Democrats for True Family Values

We hear incessantly about "family values" from the Christofascists and their political whores in the Republican Party, but when analyzed, their so-called family values boil down to being "pro-life" and anti-abortion, anti-gay, and whining about abstinence only sex-education.  None of the policy positions, however, include supporting children once they are born or supporting real families, particularly if those families are headed by single women or women of color. They idealize the mythical nuclear family with a working father/husband and a stay at home mother, ignoring that most families need BOTH parents working to simply survive financially.  In contrast, Democrats are advancing policy proposals that help to support and maintain real families. A column in the New York Times looks at one proposal by Elizabeth Warren - who I deem un-electable (she has burned many bridges already in Virginia in her attacks on Gov. Northam) - which would help real families. Hopefully, other electable Democrats will back similar proposals to exhibit true family values.  Here are column highlights:

For millions of Americans with children, life is a constant, desperate balancing act. They must work during the day, either because they’re single parents or because decades of wage stagnation mean that both parents must take jobs to make ends meet. Yet quality child care is unavailable or unaffordable.

And the thing is, it doesn’t have to be this way. Other wealthy countries either have national child care systems or subsidize care to put it in everyone’s reach. It doesn’t even cost all that much. While other advanced countries spend, on average, about three times as much as we do helping families — so much for our vaunted “family values” — it’s still a relatively small part of their budgets. In particular, taking care of children is much cheaper than providing health care and retirement income to seniors, which even America does.

Furthermore, caring for children doesn’t just help them grow up to be productive adults. It also has immediate economic benefits, making it easier for parents to stay in the work force.

So child care really should be an important part of the progressive agenda. Hillary Clinton had a serious plan back in 2016, but the news media was too busy obsessing over emails to pay attention.

[U]nlike purist visions of replacing private health insurance with “Medicare for all,” providing child care wouldn’t require imposing big new taxes on the middle class. The sums of money involved are small enough that new taxes on great wealth and high incomes, which are desirable on other grounds, could easily raise sufficient revenue.
 Child care would be regulated to ensure that basic quality was maintained and subsidized to make it affordable. The size of the subsidy would depend on parents’ incomes: lower-income parents would get free care, higher-income parents would have to pay something, but nobody would have to pay more than 7 percent of income.

So what are the objections to this plan?  I’m hearing from a few people on the left who complain that the plan doesn’t go far enough — that it should involve free, direct public provision of child care, not subsidies to private provision. There’s certainly a case for a more expansive policy. There’s also no chance that it will happen anytime soon.  The perfect here is the enemy of the good.

Meanwhile, on the right there are the usual cries of “socialism,”  . . . .  More interestingly, I’m seeing at least some commentary on the right that doesn’t just push back against the whole idea of making it easier for mothers to work, it wants us to go back to the days when families could “live on one income.”

Realistically, of course, that’s not going to happen, and not just because 30 percent of U.S. children live in single-parent households.  And bear in mind that even as conservatives bemoan the decline of the traditional male breadwinner, they’re pushing policies like Medicaid work requirements that basically force mothers out of the home.

Right now, all of the real contenders for the Democratic nomination are solidly progressive, but so far some seem either under briefed on policy issues — there’s been far too much fumbling over Medicare for all — or too committed to sweeping, maximalist policy visions to think seriously about what they might truly be able to do if their party takes the White House and Senate next year.

Visions and values are great, but Democrats also need to be ready to hit the ground running with plans that might actually turn into legislation.

Wit two working  daughters with young children, I know first hand just how expensive decent child care is and how it can make stay home unemployed seem the better option.  Why give over the raising of your children to others if you final net pay after child care costs is negligible or non-existent.  More Democrats need to get onboard with rational and attainable plains to demonstrate true family values for working class families. 

