Mormon Church Threatens Critic With Excommunication

[JDDavis]

Mormon Church Threatens Critic With Excommunication
By LAURIE GOODSTEINJAN. 15, 2015


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/john-dehlin-mormon-critic-facing-excommunication.html

Sorry, for some reason I cannot copy and paste any text of the article from the NY Times.


Here is John Dehlin, 45, Ph.D. psychology candidate at Utah State University, and founder of an on-line podcast series "Mormon Stories", which argues for acceptance and love for LGBT folks, as well as for the equality of women in the LDS church.

He delivered this Ted Talk in 2013.

Published on Nov 20, 2013
Growing up as a conservative Mormon in Texas, there was little in John's upbringing that would have predicted he would become an ally for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Mormons. He discusses his transformation from homophobe to LGBT ally and his research on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Mormon experience from a sample of over 1,600 LGBT Mormons.

John Dehlin, a Psychology Ph.D. candidate at Utah State University, is interested in the nexus of religion and mental health. John's master's thesis focused on the treatment of religion-based obsessive-compulsive disorder (also known as "scrupulosity&quot , and his dissertation explores the experiences of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Mormons (and former Mormons).

[cbayer]

1. Apostasy? He actually tries to persuade people to stay

with the church.

I am sorry that they are taking this course.

[merrily]

55. Apostasy is not about church membership.

Example: There was a pastor who decided, and began teaching, that God was too merciful for the common evangelical beliefs about burning in hell for all eternity to be true. Initially, he did not leave his church or formally change his religion. However, many in his congregation left his church because of his alleged apostasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Pearson

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Churches don't conform to your ideals.

[edhopper]

2. Time to give up the fiction of the church

and live in the real world. Why cling to any of the Mormon bullshit if you see how harmful the teachings are. Do you still believe the white salamander and golden tablets crap?

[cbayer]

4. People's right to believe and the "reality" of those beliefs

are just as valid as your right not to belief and the "reality" of atheism.

The approach of telling people that what they believe is bullshit and harmful, fictional crap and that it's time for them to just walk away is really pointless. But it does make you sound superior.

[edhopper]

6. How dare I

question the word of a convicted con man whose ancient Egyptian writings were shown to be bullshit.

Sorry their reality is not as valid as mine.

I have evidence to back mine up.

You want to show me the evidence of Jesus coming to America?

Sometimes bullshit needs to be called bullshit. Even if it is religious bullshit and dearly held bullshit.

Did I use "bullshit" enough?

[cbayer]

8. You can question it all you want. I question it and reject it as well.

But that wasn't my point.

Things that can not be proved to be either true or false remain on the table. Your view is not superior to anyone else's.

You can call it bullshit, but telling other people that they are full of shit is what I object to.

I completely reject Mormonism and many, many of their positions, but I have met and thoroughly enjoyed some Mormons. They were not stupid, delusional or full of shit.

[edhopper]

9. What do you call believing

a white salamander talked to Joseph Smith?

I really don't care if this guy stays or not. My question to him was rhetorical. He wants to stay in that poisonous well, more power to him.

[cbayer]

10. I call it a belief that effects me not one iota.

BTW, he is apparently not even a believer, as the article states. He wants to stay in so he can reach out to those that are also in and wants to change the churches position on GLBT rights.

Your question to him might have been rhetorical but it was framed in a highly paternalistic way.

[edhopper]

14. I admit I only read your post

he's a non-believer who persuades people to stay in the faith. Some ex-Mormons don't like him for that.

I think there is more to the story.

If i find the time or interest I will listen to the Ted Talk.

I still think Mormonism is as much bullshit as Scientology. People believe in proven bullshit all the time. Their belief doesn't make it any more valid.

[cbayer]

15. Unfortunately I can't listen to the TED talk, but I will at

some point.

While the LDS church has some positions which I strongly object to and have endorsed some behaviors that I think are clearly harmful, I do not think they recruit in a way that is exploitative.

The scientologists, otoh, are extremely good at finding people's personal weak spots and exploiting them in very, very harmful ways. Their position regarding psychiatry is particularly horrible.

I don't embrace either belief set and find them pretty out there, but, as I said, I have had the opportunity to know and work with mormons who I admire and even grew to love. Never once did any of them try to recruit me.

In comparison, I have never met a scientologist who did not overtly proselytize nor have I met one that for whom I could stir up even a hint of fondness.

FWIW, I sat next to a Mormon couple who appeared to be in their 70's for The Book of Mormon. I was concerned that it might be awkward, but they laughed so hard they cried.

I can't imagine scientologists laughing at themselves….. ever.

[edhopper]

19. That's probably true about the two groups

I don't know much about Mormon missionary work though.

[cbayer]

20. The missionaries are interesting.

I have gotten the sense that it is more for the kids than it is about recruitment, but I could be wrong. When I have spoken with them, they introduced the topic but quickly let it slide and were eager to talk about themselves and their experiences

Very interestingly, the vast majority return home and to the church and they have virtually no contact with their family during their mission year(s).

I could be wrong, but that is the sense I have gotten.

BTW, if you ever get the opportunity to see Book of Mormon, do whatever you can to make it happen. It is the best musical I have ever seen.

[edhopper]

21. I plan to

If I can find discount tickets, which aren't around these days.

[cbayer]

22. I was really, really luck to snap tickets right after it opened in NYC.

There were really inexpensive, probably ¼ of what they are going for now. They wanted packed houses and they got them.

I laughed and cried.

[merrily]

58. The Mormon Church is one of the biggest funders of those who favor anti-LGBT laws.

Many attribute the initial reversal of equal marriage in California to the efforts, ads, phone banking, etc. of the Mormon Church.

So, the beliefs of the Mormon Church, esp. its apparent belief that secular law should reflect its religious beliefs, affect all of us, at least all of us who espouse the meaning of this poem by John Donne (as I believe you do):

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

Churches who seek to have secular laws reflect their religious beliefs invite secular scrutiny of their religious beliefs.

[cbayer]

68. The Mormons also have a growing pro-GLBT civil rights movement that

is coming from within. I expect that they will change their position within my lifetime.

Let's support those that are working for the change we want to see and help them push back against those who want to continue the bigotry.

I was asked about that one specific belief and I dismissed it. At no point did I say that nothing Mormons believe effects me.

[merrily]

69. Mormon individuals, yes. An example of that is what this thread is about. Not the Mormon church.

The discussion was about a belie the Church espouses.

[cbayer]

72. Change happens with individuals.

[merrily]

80. My post was about the current positions and acts of the Church, not its individual dissidents.

[LiberalAndProud]

70. If the position of the church changes, a new church will be born.

Schism would be the inevitable outcome of such a change in doctrine. The argument then becomes which worldview best conforms to God's Word. I wouldn't expect that internecine argument to be resolved within my lifetime.

[cbayer]

71. I don't agree. The Mormon church actually has a history of making

some pretty radical changes without a schism.

They might even be masterful at it.

It is hard to imagine that they are going to hang on to their GLBT beliefs if civil rights become the law of the land. They continue to have strong political aspirations.

[LiberalAndProud]

77. If you're right, we might both live to find that out.

At least you will.

[cbayer]

78. I hope that we both will.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. The mormon church has a history of doing that when the government holds a gun to its head.

And for no other reason. They didn't have a choice to integrate black people in '78. They had NO choice. They don't get to claim the moral high ground for doing it, when they were forced, more than a decade after the '64 civil rights act.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. If the mormon church is wrong about this, then it cannot pretend to hold revealed truth.

No revealed truth, the whole thing is a sham. Why do you encourage people to live a lie? To give up their material wealth to a scam? To modify their behavior due to completely made-up dogma?

Always seek the truth, even if it's an uncomfortable truth.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Keep pretending non-belief and XYZ belief belong 'on the table' together.

Because, that right there, is some bullshit.

[Major Nikon]

25. Just because someone has a "right" to an idea, doesn't mean that idea is sacrosanct.

The approach of calling bullshit has actually been quite effective historically, and has been the cause of the demise of many harmful ideas. Not enough people standing up and calling bullshit it what allows harmful ideas to persist.

[cbayer]

29. My objection here was not on calling bullshit on the ideas.

I'm fine with that.

My objection was in telling people with those beliefs that it's time that they gave up their "fiction" and live in the real world. My objection was in attacking the believer with derisive and dismissive terms.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. The real world has coffee. Infinitely better.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Bull shit they're equal.

The Mormon church just arranged to carve out a legal loophole through which they can still discriminate against LGBT people. That's not EQUAL to my distaste for religion. Sorry. Not a chance.

It IS harmful, it is bullshit, and it is fictional crap.

Tired of your false equivalence religious apologia smokescreen.

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser," said Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

"Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender."

The Mormon church is one of several faiths to complain about religious freedom coming under attack in recent years. Catholic bishops and Southern Baptists have sounded the alarm as well.

This is a fine fucking cop-out coming from the church that bankrolled Prop8 in California.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/27/us/mormon-church-lgbt-laws/index.html

[Man from Pickens]

3. The first rule of the Magic Underwear Club...

oh wait sorry I'm thinking of something else

[edhopper]

5. No

they have the same rule.

