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.
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.
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.
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!
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.