GOP Rep. Jim Jordan Implicated in College Sex-Abuse Scandal

Today's Republican Party is chock full of right wing nut cases and hypocrites of the highest order.  Among the more unhinged, in my view, is GOP Rep. Jim Jordan from Ohio who last eek  hysterically attack Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, accusing him without proof of threatening staffers. A column in the Washington Post described the reality free Jordan as follows: 

The sight of a calm, methodical deputy attorney general, patiently answering an unhinged inquisitor’s accusations (followed by interruptions so Rosenstein couldn’t answer), was bracing. Jordan is the perfect incarnation of the GOP in 2018 — unhinged, bullying, unbound by facts and unconcerned with the norms of democratic government. . . . Democratic House candidates might consider running the Jordan video in their ads.

On his congressional web page, Jordan boasts that  "I am committed to defending the sanctity of marriage and the family. . . . I oppose all attempts to redefine marriage, and I support the right of parents to supervise what their children learn and how they are educated."  Now, it would seem that Jordan in fact cares little about students as he tries to distance himself from a sex abuse scandal that witnesses are saying Jordan had to know about.  One, even has stated that he personally told Jordan of the abuse.  A piece in New York Magazine looks at Jordan's alleged role in the abuse scandal and his Sargent Schultz like attempts at denials and disclaimers.  Here are article highlights:

The horrific scandal involving Larry Nassar, the Michigan State University and U.S. Gymnastics team physician who was convicted of criminal sexual assault against athletes under his care, and was credibly accused of literally hundreds of acts of abuse, has made the risks of sexual misconduct by medical personnel at colleges a huge topic, especially in the Midwest. Those who knew or had reason to know of his misdeeds over the years have been held accountable . . . .

That makes the new allegations being made that prominent conservative U.S. representative Jim Jordan turned a blind eye to sexual abuse of athletes by a team doctor during his long tenure as an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State University especially explosive right now. 

NBC has the story: Rep. Jim Jordan, the powerful Republican congressman from Ohio, is being accused by former wrestlers he coached more than two decades ago at Ohio State University of failing to stop the team doctor from molesting them and other students.

Jordan, who was on the wrestling staff at OSU from 1986 to 1994, before his political career began, is denying that he knew anything about Strauss molesting his athletes.

His denials, however, have been met with skepticism and anger from some former members of the wrestling team.  Three former wrestlers told NBC News that it was common knowledge that Strauss showered regularly with the students and inappropriately touched them during appointments, and said it would have been impossible for Jordan to be unaware; one wrestler said he told Jordan directly about the abuse.

The ex-athletes . . . who spoke to NBC were unanimous in saying that he’s covering up what he knew . . . .

At least one of Strauss’s accusers claims that his misconduct went far beyond the wrestling team, as the Washington Post reports:  [Mike] DiSabato said he was first abused by Strauss at 14 as a high school wrestler. He said he believes Strauss abused 1,000-2,000 young athletes.

Jordan is a pretty big deal in the House these days, as a co-founder of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and a possible candidate for the speakership when Paul Ryan steps down at the end of this year. These accusations are the last thing he needs right now. And his prominence in conservative politics is already generating ferocious counterattacks from the, er, less inhibited precincts of the right-wing media . . . It takes some kind of self-confidence to hear of serious allegations of criminal misconduct that only indirectly involves one of your “team’s” politicians and immediately know for a fact that it’s a “deep state” conspiracy.

My personal thoughts?  Jordan is likely guilty of lying.  "Family values" only matter on the campaign trail when whipping Christofascists into a frenzy. 

Hawaii Becomes 12th State to Ban Bogus "Ex-Gay" Therapy

Among the many exceedingly dishonest things self-style Christian "family values" organizations do is to peddle the discredited myth that sexual orientation is a "choice" and can be "cured" by appropriate "therapy."  Every legitimate mental health and medical association in America has condemned the practice and labeled it unethical for licensed therapists.  It's a topic in which I am well versed.  One of my first efforts at LGBT activism was when I helped to expose Michael Johnston, the poster boy for a campaign backed who's who of the misnamed Christian Right, as a fraud complete fraud and anything but "ex-gay."  Making matters worse, Johnston who was HIV+ was sleeping around the Hampton Roads area of Virginia in gay hook ups without disclosing his HIV status.  For years after Johnston went into hiding at a right wing Christian "ministry" many "family values" organizations continued to sell videos featuring him and touting the ex-gay myth even though they knew full well that Johnston and conversion therapy were both complete frauds.  Why?  Money and to perpetuate the "choice myth" to oppose civil rights fro LGBT individuals.   