[merrily]

56. IMO, a religion's requires secrecy from its members about religious beliefs and

practices is never a good sign.

[xfundy]

7. Excellent talk.

Thanks for bringing it forward.

[JDDavis]

11. You are most welcome.

I listened to this Ted talk a while back, but the events of the week from the LDS church brought this back into my mind.

I thought the teachings of religion were supposed to be all about love and acceptance and "tolerance" of other people's beliefs and all that kind of stuff.

Evidently, the LDS church doesn't "tolerate" dissention from their teachings among their own lifelong members.

[cbayer]

13. What events of the week from the LDS church? I must have missed that.

The LDS church is in a bind. They have been excommunicating like crazy as the ranks of those that are taking oppositional stances are growing.

Something is going to have to give. A schism perhaps?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. An event that is, basically, what I suggested a long time ago, and that you attacked me about.

People LEAVING, not to become 'nones', but to join (or form) a church that is in keeping with their values.


Did you at least HEAR me this time?

[Major Nikon]

28. Doubtful

The Mormon church is extremely well organized and powerful. Throughout their history they have been compelled to give up many bad ideas either through federal enforcement or overwhelming adverse public opinion, but it hasn't really hurt them much in the long run.

[cbayer]

30. I agree that they are extremely well organized and powerful, but, as you note

they have also made some drastic changes in the past. While much of the impetus for change was external, there has also been internal pressure.

I support what this man is doing, as well as the groups of mormons that are pushing for female ordination and GLBT rights.

I think they will change again, though it is like turning the titanic.

[Starboard Tack]

16. Yet they usually come across as nice friendly people

Like most fundie groups, though, they lash out at those who question their intolerance. Not too different from our anti-theist friends who love to push the eject button when anyone dares to step out of line. Otherwise, they are full of hugs and kisses. Just like Big Love.

Well, here's a big hug to all of you, believers and non-believers

[pinto]

18. I'm an extremist live and let live supporter. A stretch perhaps, in real life.

And back atcha.

[merrily]

61. Please see Reply 58.

If the Mormon Church actually supported the "live and let live," philosophy, I might be more supportive of the Mormon Church. However, from its anti-American teaching (now supposedly changed), to its anti-LGBT activism, to its continuing posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims, it does not seem to espouse a "live and let live" philosophy, or even a "live and let rest in peace" philosophy.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. You weren't banned from A&A for 'stepping out of line', and you know it.

[Starboard Tack]

31. Really? I think calling out the bullies, bigots and cyber stalkers was too much for some.

Not to mention my objection to being stalked by one of the hosts. Same host who was PPR'd for their disgusting shenanigans, and who is now sanctified by the same member who violated a confidentiality agreement by sharing personal information about me and my family. And who, apparently is still sharing personal information in her personal vendetta. Be sure to share the love AC.


Remember when you tried to bring a little civility to the group. For a moment there, it looked like there might be some hope.
Big hug to you and your adorable friends.

[okasha]

32. Ah, yes.

Then he was forced to recant and declare that he could be "as vicious as anyone else."

That's a high price to pay for membership in an internet clique. ("But Wales, Richard...&quot

[Starboard Tack]

33. Almost lost his standing there till he was reined in by the bishops.

Looks like his re-education was successful. They need a good DH when SS is on the DL

[AtheistCrusader]

45. THIS is the kind of shit that got you banned. Right here.

Just making it up as you go along, 'subtly' attacking people outright.

I should have screenshot your transparency page last month. It was a 'hoot'.

[Starboard Tack]

47. How was it a hoot, my friend?

I love it when you say such wonderful things. "I should've screenshot your transparency page last month" So sexy!
What would you have shot it with? Your X-ray vision?

[AtheistCrusader]

44. You presume a lot.

"Remember when you tried to bring a little civility to the group. For a moment there, it looked like there might be some hope."

I'm not the one that dashed the hope.

[Starboard Tack]

48. No, you caved!

You gave it a shot, and I admire you for that. You actually stood up to them for a few minutes. Then you heard the hoofbeats and got right back in line.
You made a choice. I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I do respect it.
That is how we differ. It's all about respect.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Who is 'they'?

I'm not seeing a 'line' either. My reaction to you has been in response to YOUR behavior. YOUR posts.

Same posts the juries reacted to.

[Starboard Tack]

51. Maybe you should be more concerned with your own behavior

You might learn something. I was excommunicated for doing what you tried to do. Only difference was I didn't heed the warning issued by the triumvirate to "behave" myself. I was accused of being an apologist. One time I dared suggest the possibility of having a soul, Dawkins forbid!. Well that caused quite an outcry. Apostasy! What kind of atheist could say such a thing? You didn't go that far, and when the dogs started barking, you got back in line pretty sharpish.
I always had a certain admiration for you, but that was disappointing. Still, I respect your decision. It's nice to have friends and they are all lovely people, and very huggy.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. "I was excommunicated for doing what you tried to do."

Now, THAT is rude. Don't compare me to yourself. Ever.

"One time I dared suggest the possibility of having a soul, Dawkins forbid!."

That's a pretty interesting thing for a supposed atheist to claim. But don't pretend that's why you were shown the door. I can work a search engine just fine.

"What kind of atheist could say such a thing?"

None. Atheists don't say that, because atheists don't believe in supernatural 'things'. Kinda the entirety of the gig, in case you haven't noticed. Even an agnostic, in the abused, tortured usage your compatriot insists upon deploying, doesn't, in the course of saying 'I don't know about god', positively assert the possession of a soul.

"You didn't go that far, and when the dogs started barking, you got back in line pretty sharpish."

You have a vivid imagination. However, the only 'barking' I have encountered, was in Interfaith. That's it. Nowhere else. I have not been 'warned', admonished, cautioned, etc. I have had a couple people express relief that I did not jeopardize my ability to post, by throwing it away sponsoring you/others back into A&A. Because clearly, you simply cannot help yourself. That's it though, as far as the meta goes. After-the-fact expressions of relief. No private communique's on that issue at all.

You have imagined, all that shit you just concluded. Please stop that.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Why would I compare myself to you. We are not alike.

1. I don't compare myself to you. I said I had hope for you there, for a while. You seemed to want to do the right thing.

2. Yes, I thought it was an interesting thing for an atheist to say too. That's why I said it. And "No!" that is not why I was "shown the door". We already went over that one. I and my family were cyber stalked by one of the hosts. I stood up to it, wagons were circled and I was turned away by the high priests.
Regarding the existence of a soul, I do not find this incompatible with atheism and am not the only atheist to think that. Feel free to use your searching prowess. Follow the dance steps carefully. You might learn something.

3. Atheists don't believe in deities. Period. Your flavor of atheism is not everyone's. Sorry to disappoint you on that.

4. Did I say you'd been warned or cautioned? Didn't think so. Didn't get close to that before you aquiesced. You are obviously a much better atheist than I. Hell, I kept talking about horrible things like tolerance and toning down the nastiness toward believers. This got me the label "apologist". I saw your performance quite differently. Damn, they were hardly out of their kennels when you came to heel. Watch Rashomon

How come we're still talking, btw? Have you quit alerting?

[AtheistCrusader]

63. You can't even go two posts in a thread fork without contradicting yourself.

"You might learn something. I was excommunicated for doing what you tried to do. Only difference was I didn't heed the warning issued by the triumvirate to "behave" myself. I was accused of being an apologist. One time I dared suggest the possibility of having a soul, Dawkins forbid!. Well that caused quite an outcry. Apostasy! What kind of atheist could say such a thing? You didn't go that far, and when the dogs started barking, you got back in line pretty sharpish.
I always had a certain admiration for you, but that was disappointing. Still, I respect your decision. It's nice to have friends and they are all lovely people, and very huggy."

That is comparing yourself to me or comparing your behavior/intent to my behavior/intent.

"I don't compare myself to you. I said I had hope for you there, for a while. You seemed to want to do the right thing. "

You ALSO compared us/our behavior.

Moving on.

"Did I say you'd been warned or cautioned? Didn't think so. Didn't get close to that before you aquiesced."

Yes, you just said I was warned.

"Only difference was I didn't heed the warning issued by the triumvirate to "behave" myself."

"You didn't go that far, and when the dogs started barking, you got back in line pretty sharpish."

If the only difference was that you didn't heed the warning, that means we were both warned.
What are 'dogs barking', if not warning?


You're wasting my time with your random, contradictory bullshit.

[Starboard Tack]

65. I'm wasting your time? LOL

Quit talking to me. Quit following me around. Quit your obsession with me. Haven't you noticed yet that I'll talk to just about anyone around here. My time isn't valuable, so I can't waste it. What else would you be doing right now?

What you tried to do was take the stink of burning flesh out of the room. I tried to do the same. We both failed. You got to stay. Enjoy.
There is comparing and there is comparing. Big deal. Let's compare.

The barking was enough of a warning for you. You didn't need to get an "official" warning from the Holy See.
Do you love splitting hairs?

Isn't there something more interesting to talk about than you and me? Don't want to get too chummy. You never know who might be watching.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. I hope the entirety of DU is reading this thread, and your posts in particular, very carefully.

Allow me to paraphrase someone you know, and challenge you to go drop a post in the LGBT group about how you ought to be able to marry your dog, and a hamster, and yourself, and a bicycle. Pull that

"Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog"

bullshit with that audience. See how far you get.

No? Won't do it? Then why did you do it in a thread about the struggle to legalize same sex marriage in the face of Catholic opposition? Why would you drop that steaming pile of shit in Religion, if you won't do it in LGBT?

As you could see from the Jury's response, it's not actually welcome ANYWHERE on DU, but since you've proclaimed yourself such a champion and a friend of SSM, by all means. Share that post in LGBT.

OR, if you won't be so tasteless and classless as to do something as INSULTING as rub that post in their faces, maybe you should consider how appropriate it was to rub it in ANYONE'S face in DU, outside the LGBT group.


I don't follow you around. I post freely on DU, as I move around on my own. If I encounter you, I'm going to continue to bring that post and your vile bullshit about marriage up (and don't forget your bullshit about how 'women can buy their rubbers at the store like everyone else' when you were busy attacking the contraception mandate of the President's ACA law, in defense of Catholic religious doctrine.) and I'm going to continue to do so, until I see you apologize for the people you attacked, drop that shit, and start posting in a manner that doesn't run fully 180 degrees counter to the intent of Democratic Underground Dot Com.

How the fuck you've escaped the roving gaze of MIRT up to this point, is utterly beyond me.

"They could do as you suggest, or buy their insurance elsewhere
Or they could go to any drugstore and buy some rubbers. That's what most of us do."

That kind of shit deserves to be called out, anywhere and everywhere you go, on DU. Shame on you.

[Starboard Tack]

67. I hope so too. Your obsession with me and distorting what I said is quite extraordinary

As I said, if anyone misinterpreted what I said as an insult, then I apologize. It was not meant to be.
And shame on you for taking honest posts out of context and becoming part of what you pretended to oppose. Give a big hug to all I still love you.
Now go pick on someone else.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. There was zero distortion, and you know it..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123388

Right there for everyone to see.
Incredibly easy for anyone to walk back up the thread and see you said EXACTLY what it appears you are saying.

What a pathetic backpedal.

[Starboard Tack]

74. Total distortion born of total obsession

[AtheistCrusader]

75. I can't distort other people's posts.

I can only link to them.

PLENTY of other people read that same thread fork, and came to the same conclusion.

[Starboard Tack]

76. Plenty of other people came to the same conclusion? LOL

Well, they must all be right. Who are these "plenty"? A handful of "I'm more atheist than thou" bigots who have already marginalized themselves. You sound like you're in grade school.

Don't you get it AC? Espousing tolerance and confronting bigotry is not popular among some anti-theists.
There is a cadre of fundamentalist anti-theists who dislike me intensely and will do anything to smear me and my family. Looks like you bought into that scenario after you were scolded for being so friendly to us .

I understand you pursue me because I'm the only one left who will give you the time of day. Maybe it's time for you to take a break and do a little introspection.
I'm done with you.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Nobody smeared you in that thread. You did it all yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123388

And I still haven't heard you apologize for what you said.

[beam me up scottie]

35. Starboard Tack has been blocked from the Atheist and Agnostic group:

Starboard Tack has been blocked from the Atheist and Agnostic group.

Although we have resisted for quite some time, we feel that it's time to block Starboard Tack from the Atheist and Agnostic group. Even though I strongly dislike Starboard Tack, I argued internally for him to remain. But the community has made it very clear that he is not wanted, and the hosts both agree that now is the time for a block. The reasons are enumerated below.

(NOTE: this thread will be pinned and locked for one week.)

1. Starboard Tack made no mention that he was married to cbayer, another DUer who is blocked from our group. A lie by ommission is still a lie, and the fact that he now claims that everyone knew is disengenuous.

2. On more than one occasion Starboard Tack made subtly transphobic and homophobic statements. Not only that, he continued to defend those statements in the face of numerous protests.

3. Starboard Tack has acted as an apologist for religion. That's okay in the Religion group, but not here where the members want to get away from that sort of thing we all deal with on a daily basis.

