"Queerty" Quotes Roman Catholic Andrew Sullivan's Claim That LGBT Queer People Pari Delicto With Christian Fundamentalist Fanatics - Ho Hum, Snore

Comment posted to site:

Not long ago, Mr. Sullivan debated online with Sam Harris, who arguably started the “New Atheist” movement (the only thing new is the higher number of non-believers each time a poll is taken), on the issue whether mainstream religious folk make people like the Rev. Phred Phelps, the Rev. Scott Lively, and the wannabe Rev. Tony (the PAC man, not the actor) Perkins look credible. If memory serves, the venue was belief.net or one of those non-denominational, anything goes “spiritual” metaphysical sites that actually hold atheism as highly regarded as evangelicalism. I am biased, of course, being a non-believer, but I believe Mr. Harris won hands down, the Roman Catholic Sullivan resorting the circular logic of scripture and Sixpack Chopwood speculation to give validity to his not proved claims. As Richard Dawkins might put it, mainstream Christians, for example, are deluded; evangelicals are mad. The deluded don’t wear their religion on their sleeve and tend to be a lot more open minded. But because both types of believer succumb to birth-indoctrinated religions and sects, both are deluded all the same. Worse, the Andrew Sullivans of this world are the enablers of the Phelpses, Livelys, Perkinses, &c. Religion is bunk. The only God there is is the one between your ears.

Views: 143

Replies to This Discussion

I've tried to like Andrew Sullivan several times and failed each time, for his irrational devotion to Roman Catholicism.  Why he can't be bothered to wake up and recognize that he is supporting the very organization which contributes to keep him and his fellows down, I fail to understand.

It was many years ago, I went to a book reading where Sullivan was the speaker. He spoke about how marriage is a fundamental right, and LGBT people deserve that right. How even convicted felons, who forfeit the right to vote, can marry. I had not thought a lot about it before that, but he made me think seriously about it. And I agree wholeheartedly thst LGBT people deserve equality.

Like Loren, I try to like Sullivan. But he seems to be deeply conservative, and fully Catholic, except where it affects him personally, then he differs. I agree with James, Sullivan seems steeped in Catholicism, and appears to differ only when he is personally affected. As far as I know, Sullivan is single but now could marry if he wanted to.

Slate's William Saletan is another who went bezerk on this one. Saletan lost credibility when he was so supportive if the fake Regneris so-called study that was pushed by antigay groups. Saletan's essay on Eich blasted Mozilla and progressives.

There is a lot of web discussion on Eich's downfall. I knew antigay conservatives would jump on it. Across the media, they are jumping on the Evil Scott Lively bandwagon and referring to the "Gaystapo" as if bands of LGBT poeple will be putting christians in concentration camps and committing mass murder. For shame, using such rhetoric. Disgusting bigotry.

If Mozilla promoted an open racist, or open mysogenist, the response would have been swift. Those writers would be fearful of writing criticism. Which shows they dont consider LGBT people as equally deserving of dignity and equality. Many, maybe most, people still dont accept that LGBT people are deserving of human rights, dont Accept that some traits and temperament are inborn, and that people should not be discriminated against for that.

A few years ago, I was harrassed out of my career via malicious office gossip, workplace bullying, isolation, and backstabbing. I work for an employer that , like Mozilla, is officially and proudly welcoming of diversity. No one said, "I am harrassing you because....". Fortunately I demanded, and got, transfer and was able to rebuild my career and credibility, and was still on the health plan when I developed a rare and aggressive cancer that demands highly expensive treatment. At no point has my performance been an issue, and at no point was there a complaint, or a Work Improvement Plsn, which is done for problem employees. They just ganged up on me and didnt like me, snd got rid of me.

So I empathasize with the Mozilla employees who were fearful of Eich. He can say what he wants about supporting equality, but his actions spoke far louder. He solidly demonstrated he does not believe some of his employees, and his company's customers and supporters, deserve equal treatment, But he would not admit it. Mozilla employees must have felt they were at risk.

This was not about free speech for Eich. In fact, he didnt speek openly. It was about Mozilla corp. wanting to keep a customer base active, and about employees fearful for discrimination that Eich, in action via political contributions, demonstrated he favored while in words, denied.

Plus, people keep forgetting that only government can stifle free speech.  Private companies can do what they want.  I find it fascinating that when conservatives boycott company they are exercising their free speech rights but, if liberals do it then we are bullies.

I agree.   It's hypocrisy.  I don't like that companies can and do prevent people from expressing their opinions and experiences, but they do and there is nothing in the constition to stop them. 


On COULD argue that if a company is found to discriminate against an employee (or against the CEO, which is very different) due to their expressing their opinion, or due to their being discriminatory, AND the company has govt contracts, it could be construed that govt is suppressing free speech.  And therefore the govt could impose sanctions on the company or take away their contract or funding.  Which would probably make conservatives soil their pants.

Else why would they spend so much money on efforts to privatize almost everything government does; if put into practice, only the non-competitive corporations you create by dismantling an agency will be your friends, which is what Bush II and Cheney were all about vis-a-vis Iraq: Bush II represented the interests of Big Oil seeking a market advantage in the sub-sand black riches; Cheney, the interest of his stock options in Halliburton. Iraq was thus the first foreign incursion by perjury and fearmongering in congress paid for by the tax payers (and China) that was engineered entirely for the profit of a sitting president and a sitting vice-president. Instead of turning out by numbers paintings of Arafat and other players, Bush II should be scratching on the walls of a cell in The Hague.

James, I'm getting the feeling you feel a little distrust for former president Bush and former vice president Cheney.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service