Author Archive for ZackFordPage 3 of 3

Sister Denise: Prayer WORKS (And Other Unnecessarily Capitalized Words)

One of the most enjoyable aspects of writing a public blog is hearing people’s reactions, especially the negative ones. Honestly, I look forward to opportunities to learn from people who disagree, but I also look forward to responding to the people whose arguments simply do not stand up. Most importantly, those who evangelize here (like Shelonda) help demonstrate the ineffectiveness of religious language. If they are willing to make their remarks public, I’m willing to respond to them.

I still feel that my post, “I Don’t Want You To Pray For Me,” is one of the most important posts I’ve written. I refer people back to it often and often reread it myself. Folks regularly criticize prayer’s ineffectiveness, but I take the argument a step further and call it selfish (i.e. its first priority is self-reinforcement of beliefs). This argument is compelling because it’s much harder to debate and is actually proven further true by any attempt to argue the effectiveness of prayer. In a comment left today, “Sister Denise” demonstrates this perfectly.

By the way, why don’t these evangelical commenters ever know how to use multiple paragraphs?

Wow…this is an OLD interesting talk, but I just wanted to say…PRAYER does work, but for only those that TRULY walk righteously. It is VERY FEW, but it is done. When you are in RIGHT standing, meaning, a sin free (unwicked) life you will have POWER to pray and see someone healed, lame walk and blind see. But the weakness and wickedness of human beings destroys their own ability to live as God intended. God the creater and Jesus is ONE, and Jesus say if you except Him and keep HIS doing/saying/commandment like He did God the Father/Creator…the SAME power and MORE you could have. Humans and their doubts and DISOBEDIENCE keep that POWER from working in them so the world don’t see nor comprehend the TRUE POWER OF GOD. My brother, whether you want me to or not….God COMMANDED me to pray for you as I pray for myself….I WILL OBEY, because I know the POWER.

In Love, Sister Denise

That’s a whole lot of caps lock. I wondered at first if it was a secret code.

What’s obviously most annoying about comments like these is that the comment does not actually address any of the arguments I make in my post. Denise’s goal was not a dialogue, but a soliloquy. This, alone, confirms my argument about selfishness, in that she is writing only to reinforce her own beliefs (and, I’m assuming, to perpetuate them).

Let’s see how it plays out.

PRAYER does work, but for only those that TRULY walk righteously. It is VERY FEW, but it is done. When you are in RIGHT standing, meaning, a sin free (unwicked) life you will have POWER to pray and see someone healed, lame walk and blind see. But the weakness and wickedness of human beings destroys their own ability to live as God intended.

This first chunk is committed to disparaging. She’s calling prayer-deniers naive. She’s calling the life I live wicked. And, like most evangelism, there’s some fear-mongering too.

Frankly, if God’s omnipotent, he should be able to make me live however he intends. And if I’m to be punished for exercising the free choice he gave me, then he’s selfish and cruel. Why would I want to ask him for anything? If what Sister Denise says here (“in love”) is true, then God’s an asshole.

God the creater and Jesus is ONE, and Jesus say if you except Him and keep HIS doing/saying/commandment like He did God the Father/Creator…the SAME power and MORE you could have. Humans and their doubts and DISOBEDIENCE keep that POWER from working in them so the world don’t see nor comprehend the TRUE POWER OF GOD.

Except him? No. I make no exceptions in my nonbelief.

Grammar and spelling errors aside, this still makes no sense. It sounds like she’s tempting me with power. That doesn’t sound very virtuous. It sounds like she wants the power too. Maybe she thinks she already has it? I would not sacrifice my basic language skills for this supposed power—I wonder if that’s the deal she made.

My brother, whether you want me to or not….God COMMANDED me to pray for you as I pray for myself….I WILL OBEY, because I know the POWER.

In Love, Sister Denise

So yeah, she cares more about her own belief in God than my personal wishes. She knows the POWER.

Great.

Now, there’s some woman out there who’s going to waste a couple minutes a day to use me as the target for reinforcing her own belief in the power of prayer.

I feel so affirmed.

Thanks for actually reading my post and thinking about what I had to say, Denise. I hope you’re pleased I returned the favor.


Do DOMA Reactions Reveal Challenges of Tentative Progress?

So, President Obama comes out last week and says the DOJ will no longer defend DOMA in court (as so many of us have been asking him to do for two years) and the right wing goes CRAZY.

Possible presidential candidate Herman Cain called it a “breach of presidential duty bordering on treason.”

Newt Gingrich has called for Obama to be impeached.

Speaker Boehner expects the House GOPers will step in to defend it.

And plenty of folks all over the right are lying that the President is no longer enforcing DOMA, which he quite notably is.

All of this got me thinking about the very gradual approach—the long haul—toward LGBT equality. In the scheme of the movement, this DOMA decision was not that big. It was two years overdue. It doesn’t undo the damage done by the anti-LGBT DOMA briefs. It doesn’t even necessarily expedite federal recognition of same-sex couples.

If anything, the call for heightened scrutiny is a much bigger deal, but no one’s talking about that.

But this one little decision has spurred a deluge from the right. Treason? Impeachment? Loss of all credibility? All the big guns for just this one little policy change.

Where are our big guns?

We’ve been playing the very long, very patient high-road game. Step by step, we’ll get to equality eventually. But that’s not the way our opponents play the game at all.

They lambast. They overreact. They explode with rage and they attack! attack! attack!

Now am I applauding their strategy? Not necessarily. But I question ours a bit. I don’t want to start lying or exaggerating. But I want us to have some guts. I want us to be able to be pissed.

Our civil rights movement has been pretty posh. Sure, our elders are living in poverty, our kids are bullied and homeless, our trans community attempts suicide at 40x the national rate, and the HIV epidemic never really ended. But it’s the middle-class couples with jobs and children that are our biggest priority, right? We need marriage equality now!

When are we going to be pissed about how our community is actually treated in this society? When are we going to fight back? When are we going to call people out? When are we actually going to make a concerted stand?

I still feel like I haven’t seen it.

If anything, the National Equality March came closest. And it had a lot of potential to energize and motivate and utilize a whole lot of young people tired of injustice. And did anybody do anything with it? No.

Look, the President is hurting us slightly less on one of our issues! Hooray! We’re so grateful! You’re the best gay ally in presidential history! Whoopee!

Suddenly Bil and Pam come along wanting to air some dirty political laundry and everyone backs away. Oh no. We’re not that kind of a movement. We don’t call people out. We just raise lots of money for our elite lobbyists and then let them lobby. Lobby lobby lobby. That’s how we’ll get equality.

I can’t wait to see what Bil and Pam come up with. And I can’t wait to see the whole movement look and say, “Oh! Yeah! Look at the hypocrites!” and suddenly be on board with a little investigative research on our opponents. But in the meantime, are our relationships with the progressive movement so fragile and poor that any political boat-rocking is considered too big a risk? Three and a half minutes from Lawrence O’Donnell calling out some lies is our big guns? (Thanks for that much, Lawrence.)

We can’t do anything big if it isn’t a nice polished campaign with one of the big orgs’ logos on it, because of course, who gets the credit is more important than what gets accomplished. We can’t even agree on messaging. We’re all just doing our own thing and pretending it’s a cohesive movement with a realistic timeline. It’s no wonder it feels like a surprise every time a new state gets civil unions or whatever, because no one’s paying attention to what each other is doing!

We should care about education. We should care about helping every single American citizen understand the basic concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity. We should be quite proud of our morality and call out every hypocrite who tries to smear us “dirty homosexuals” but won’t acknowledge his own vita of adultery, divorce, and other abridgments of the “sanctity of marriage.” We should celebrate every victory, but each should make us more eager to demand the next, not less. We should be pissed every single time any politician or public figure smears us, and we should emphasize immediate movement-wide response (as opposed to, say, just waiting for GLAAD to deal with it).

But that’s not our movement. We aren’t transparent and we don’t work together. We don’t come with the big guns handy, and while for some of us these issues are our lives, our progressive allies think they’re doing us a big one by even mentioning our struggles. And we’re so thankful when they do; it’s a lot to ask of them.

This is insufficient.

If the right is going to make a big deal about every little step forward we take, it’s time we demand the left have the same reaction for every attempt at a little step backward. The stagnancy is stifling, and I’m sorry, but I don’t have the same patience as my very comfortable elders in the movement.


Friday Fundamentalist Farce File – 2/25/11

[The Friday Fundamentalist Farce File is a week's worth of "news" clippings from conservative hubs like WorldNetDaily and the American Family Association's OneNewsNow. Millions of Americans absorb these messages as gospel truth—literally—on a daily basis.]

There was a lot of good news this week, but what was the Right talking about? Abortion, Israel, teen sex, and Corporal Klingers (the latter, of course, to make fun of transgender people).

2/19/11 - Priest’s lawsuit threatens pro-life newssite

The problem with the language in the abortion debate has always been the strategic implication that anybody who is not “pro-life” is thus “pro-death” or “pro-abortion.” It looks like this characterization could lead to the shutdown of LifeSiteNews.com. The site is being sued for libel by Fr. Raymond Gravel, a pro-choice Roman Catholic priest and former member of Canada’s Parliament who didn’t appreciate being called “pro-abortion.”

And what is LSN’s response?

We are going to defend this case vigorously. We stand behind what we have written.

Of course, they’re also begging for money to fight the $500,000 suit.

2/20/11 - Israel: White House not reliable

The entire point of this article is to amplify the voice of one Knesset member who doesn’t like the Obama administration. It’s not really clear what authority he has to speak from, but WorldNetDaily is eager to quote every anti-Obama talking point he has to offer. Not much substance here, but worth noting that WND is trying to equate “pro-Israel” with “anti-Obama.” The evangelical Christians’ unflinching support of Israel (including Jewish settlement activity, as implied by this article) is incredibly suspicious.

2/21/11 - Healthcare conscience laws gutted

The expectation of the right is always that the freedom of religious belief equals the freedom of religious action, so the Christian Medical Association is very upset that the Obama administration has reduced the “conscience” protections for issuing birth control or “morning-after” pills. It’s just another whiny “we’re the victims” article, but the survey that comes with is good for a laugh:

2/22/11 - The joy of teen sex

Talking about people having sex is bad!

And Britain’s Channel 4 now has a show where young people above the age of consent are given tips to have better sex lives. Marcia Segelstein, author of this “Perspectives” piece, tells you what each of the four episodes is about, but then admits:

Perhaps fortunately, I was unable to view any of the episodes myself.

Despite being the “Reluctant Rebel,” Segelstein’s pure eyes probably could not have handled the actual portrayals of people having sex and using sex toys. It makes me sad for how boring and vanilla her own sex life might be.

Of course, her big problem is that anyone has sex outside of marriage. I say, if people are having sex outside of marriage, it might as well be safe, and good.

2/23/11 - Obama to create Armed Forces full of Corporal Klingers?

You may remember Corporal (later Sergeant ) Klinger from M*A*S*H who often wore women’s clothes to try to get himself a psychiatric discharge from the army. This reference has nothing to do with this article.

The article is about activists’ challenge to President Obama to end discrimination against transgender and intersex people in the military, but of course, the article uses as much offensive language as possible. (What is a “she-male,” and does anybody actually identify as one? Oh! The article later clarifies that it’s trans women who don’t fully transition. That doesn’t make it less offensive, and it sure doesn’t mean that anybody self-identifies that way.)

After a pity party for a wounded veteran, Elaine Donnelly is there to ask as many offensive questions as she can, displaying a complete lack of knowledge about transgender people. I provide my own (easy) answers below.

Q: Will recruiters be required to induct transgendered [sic] persons or individuals who desire “gender reassignment” treatment and surgery? If not, what would the rationale be?

Yes. To not induct transgender individuals because they wish to pursue SRS would constitute discrimination.

Q: What will the Defense Department policy be with regard to uniform differences, exceptions, or alterations for men transitioning to female appearance and women transitioning to male appearance?

Individuals will wear uniforms that match the gender with which they identify.

Q: What will the Defense Department policy be with regard to military medical services and medications for transgendered [sic] personnel, to include hormone treatments and surgery to change sexual appearance and identity for personnel seeking gender “re-assignment?”

The military should provide medical benefits equitably to all troops.

Q: What is the estimated annual cost of providing such services to transgendered personnel and those seeking gender “re-assignment?”

It shouldn’t matter. The military should provide medical benefits equitably to all troops.

Q: What will the Defense Department policy be with regard to the housing of transgendered biological males living with females, and vice versa?

Individuals will be housed with the gender with which they identify.

Q: Will a man who shows up for duty in a regulation female uniform, or a woman in a man’s uniform, be considered appropriately dressed? What would be the rationale for denying that opportunity on an equal basis to male and female cross-dressers or transgenders?

For better or worse, GID is diagnosed. It should not be difficult to differentiate people actually transitioning from people being obnoxious. This assumes, of course, that military psychologists are not biased against trans people.

Q: Will the military services allow a man to wear only approved male garb on-base, but female dress off-base? If so, how does this affect the principle that military regulations apply both on-base and off-base, 24/7?

It should not be hard to enforce that individuals dress according to the gender with which they identify anytime such enforcement is in effect.

Q: Will the military services allow LGBT individuals or couples to participate in social events dressed in ways that reflect their sexuality, in the same way that women dress to please men?

Wow, I don’t even know where to start. There is so much inherently wrong here. First, the assumption that “women dress to please men.” Second, the assumption that dress is related to sexuality. This question is so absurd as to not warrant an answer.

Let’s be clear, readers. The thing that scares the religious right most is people cross-dressing.

2/24/11 - Christian churches welcoming Muslim worship?

It can sometimes be fun to watch in-fighting, but I found this article to be sad. It’s Christians attacking Christians for being inclusive. A couple Protestant churches were letting Muslim groups use their facilities, not having any of their own. Alan Wisdom at The Institute on Religion & Democracy (whatever that is) is offended that they would be so charitable.

While Wisdom believes it is important for Christians to reach out and share the gospel with Muslims, he concludes that church congregations should never allow their buildings to be used for religious practices that oppose Christian teachings.

I say kudos to the churches who are trying to build bridges, not destroy them.

2/25/11 - Duplicity revealed in DOMA decision?

Just in case you need a little more Elaine Donnelly in your life. She’s pissed because Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA throws the whole DADT repeal into question.

If DOMA isn’t defended, the military might have to let same-sex couples live together! And they might have to get benefits too.

How horrid.

Nothing warms the cockles of my heart like arguing that equality is not cost-effective.


Queer and Queerer Ep. 41 – The Lime Green Gas Mask Episode

Zack’s sick and Peterson’s been busy, so this week’s episode isn’t exactly coherent. The most recent Glee episode gives us plenty to talk about, including bisexuality and anti-gay violence. Plus, there’s that whole Lady Gaga and Target thing. We also honor the passing of a local LGBT activist with the poem that was used in her 1993 wedding program. The episode isn’t over without appearances from Rev. Dr. Meadows and Marvin Bloom. There’s something for everyone in this episode!

Apologies for some of the audio quality; we have some kinks to work out when we use Skype to record like we did today. Kinks don’t scare us in the least.

Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:

» This week’s poem honors Fran McDaniel (1943–2011). It’s XIII from Adrienne Rich’s 21 Love Poems.

» Watch this week’s Glee: Blame It On the Alcohol.

» Learn more about Lady Gaga’s efforts to make Target more LGBT-friendly.


To Praise or Not To Praise Obama for the DOMA Decision?

[Updated: Joe Mirabella has an interesting take on this matter. Take a read.]

Obviously, yesterday’s announcement that the Department of Justice will no longer defend (Section 3 of) the Defense of Marriage Act is a good thing, as was making the case that sexual orientation deserves heightened scrutiny.

But this question has to be asked: Why now?

Why did we have to endure two years of the defense of DOMA? Why did we have to endure comparisons to incest and child rape?

It’s important to remember that yesterday’s decision was a change in policy. That I noticed, it did not include an apology for the previous policy.

Likewise, the Department of Justice is going to continue to defend Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell this week. Even though training has already begun to implement repeal, the Log Cabin Republicans’ case is proceeding since repeal is still months from certification. What arguments will the Department of Justice use to defend the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell if, at the same time, it’s suggesting heightened scrutiny for DOMA?

I want to give President Obama credit for this change, I really do. But he still opposes same-sex marriage! That’s kind of a problem.

