join a cult like that. Any one who does needs to have their heads examined. Is there any way we can get such people fired from their jobs? They’d have a lot of time to sit and think about how evil their religion is if they were out of work.

      Yes, some people have imagined hell. Not because it’s an integral part of their religion, but because they like to picture all of their foes in a very hot place. Incidentally, that’s what I think as well. I’m not a big believer in this hell doctrine, but if such a place exists, it’s filled with people who disagree with me–the Mormons, the Catholics, the Evangelicals. They’re all there and they’re all roasting. I get a little satisfaction thinking about that. It really makes me feel superior.

      By the way, if you want to chat with a superior LGBTQXYZ Christian who condemns to hell those who disagree with him, click on the blog “Queer Christian” on the right hand side.

      I can see that you perceive disapproval as “hate”. And I agree with you. If you disapprove of anything another person does, that makes you a H8er. So if you don’t want to be tagged that way, you will shut up.

      “Bible is NOT straightforward at all on homosexuality.”

      It’s NOT? Well, that makes me feel a whole lot better. Could you direct me to the verses that are supportive of two men sodomizing each other? Not that I care. I don’t give a crap what that book says. It’s evil. I’d just like to shove that in some churchy bitch’s face the next time she tells me that butt sex is “wrong” based on her religion. I’ll tell her that if she were a true Christian, she would be supportive of butt sex. It even says so, right there in her Bible. But first you have to tell me where all of the pro-sodomy passages are.

      I’d love to get my hands on the documentary and book you mentioned. I need to find some interesting ways to rationalize away the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality. When a person is intent on coming to the conclusion he wants, he usually finds a way to get there. And I want to desperately to believe that the straightforward prohibitions on homosexuality are not straightforward at all, but “nuanced”. By nuance, of course, I mean that they mean the exact opposite of their plain meaning.

      Keep up the good work. You are doing great things in the Christian community. It’s important that we have people like you who work inside the churches to obfuscate. We’ve made great headway in changing minds away from the Biblical teachings, and it’s people like you who have done the legwork. Good job!

      As I mentioned before, I only like the seperation of church and state when I can use it against people I don’t like. I don’t care that it’s not in the constitution, or that it was lifted from a letter written by a man who played no role in drafting the constitution. What’s important is that religion–particularly the Christian kind–be shoved to the margins and mocked.

      Please keep reading and tell your gay friends about my blog!

    • The bible clearly defines sexual relations to be kept between a man and his wife, and a woman and her husband. This also clearly defines marriage as a man and a woman.
      “each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. (‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭2‬ NIV)

  2. I love having dialogues with LGBT… adults who can help me as I make decisions for my son who defies labels, but your response is so filled with insults that I don’t know where to begin. Clearly, you are as intelligent as you are angry. I do hope you watch the documentary because it would answer a lot of the questions about the specific scriptures. You might not agree with it, but it would at least give you the perspective of thoughtful, accepting Christian theologians. I think you would enjoy Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” as well–again, not that you would agree with it, but it gives a bigger view of Christianity than what you’ve experienced.

    • I will certainly watch the documentary. I want to win arguments with Christians.

      They seem to think that the Bible is on their side, that there is no room in Christianity for homosexuality. If you’re telling me that the Bible says otherwise, then I’d like to hear more about this. Just tell me where all of the passages are that are supportive of sodomy. The ones that negate the clear prohibitions.

      I want to know where they are so I can shut churchy bitches’ mouths. You’re a Christian, right? So you should know.

      I like how you convince people that you share their faith. That way your arguments don’t sound like they’re coming from a homosexual propagandist who’s trying to tear down their faith and/or subvert it from the inside. It’s like ‘wink, wink’ and ‘nudge, nudge’.

  3. Question. I am Lutheran Church Missouri Synod from IL. This is a Lutheran church that will not ordain Gay Pastors nor host Gay Marriages. Do you hate us along with the Catholics and Mormons?

  4. Undercover Summit Grad said:

    The more I think about it, the more I’m starting to agree with this Adams guy on this particular point. Didn’t UNC make a big no-no of “separation of church and state” when it endorsed all those churches? Also, why did they all have to be LGBTQIA approving? There is no way that could have been a random selection accident because the majority of the churches in the area don’t openly support the LGBTQIA lifestyle. Furthmore, who decided it was a good idea to use federal dollars to research churches, much less, with the intent to promote them, even if they weren’t LGBTQIA approved?
    Overall, the whole situation surrounding UNC seems close minded. They only supported one side of an issue, the LGBTQIA side. Isn’t that the kind of behavior that community hates?! Furthermore, why do they even have a LGBTQIA office? Do they have a Muslim office? a Christian office? a worshipers of the pink unicorn office? All I want is equal rights. While this Adams guy is a lunatic, a broken clock is right twice a day.

    • I don’t think you understand. UNC-Wilmington is only endorsing good churches. These are churches who have completely anandoned the Bible and always soothe gay people’s sensitive feelings.

      Yes, Jimmy. You take it in the poopchute and that’s oaky. God says it’s okay. And if anyone tells you otherwise, just tell them that they’re bad Christians.

      “Also, why did they all have to be LGBTQIA approving? There is no way that could have been a random selection accident because the majority of the churches in the area don’t openly support the LGBTQIA lifestyle.”

      That’s the only legitimate side! There is no debating, no discussion, no opposing views. There is only our agenda and it is to be pushed at all times.

      “Overall, the whole situation surrounding UNC seems close minded. They only supported one side of an issue, the LGBTQIA side.”

      It’s not an accident at all. It was the expressed intention of the office to provide a list of churches that affirms homosexuality. That’s called an endorsment and I used to say that such endorsments were unconstitutional until I heard about this.

      “Do they have a Muslim office?” Probably. “a Christian office?” I certainly hope not.

      • Undercover Summit Grad said:

        Lol… Your way or the highway huh? Your ideals are the only ones that matter? Ok. Works for your blog but it doesn’t do too well in America or the rest of the world. In fact, its totally and completely unconstituctional. It’s those same “there is only our agenda and it is to be pushed at all times” ideas that start wars believe it or not. And maybe this is a topic that should be fought over, slavery was. Good luck with the revolution!

        Furthermore, I like your definition of good churches being ones that have completely abondended the Bible.. Doesn’t that make them not a church at all? If they throw it all (the Bible) out the window what’s left and what’s the point?

        Finally, its clear you are very anti-Christian and thats fine, but arn’t you reducing yourself to their level when you want all their influences pushed out of the square of public ideas? If the LGBTQIA want to win this one, their going to need to be the bigger person. If you want to be taken seriously, I’d fine-tune my tactics a little bit. Good Luck!

      • “Furthermore, I like your definition of good churches being ones that have completely abondended the Bible.. Doesn’t that make them not a church at all?”

        Only in your narrow-minded world.

  5. Undercover Summit Grad said:

    ps: what about the worshipers of the pink unicorn office?!?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: