Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘academia’

I might have to rethink this “wall of separation” now that it inconveniences me.

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.

Straight people are pretty gross…but I won’t judge

Professor David Epstein remains on the faculty of the esteemed Columbia University despite having pled guilty to misdemenor charges of incest in connection with the sexual relationship he had been engaging in with his daughter. That’s correct. Don’t believe for a second that incest is confined to white trash living in rural West Virginia. It’s now de rigeur among educated academics living in New York City as well.

Columbia University: Incest is best, put your DAUGHTER to the test. There's some really sick shit going on there, but who am I to judge? Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

Earlier charges of felony incest were dropped in a plea deal. Don’t ask me what the difference is between felony incest and misdemenor incest because I’ve never passed the New York State Bar Exam. It seems to me that he was either shtooping his daughter or he wasn’t. I don’t understand the distinction.

My intial reaction was revulsion, of course. I mean, that’s just gross. But then I found out that he was once a columnist for the Huffington Post, which I read religiously. I immediately sought out his columns. I liked the column he wrote about torture because I’m against it like he is, though I sorta like the naked pyramids they had at Abu Ghraib. He also hates Sarah Palin, though not quite as much as I do. From everything I can gather, he’s a liberal. I didn’t find anything in his archive about LGBTQXYZ issues (to his shame) but I’ll just assume that he’s on board. He  seems like a level-headed guy, not a bigot.

But as I was crusing around the ‘net, reading about Epstein’s incestual relationship, I stumbled upon a blog comment that really spun my head around. It appeared on the website of Columbia’s campus newspaper, under the heading “Full Marriage Equality”:

“Consenting adults should be able to pursue love, sex, and marriage (or not) with any other adults. Either we take ‘consenting adults”’and ‘right to privacy’ and ‘my body, my choice’ seriously, or we don’t. A woman of age 18 can sue or be sued, go to prison for life, serve in the military, operate motor vehicles and heavy machinery, consent to sex with men or women they just met. Are we to say they can’t consent to sex with a close relative?”

Read it here: http://spectrum.columbiaspectator.com/spectrum/epstein-pleads-guilty-to-misdemeanor-charge-of-attempted-incest

David Epstein, Columbia professor and HuffPo columnist. He's definitely "keepin' it in the family" if you know what I mean.

I can see the logic there. Speaking from the point-of-view of someone who knows what it’s like to be shunned and hated because of my sexuality, I can hardly condemn the good professor for his forbidden love. My love was once unspeakable as well. I was forced to hide it as if it was something shameful. All through my teenage years, I prayed to God to take away my sexual desires, but nothing changed. I’m sure David Epstein prayed to his god(ess)(es) as well, asking them to please remove the burning sexual desire he felt for his daughter. But we can’t change the way we feel. You can’t “pray away the inbreeder” any more than you can “pray away the gay”.

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their own business. In fact, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom deserves the full governmental seal of approval that only full marriage rights provide. Anything less is a denial of human rights.

Now I know that some of you may be thinking to yourself–“But Patrick, incest leads to screwed up, inbred, three-eyed children with hemophelia and crap like that.”

Here are a few of my feelings on that.

1) A marriage license is not a license to make a baby. People can (and do) conceive children out of wedlock. Four out of ten American children are now born to unwed mothers. If two people want to make a baby, they will, with or without a license from the state. It kind of reminds me of these people who think gay people will stop being gay if the state won’t allow them to marry. Sheesh. Almost medieval thinking.

2) Obviously, Professor Epstein and his daughter do not “choose” to be incestual. There’s just no way that it can be a “choice”. Who would choose a sexuality that is so reviled and rejected by society at large? For any of you judgemental people who think that Epstein “chooses” to be incestual, let me pose a question: When did you choose to outcestual? Hmm? It must be an inborn trait. Even though no gene has ever been discovered that determines incestual behavior,  we’ll just go ahead and assume that one exists.  We’ll call that science. And if you don’t believe in science, you’re basically a Christofascist loser.  Now, you might argue that people choose who they sleep with, and that would be true. Except then I would have to admit that I choose who I sleep with, and then that would mean that my sexual behaviors are actually behaviors. And that would make it virtually impossible to make perpetual comparisons between myself and black people. So let’s not got there, m’kay?

3) Incest has been around since the beginning of time. And that means it’s okay.

4) If the only reason we don’t accept Epstein’s relationship with his own daughter is because he runs the risk of impregnanting the poor thing, guess what? He didn’t. No harm no foul. I mean, what if Epstein were banging his 24-year old son, rather than his 24-year old daughter? That’s be cool, right? And what if he and his daughter engaged in oral sex only? What if Epstein wanted to do the horizontal limbada with his own (presumably menopausal) mother? That would be kosher. Not only would it be kosher, but we should grant him a marriage license. It’s only fair.

5) Actually, my state DOES allow incestual marriages. We’re very progressive here in the Bay State, far ahead of the rest of the nation. My state allows incestual marriages so long as they are HOMOSEXUAL in nature. Thank goodness. So if I weren’t already married to Michael, I could conceivably marry my dad. Or my brother. And the more I think about it, the more I’d really like to marry my brother. He’s a charmer. Now, from time to time, I’ve been on gay blogs and mentioned that two brothers can marry each other in my state and I’ve been accused of “lying”. So, if you don’t believe me, here is the statute, or you can simply google “Massachusetts legal impediments to marriage”:

http://www.tyngsboroughma.gov/government/departments/town-clerk/obtaining-a-marriage-licencse/

The law is very clear. Women may not marry close male relatives and men may not marry close female relatives. It doesn’t even make a common sense exception for men who want to marry their post-menopausal mothers! But it doesn’t say anything about men marrying close male relatives, or women marrying close female relatives. So me and my brother could tie the knot. If I weren’t already married to my loving husband Michael, that is. So if gays can marry incestually, why not straights? If your answer is because straights can make babies and gays can’t, then you’re of course positing that baby-making capabilities should have some bearing on marriage, which is just LUDICROUS! Marriage is about love. The state should bless all love equally, H8ER!

6) For you Bible-thumping theocrats out there, please don’t bring your morals to this argument. We have a strict seperation of church and state in this country. It’s right there in the Consitution…somewhere. Look, I can’t find it right now. I’ll look for it again later. In any case, I’d bet you can’t find a single instance of Jesus condemning incest in the Bible. Go ahead and look, I dare you. Those are the words in red, douchebags. See? He never said it, so that means it’s okay. Also, if you’re such a staunch believer in the Bible, maybe you ought to go out and thrash yourself for eating a shrimp cocktail. Until then, STFU.

7) How many more incestual people does God have to make before you get it through your thick skulls that God wants them around? Obviously, if incest were wrong, God wouldn’t have created people who have an inclination to do it.

So, the more I think about it, the more I think Epstein is a trailblazer for equal rights. He and his daughter are SICK, but that shouldn’t mean that they enjoy anything less than equal rights. It’s not the government’s place to decide what’s sick. That would be a slippery slope–next thing you know, they’d be telling me that I’m sick.

Perverts like us have to stand shoulder to shoulder with perverts like them. Let’s not allow the churchy haters to divide us. It’s not of our business if David Epstein wants to give his daughter the business. She’s cool with it, why shouldn’t we be?

Tag Cloud