He could have done it for political reasons. It wins him some favor from the left and puts it to the right to deal with. Many have already noted the irony and hypocrisy of Speaker Boehner’s response. Given that his first order of business as Speaker of the House was to address a controversial social issue (defunding Planned Parenthood), it’s absurd that he would complain that the President is doing the same. If he or other Congressional Republicans tried to intervene in the defense of DOMA, it would be all the more obvious how disingenuous they are about their intentions.

So, I don’t know. I don’t have some grand point to make. There are a lot of folks who complain about people like me for always putting down the President and not giving credit where credit’s due. But if my rights are just being used as a political strategy and my equality isn’t really being favored, I guess I just feel like I have to call that out.

Am I a sourpuss for being skeptical?


Obama “Evolves” a Bit and Other Tidbits on Marriage Equality

Hey ZFb readers. I’m still feeling pretty miserable today, but there’s lots of interesting news. Today is not the day you’ll read in-depth reports on ZFb, but I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring these important happenings.

1. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have indicated today that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, adding that sexual orientation should be given heightened scrutiny. It’s not entirely clear yet exactly what impact this will have on the cases already proceeding. For an understanding of why they’re only not defending Section 3 of DOMA, read Adam Serwer’s post.

Of course, conservatives are up in arms, including NOM, Matt Barber, and Peter LaBarbera. Joe Jervis points out that the homocons have not yet responded.

On a related note, Senator Dianne Feinstein announced in response that she will introduce legislation to finally repeal DOMA.

2. Meanwhile, in California, the American Foundation for Equal Rights has demanded that the U.S. Court of Appeals lift the stay on Judge Walker’s decision and allow same-sex marriage to resume in California. The recent decision by the California Supreme Court to take on the question of standing adds excessive delays to the process. Said Ted Olson:

We are respectfully asking the Court to lift its stay on marriage for gay and lesbian couples because it has become apparent that the legal process is taking considerably longer than could reasonably have been anticipated. It’s important to remember that the stay was originally ordered with the understanding that the Ninth Circuit would rule swiftly on the case before it. Now that the issue of the Proponents’ standing to appeal has been referred for analysis by the California Supreme Court, substantial additional, indefinite and unanticipated delays lie ahead. It’s unreasonable and decidedly unjust to expect California’s gay and lesbian couples to put their lives on hold and suffer daily discrimination as second class citizens while their U.S. District Court victory is debated further.

3. In Maryland there is movement forward on marriage equality, as the Maryland Senate voted favorably for a second (of three) on a bill for marriage equality.

4. However, in Iowa, conservatives are tapping into every last resort to try to limit same-sex marriage there. The latest scheme is to try to use a provision in the Iowa Constitution that skips judicial review in order to prohibit county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Apparently, banning same-sex marriage is more important to some Republicans than checks and balances.

5. A marriage amendment bill has been filed in North Carolina, and Pam Spaulding says, “Game on.” Like Bil Browning is doing in Indiana, Pam is ready to expose the hypocrites by publicizing divorcees, adulterers, closet-cases, and financial benefactors among the proponents of this anti-gay bill. If you have any insights, pass them along to Pam.

6. BONUS: Before the day is over, the governor of Hawaii will sign civil unions into law!

Maryland, Hawaii, DOMA… an important day of steps forward.


Apology for Lost Comments – Problem Fixed! (I Hope!)

A few folks have indicated recently that they’re having trouble posting comments on the site. This is a problem I take VERY seriously, because I don’t want anyone to feel they are not free to add their thoughts.

I found a couple comments in the Spam filter that shouldn’t have been there, but they have been restored (Patrick here and John here; thanks to John for bringing this issue to my attention).

So, from now on, the “I’m a real person! (Make sure this is checked!” is gone! You won’t have to complete a CAPTCHA unless the spam filter has a hunch that your post IS spam. Complete it and your comment will be posted.

Let me re-extend my invitation to discuss the posts! Also, if you post something on Facebook or Twitter, drop a line and let me know what your friends thought of it!

One other tip to avoid ever facing this problem. You can register with the site! It’ll remember your info every time always recognize you as real person. Use the Meta Menu at the far bottom of the right sidebar to Register and then Log In. You can stay logged in for weeks at a time and change how your Name and Website display anytime.

Again, sorry for the problems! I hope ya’ll keep on commenting!

[Note: I still won't be accepting comments from a certain troll who uses pseudonyms and fake emails to leave antagonistic comments. Seriously, what is your problem? Find something better to do with your life than creeping a blogger all the time.]