4. A warning* was provided to Starboard Tack that he needed to behave himself. He ignored that warning.

5. Gravedancing is offensive, and really was the straw that broke the camel's back for us.

*In the interest of transparency, here is the full text of the PM sent to Starboard Tack:
As you may be aware, a thread asking the hosts of A&A to block you from the group was posted this evening. We asked the OP to self-delete and he did, but the situation is thus:

Multiple members of the A&A group have PM'd us asking if we can block you from the group. So far we have responded to these requests by saying that we're hoping that you'll start behaving in a more civil manner and since you have been on the verge of breaking some of the stated rules but have yet to completely cross the line, we are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

That said, the posted thread adds two names to the list of people who feel that you are only in the A&A group to disrupt. Please consider this an only warning--try to be more civil or risk being blocked from the group.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/12308879

[Starboard Tack]

36. Thank you so much for your diligence, BMUS

Nothing like a clearing of the air, is there?

1. I did not announce that I was married and did not mention who my spouse was. I am a sinner. How dare I mix with other atheists and not disclose such information.

2. Sin of all sins. I stood accused of making "subtly" transphobic and homophobic statements. These accusations stem from my confusion as to how I should address my stalker, Laconicsax, who was playing gender games with several members, in an effort to trap them into saying something that could be interpreted as homophobic or transphobic. Said member was justly PPR'd for trying to trap another long standing member by cyber stallking.

3. I was accused of being an "apologist" for religion. Because I do not agree with ridicule and mockery of believers. Shame on me.

4. A warning was given to toe the line. Thank you for making my point. I had been ridiculed many times in AA for not being a true atheist. I didn't support the baiting and mockery of believers. I used the forbidden word "tolerance" too many times. How disruptive can one be.

4. Grave dancing? The "straw that broke the camel's back"? How exactly did I "grave dance"?

[beam me up scottie]

37. .

[pinto]

38. LOL. Didn't realize Starboard Tack was ex-communicated from th A&A Group. I'm out of that loop.

I'll speak to #2 in the Inquisition's statement, though. I've spent some time as a guest of Starboard Tack. A fine host, plays a good hand of cards, competitively as it should be. Opinionated, which I feel is fine and holds a wry sense of humor about things.

Oh, to the point about #2 - I'm gay. Never felt it was an issue at all. The card games are another issue...

[beam me up scottie]

39. Don't care.

Just tired of people who try to rewrite history.

If one is banned for asshole-like behaviour one should own up to it and not try to martyr themselves pretending it was about "calling out the bullies, bigots and cyber stalkers".

Did you like it when he compared same sex marriage to bestiality?

I didn't and I'm not gay.

[pinto]

40. Whoa, did you miss the point or what. BMUS, I think I ought to step out of this 3rd party side talk.

Let's leave it at that, OK?

[beam me up scottie]

41. Must have.

OK.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Where is the rewrite BEMUS?

I thought you had my back there? Didn't realize you'd bought into the BS. Anyway thanks for helping clarify.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. 'into the BS'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

Yeah, that's BS right there all right. Problem is, you wrote it.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Thanks for the repost. I stand by that, silly as it may be. I made my point. Others misconstrued it.

Are you still trying to equate what I said with homophobia? Still going with the convoluted logic. Sorry buddy, but if I want to I'll marry myself. Does that make me homophobic?
My opposition to intolerance and bigotry, of any kind, does not make me homophobic.

I am not selective in my opposition to bigotry.
Please keep linking to my posts. That way, any new members will get a clearer picture of how some folk roll around here.
Hugs to all

[AtheistCrusader]

52. And yet you spew anti-SSM talking points, that you still 'stand by'.

"Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you."

That's you. Your post.

That's you attempting to hand-deliver the 'meat' anti-same-sex marriage talking points the right wing bigots have been fretting over for years. You are attacking DU posters in your fervor to deliver, precisely what they have been scaremongering about.

Here's another example of it from Mike Huckabee. He's not ACTUALLY advocating for bisexuals to have two spouses. He's attempting to produce the SLIPPERY SLOPE result that hasn't been forthcoming, now that we have a full 36 states in which SSM is fully legal and recognized.
http://www.advocate.com/bisexuality/2015/01/13/mike-huckabee-says-marriage-equality-will-lead-bisexuals-marrying-two-spouses

It's been explained to you that marriage is a legal contract, and that entities like... a bicycle, cannot be party to a contract, and therefore cannot 'marry'. You cannot marry yourself, because the contract would be missing a second entity to enter into the contract with. Marriage is the legal joining of two people as one entity. You're already one legal entity, in case you haven't looked in a mirror or at your drivers license lately. How the fuck do you propose to join yourself to yourself in legal contract? A dog cannot be party to a legal contract, again, due to its non-status as a legal entity capable of consent. Bonus points for shades of bestiality though, the right wing LOVES when you work that into the picture. Really feeds their agenda. Good job.

You're throwing out the same slippery slope bullshit, in the same fake 'positive' way Mike Huckabee is, right there in that article. It's disgusting, it's been pointed out to you repeatedly, hidden by at least two juries, 5-2 and 6-1, and yet you still 'stand by it' as if it's been misconstrued.

Either drop the fake act, or get it through your fucking skull.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Except I support same sex marriage and always have. I support all consensual marriage

I don't follow RW news sites or Mr Huckabee.

You see, I don't talk about a "slippery slope". You and your friend Huckabee are the ones who see a slippery slope. I am a liberal and have a live-and-let-live attitude about personal issues, be they marriage, gender identity, sexual preference or religious belief.
You, apparently feel differently and feel that marriage should be restricted. I don't, provided nobody is hurt.
Throw it at a jury again. You seem to love alerting on my posts and want to give the impression that I am the bigot in the room.

Now, what exactly is your problem? I still love you btw
How can we have these wonderful conversations if you keep getting my posts hidden?

[AtheistCrusader]

57. No, you don't support consensual marriage. You just defended a post where you attacked people

and insisted you could marry things THAT CANNOT CONSENT.

"Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you."

A dog, and a bicycle cannot consent.

"You, apparently feel differently and feel that marriage should be restricted. I don't, provided nobody is hurt."

And now you're back to doubling down.

Review right-wing talking point #12 from this link, and then come on back and re-read that shit you've been spewing.
http://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-anti-gay-rights-arguments/

I will grant, you are not arguing same-sex couples shouldn't marry because it would mean someone somewhere might marry a bicycle. You're not. What you are doing, is what Mike Huckabee is doing, when he facetiously 'champions' for 'bisexuals to marry two partners'. He's not actually championing their rights, he's fomenting the slippery slope end product that the right wing herd has been working itself into a froth over, for years, even though 36 states have legalized SSM with no such slippery slope appearing.

If you think you are somehow championing same sex marriage when you attack other DU'ers for not supporting your exhortations to legal marriage of dogs, hamsters, and bicycles, you are at best; confused.

[Starboard Tack]

62. Oops sorry! Did I attack bigots who want to tell me who or what I'm allowed to marry?

Shame on me. You don't know my dog or my bicycle, just like I don't know your gun. (That was a joke, btw) I was making a fucking point! Not the "slippery slope" point that you are peddling, but the get out of my face kinda point, and don't tell me who I can marry. But you knew that already.

So, seriously, what is with you? You know your attacks on me are BS despite the 2 hides you scored. Is that what it's about? Did your creds get so damaged when you tried to open up the doors to allow us miscreants back into the club, that you have to prove yourself somehow. Is being accepted by a bunch of strangers so important that you would compromise your integrity?

Let me make it clear once more for the record. I SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE 100% and have since the sixties. To accuse me of homophobia is laughable.
I apologize to anyone who took my comment the wrong way. It was not intended to insult anyone. I do not discuss my sex life on a public forum, and am not interested in anyone else's. I do not identify as heterosexual, though, and will leave it at that.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Your 'point' perfectly overlaps with one of the classic right wing anti-same-sex-marriage talking

points, and even NOW you insist on using it.

"You don't know my dog or my bicycle, just like I don't know your gun."

I know your dog and your bicycle are not, in any court in the land, a recognizable entity to join as a party to a contract. Neither examples have any legal capacity to CONSENT. Period. It is a vile, bigoted talking point that has been trotted out for decades as a fabricated objection to same sex marriage, as the 'logical next step'/fear-mongering. You claim to be for 'consensual marriage' and then you trot out parties that CANNOT CONSENT. parties that are intrinsically incapable of consent.

For someone who claims to be pro-same-sex-marriage, you sure are real insistent on repeating (in the same facetious 'positive' manner Mike Huckabee 'champions' for multiple marriage partners for bisexuals, with ANYTHING BUT their best interests in mind) right wing anti-same-sex-marriage talking points.

Two juries have agreed. Neither of them were from my alert. Neither jury was served on by myself, (indeed, I've never been on a jury for any post in Religion) or by anyone I know that has come forward.


Interestingly, your assertion that you are in favor of same sex marriage, and that you are an atheist, YET, your insistence that one can have a soul, and also that you should be able to marry your dog, bear striking and overpoweringly similar cognitive dissonance.

That you have a soul, is something a religious person would say.
That you ought to be able to marry your dog, is something a right wing opponent of same sex marriage would say. (As I linked you to, item #12 in the litany of classic right wing anti-SSM arguments list)


If you want people to stop wondering if you're a fake atheist, stop spouting religious precepts. (Existence of souls, for one)
If you want people to stop wondering if you're a homophobic bigot, (and also want juries to stop hiding your posts), stop spouting verbatim right wing anti-ssm talking points, like castigating other members of DU when they object to your insistence that people be allowed to marry hamsters, dogs, and bicycles.

