Haven’t read all my old posts? Well there is a little over 100,000 words worth of them waiting patiently for your attention.
Anytime I hear that there may be a worthwhile question hiding in the execution of a worthy endeavor I wonder which metaphor best describes the relative importance of the question:
- Is it a diamond in the dirt? (Could the question be of greater importance than the endeavor itself.)
- Do we need to separate the wheat from the chaff? (Is the issue of equal importance to the endeavor which hides it.)
- Are we putting pearls before swine? (is the issue of importance to many people, just not the ones who are engaged in the endeavor which hides it.)
- Are we picking corn out of the poop? (Even if the question could be somewhat interesting if it had never been associated with the endeavor one can never collect anything useful by picking it out.)
One of the reasons why it may be reasonable to question if Atheists like me are spending too much energy on LGBT issues is that the LGBT “community” is not an atheist community. In fact many LGBT individuals whom I know are decidedly not Atheist. Just yesterday I had a lovely conversation with a member of the LGBT community who talked about coming out, leaving the LDS Church, getting married along with a crush of LGBT couples here in Utah this December, and a smattering of inconsequentially trivial pleasant things. Throughout the conversation I could not shake the feeling that I was somehow inherently deviant for not even wanting to be a believer in anything supernatural. Don’t get me wrong, this was nothing close to the outright disgust many theists display towards me, but it did remind me that being LGBT and being an Atheist are two completely independent conditions.
So is the question of over emphasis on LGBT issues a type 2 metaphor question? Not really.
What LGBT people may think about LGBT issues does not comprehensively capture the current importance of those issues. To conservatives who self-identify as being outside the LGBT community LGBT rights issues are Atheist issues.
According to the Supreme Court (well at least one member) there is a homosexual agenda:
“Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.” Justice Antonin Scalia in an opinion to LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS (2006)
According to homophobe-rights organizations like Massachusetts-based MassResistance there are Homosexual activists who designed the Homosexual Agenda to go beyond what Gay-Rights activists hope to accomplish in the Gay-rights agenda. The “plus” in this gay-rights-agenda-plus is militant Atheism.
In December 2013 Brian Camenker (important person at MassResistance) made presentations introducing the Homosexual Agenda. The last item on the Homosexual Agenda (number 11) was: “Attack Churches”.
MassResistance is not a group of fools. Brian delivered this information at a rally in Jamaica. Hate looks much better under the sun when it is high in the sky, and warm, and happy-faced-yellow like it is in Jamaica’s December; much better than the slanty cold grey sun of Brian’s home state in December. Brian was introduced as a “Jew”. I suppose an actual “Jew” would appear to the audience as having firsthand knowledge of attacking churches; I assume that most of the audience was not only familiar with the blood libel, but had signed copies of the “Protocols of Zion”.
Brian's assertion that homosexuals are out to get you if you go to church is a straightening of the Alliance Defense Fund’s 2003 revelation that Homosexual Activists had devised a “Six point plan” in 1989. Point 5 of the “six point plan” was to “Make the victimizers look bad”. To me this does not sound like a very bad thing to do, and it might in fact be a good use of our first amendment rights. Closer inspection apparently reveals that the Homosexual Agenda actually means “Christians” when it states “victimizers”, and that by “Look bad” they really mean “we hate you because we’re atheists”. Brian’s new revelations make this Atheist Agenda much clearer.
So Atheists should support LGBT rights issues. Not just because we may simply agree with their goals of equality (though this is a good reason on its own), but because LGBT rights issues are Atheist issues.
So I give the question of over-emphasis on LGBT issues a type 4 metaphor rating. Poop that corn.