Two LGBT Short Films You Should Watch Today

Hey world out there!

I’m a little under the weather today, so if you’re looking for some content to absorb, you should watch the following two short films. The first is sweet and the second funny. Then, if you still need more content to absorb, go catch up on Queer and Queerer!

One on One:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bFeSxNiWkY

Y2GAY:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXmTbCT1b5U


“athiest can go to hell”

As I’ve tried to raise discussion today about the inclusion of nonbelievers in the LGBT movement, this comment appeared on an old post:

athiest can go to hell

Matthew Laws, whose email address includes the word “skinhead,” offered these five words of brilliance, and I’m going to leave the comment up, but offer this reply.

I am amazed that in just five words, Matthew Laws was able to communicate a spelling error, a grammatical error, and a message that is factually inaccurate.

First of all, it’s atheist, not athiest. The “EE” comes before the “ist.”

Second of all, it ought to be plural; otherwise, specify which one atheist you think can go to hell.

Lastly, it wouldn’t matter which atheist, because atheists can’t go to hell. We just can’t. You have to believe in hell to get there.

I will not go to hell. You can’t make me go to hell. You can’t convince me I’ll go to hell. You can never prove to others that I went to hell.

There is no hell. (And boy is my life a whole lot more pleasant with that knowledge.)

So, this comment seems a grand way to demonstrate how little people know about atheists. Thanks, Matthew Laws. You’re a testament to skinheads everywhere.


Creating an Atheist-Inclusive Creating Change and LGBT Movement

[It might be helpful to read some previous posts that set the context for this one. Last year, I wrote about how religious I felt Creating Change to be. In November, I built upon that post, arguing that nonbelievers have become a marginalized community within the LGBT movement. And then, before attending this year's Creating Change, I noted how prevalent religious themes would again be and the fact that the atheist caucus I'd proposed would be the only space that affirmed nonbelievers.]

The opening plenary of Creating Change 2011 bridged the main conference with its subconference, Practice Spirit, Do Justice. Entitled “Hard work for our common good,” the panel featured four religious leaders with prepared statements: Bishop Yvette Flunder (City of Refuge/UCC), Rev. Elder Nancy Wilson (MCC), Rabbi Joshua Lesser, and Faisal Alam, a Muslim leader.

And while I was prepared for many faith-centric messages, I was not prepared for how erased and marginalized I would feel on the very first day of the conference. Most of the 25 who joined the atheist caucus the following evening expressed similar concerns, as did many CC veterans who could not attend but followed along on Twitter.

As an obvious start, the opening panel did not feature a Humanist, Unitarian, or nonbeliever who could speak for the experiences of those who do not identify with faith. Arguably, plenty of other worldviews also went unrepresented as well. But the language that was used, particularly by Rev. Wilson and Bishop Flunder, not so subtly erased nonbelievers from the LGBT community and movement. And while atheists and agnostics were acknowledged a time or two, we were not represented nor affirmed by the supposedly interfaith panel.

Rev. Rebecca Voelkel opened the session by declaring, “This is where we are as a movement,” celebrating that a panel of faith leaders were opening the conference. Both Rev. Wilson and Rabbi Lesser spoke to the way the LGBT movement has excluded or dismissed faith communities in the past. And then Bishop Flunder pronounced the following:

I’d like to lift up tonight the presence of faith and deep spirituality as the underpinning if most, if not all real, authentic civil rights movements. I believe that the power to endure and be courageous amid continual physical, emotional, and spiritual attack must come from a deep well that is continually filled by the divine of our understanding.

She later invoked the prophet Paul, reminding us, “If God be for us, who would dare be against us,” and then declared “We will get our God back!”

Rev. Wilson added in her follow-up remarks that “Activism, to be sustained, requires faith of some kind, maybe not religious or spiritual, but some kind of sustaining faith.” This was her introduction to her hopes for the nonreligious and religious to work together.