Taking THAT shit back, would go a long way toward calming things down;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

That is a vile post. You are attacking other DU'ers, for not supporting your claimed right to marry objects and animals that cannot consent, which YOU brought up in a thread about same sex marriage. The jury comments spelled out PERFECT comprehension of your post, and repudiated it accordingly.

[stone space]

84. People can get blocked from DU groups because of who they marry?

1. Starboard Tack made no mention that he was married to cbayer, another DUer who is blocked from our group. A lie by ommission is still a lie, and the fact that he now claims that everyone knew is disengenuous.

Why is it any of their business? Let folks marry who they want. This is 2015.

[beam me up scottie]

85. They mostly get blocked for their assholish behaviour.

You know, things like:

1. Posting insensitive terms to describe atheists, and doubling down once told to stop.
2. Digging up old threads from blocked members, and arguing yet again for the use of a word considered insensitive by other A&A members.
3. Taking complaints about our group to the Religion group.
4. Making A&A suck by opening old wounds and cutting new ones.

But you knew that.

People dislike assholes because they're assholes, not because of who they marry.

[stone space]

90. The #1 reason given in the post you quoted was marriage.

That's disgusting!

[beam me up scottie]

92. Wrong again. It was lying by omission.

A lie by ommission is still a lie, and the fact that he now claims that everyone knew is disengenuous.

His homophobic comments are exceptionally revolting, but it seems you're okay with those.

[stone space]

93. Why does any DU group care who any of us marries? (nt)

[beam me up scottie]

94. When did you stop beating your wife?

Keep digging.

[stone space]

95. Did you even read the #1 reason you posted?

1. Starboard Tack made no mention that he was married to cbayer, another DUer who is blocked from our group. A lie by ommission is still a lie, and the fact that he now claims that everyone knew is disengenuous.

Blocked for marriage.

[beam me up scottie]

96. Nobody's buying what you're selling dude.

But keep it up, wear your little self right out.

[stone space]

97. Why do you even care any of us marry?

What's it to you?

Are we supposed to check in with you, first?

[beam me up scottie]

98. My you think highly of yourself. I actually don't give a fuck about you at all.

[stone space]

99. But you do give a fuck about patrolling the marriages of others.

Your support for this rule is plain enough.

[beam me up scottie]

100. If it were up to me he would have been banned from DU for his homophobic posts.

Alas, it's not.

[stone space]

101. You posted his marriage as reason #1. (nt)

[beam me up scottie]

102. It's because of his marriage *SQUAWK*

Polly wants attention.

[stone space]

103. That group needs an ejector seat.

It's because of his marriage *SQUAWK*

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. Certainly not the only one.

I've heard of a Mormon who started teaching that Mormons should put themselves in the shoes of Joseph Smith and encounter Jesus directly rather than relying on the current Prophet to do it on their behalf. He was excommunicated as well. Then there was Kate Kelly, excommunicated for advocating the priesthood for women.

[pinto]

17. I appreciated the guy's talk a lot. Found some of it condescending and paternalistic.

Big picture view, I think it's good that a Mormon brings up GLBT issues and some measure of support to other Mormons, fwiw.

[JDDavis]

23. What parts did you find "condescending and paternalistic"?

Please go on.

I'm sorry, but asking for less teen suicides among LDS and Utah youth, simply by arguing for Mormons to accept their LGBT teens....how "condescending" is that?

Did you not note the part that the church, this past week, "paternalistically" decided that people that argue in favor of acceptance of gay youth should be excommunicated....how "paternalistic" is that?

Now, please, answer. Which parts of the presentation were "condescending and paternalistic"?

[merrily]

59. Many religions are paternalistic and a hell of a lot worse than condescending to

to any number of groups, including gays. If a relatively tiny bit of that blows back at them, especially a church as well funded and covert as the Mormon Church, I can't get too sad.

[Iggo]

43. Lucky!!!

[hrmjustin]

81. I see that Mark Charles got banned again.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317219

I had him pegged just a few posts in.

Thanks skinner!

[cbayer]

82. He's never gone for long and he is getting better and better faking out the people

around him.

If nothing else, it is amusing to watch him work.

[hrmjustin]

83. You know I really thought he was behaving.

I stopped watching him because I thought he really wanted to move past his old ways.

Lol that was bull.

we shall see what the new incarnation does.