These are just a few of the examples of language that left me incredibly triggered, excluded from the movement and the community. I left the session taking not much else with me. I’m glad the entire video is online, because upon relistening, I found a lot of important and powerful ideas that I could respect and appreciate. I implore you: take 45 minutes and listen for yourself. And yet, the panel still makes me feel incredibly invisible, like I am not welcome to be a part of this movement—that because I do not identify with faith of any kind, I have nothing to contribute towards our queer liberation.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXXfcwJm2zo

The atheist/nonbeliever caucus was a remarkable experience. Not everyone there identified with the a-word. There were Humanists, agnostics, and even some folks of varying degrees of spirituality. But we weren’t there to argue over vocabulary semantics; we were there to affirm each other. And one of the qualities that united most of the 25 individuals in the room was that it was the first time in their lives that they were in a room with that many other nonbelievers and the first time in their lives that they felt affirmed to come out and commune with their fellow nonbelievers.

I had proposed the caucus because I knew there was a need. I had no idea the need was so great.

Historically, there had been visibility for atheists in conferences past, but it has been many years since that was the case. If this year’s atheist caucus was any indication, we are overdue to reverse the trend of that invisibility.

The room was alive and abuzz! We committed most of the hour to creating space for each individual to speak and be affirmed. We could have easily communed and discussed issues for four or more.

In the course of the discussion, we agreed that Practice Spirit, Do Justice was not particularly welcoming or affirming for us. We also acknowledged that the intensity of faith at this year’s conference was likely unique, as Minneapolis is where The Task Force’s faith arm, The Institute for Welcome Resources, operates. Most importantly, everyone was energized to create additional inclusive spaces for atheists in future conferences.

And while I’m committed to that, I also put forth a challenge here and now to the organizers of the conference at large to create a more inclusive space for nonbelievers. Creating Change has been very proactive about offering suggestions for language use regarding other dimensions of identity, including race, gender identity, and ability. It’s time that these efforts be updated to create a truly interfaith space that does not exclude and erase nonbelievers.

In his book, Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, Greg Epstein offers the following suggestions for fully including Humanists and Atheists in interfaith spaces:

Don’t ask, “Can you be good without God?”

Do ask why we are motivated to be good, or to work with you.

Don’t proselytize to atheists in an interfaith context.

I hope readers can see how some of the assertions made during the plenary about the role of faith in the movement left out the motivations and experiences of those who do not identify with faith.

Do reach out specifically to atheist, secular, and Humanist groups and solicit their participation.

This has not been standard practice for Creating Change. Had I not proactively proposed the atheist caucus, there would have been no actual affirmation of nonbelievers’ contributions to the conference aside from lip service.

Don’t advertise interfaith events as for the religious only or as a way for everyone to unite, despite theological differences, around belief in God.

Practice Spirit, Do Justice and its overwhelming intersections with the conference at large clearly ran into this problem.

Do advertise as religiously pluralistic, including all religions as well as atheists, agnostics, Humanists, and the nonreligious.

To its credit, Creating Change does acknowledge nonbelievers as part of its community.

Use inclusive language: In addition to including us on your usual flyers, posters, or recruiting emails as above, try a special poster or e-mail emphasizing that interfaith includes the nonreligious too.

Include us in programs.

Learn and teach about us.

I was encouraged privately to propose atheist-centered workshops (such as an “Atheist 101″ workshop) as part of the Practice Spirit, Do Justice track, but I will confess that I did not truly feel welcome to do so. This may very well have been a failing on my part, and an opportunity I regret not seizing.

It is an interesting sort of personal irony I recognize.  I wish to counteract the lack of affirmation for nonbelievers, but it’s the very lack of affirmation that inhibits me from taking too bold a step.

Still, there were individuals at our caucus who told me that I was a trailblazer, a compliment I don’t think I earned by simply creating one space. Clearly the work needs to be done, and I do feel affirmed to step up and be a leader for this community of overlapping identities.

Rev. Wilson said, “You need us to beat their agenda.” Bishop Flunder repeated several times that negative religious messages need to be met with positive religious messages. I don’t disagree with either sentiment. Still, our commitment to reclaiming faith for LGBT people should not abandon those who seek not to reclaim faith and who are perhaps quite eager to challenge it. There is a boisterous atheist community chock full of LGBT allies who are just waiting to be invited to the table.

I hope Creating Change 2012 is where we can finally make that invitation and create a balanced space that celebrates all worldviews and lifestances, from the most spiritual to the least. It is certainly my commitment to step up and make it so.