Now, Hawaii joins eleven other states which have banned so-called "conversion therapy" for those under age 18.  Virginia and other states need to follow suit.   Here are highlights from Hawaii News Now on the development in Hawaii:

State lawmakers on Friday approved a ban on so-called 'gay conversion therapy' treatments conducted on minors.

Gay rights advocates say the practice, which is largely discredited by healthcare professionals, does more harm than good to those who are subjected to it.

"This has been a priority of the caucus for years," said Michael Golojuch, chair of the LGBT Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. "(The measure) ensures that LGQTB youth will not be tortured by mental health professionals."

Several states, including California, Oregon and New Jersey, have already passed similar laws. Maryland passed legislation banning the practice earlier this month. 

The bill was opposed by religious groups who consider sexual orientation a choice.
 

The full list of states (prior to Hawaii's vote) banning ex-gay conversion therapy is as follows: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia.  In addition, several dozen cities and counties have enacted bans on the practice. 

The "Christian" Right's Foul, Judgmental Men

"Family values" hate merchants

I have tracked the activities of the so-called religious right's "family values" groups since the 1990's - well be fore I came out and while I was active in the Republican Party.  From the beginning, my impression was that these groups' main focus was (i) denigrating others, including gays, blacks, other minorities, and independent minded women, (ii) gaining and then maintaining political power, (iii) inflicting their toxic religious beliefs on all of society through any means necessary, including lying incessantly and displaying stunning hypocrisy in the process, and (iv) supporting a Republican agenda that sought to harm the poor, the homeless, the sick and the hungry and anyone else they deemed as "other."   Typically, these groups are headed by chauvinistic men thirsting for power - James Dobson and Tony Perkins are two prime examples - who care nothing about basic morality.  Other than ranting against gays, abortion, rejecting responsible sex education, and restoring mandatory  school prayer, true morality is absent from their agenda.  Now, with society displaying revulsion toward sexual harassment as embodied by Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstien, and Donald Trump, these Pharisee like men are not only failing to call out sexual predators, but in many cases are actively supporting the perpetrators so long as they are not "liberals."  A column in the Washington Post by a former George W. Bush White House staffer calls out the moral bankruptcy of these toxic  men and their followers.  Indeed, if one believes in true morality, look for it anywhere except among the "godly folk."  Here are column excerpts:

Even in a political season of routine marvels, few developments are more spectacularly incongruous than this: The United States has seen a swift, dramatic shift in attitudes toward sexual harassment with Donald Trump as president.

It is sometimes assumed (including by me) that the presidency sets a moral tone for the nation, influencing what society considers normal and acceptable in a kind of trickle-down ethics. But the sexual harassment revolution emerged from society in spite of — or even in defiance of — a president who has boasted of exploiting women and who stands accused of harassing more than a dozen.

It is a sign of hope that moral and ethical standards can assert themselves largely unaided by political, entertainment and media leaders — except when they serve as cautionary tales of egregious behavior. We are seeing an example of how social change often (and increasingly) takes place. Advocates of a cause can push for a long time with little apparent effect. Then, in a historical blink, what seemed incredible becomes inevitable. Over a period of years, this is what happened with the same-sex marriage movement. A type of inclusion that initially appeared radical and frightening became an obvious form of fairness to a majority of Americans. Politicians, including President Barack Obama, were left catching up to the new social consensus.

Over a period of weeks, this is the story of the revolt against sexual harassment. What seemed for generations the prerogative of powerful men has been fully revealed as a pernicious form of dehumanization.  . . . An ethical light switch was flipped. Moral outrage — the appropriate response — now seems obvious.

On sexual harassment, our country is now in a much better ethical place. And how we got here is instructive. Conservatives have sometimes predicted that moral relativism would render Americans broadly incapable of moral judgment. But people, at some deep level, know that rules and norms are needed.

And where did this urgent assertion of moral principle come from? Not from the advocates of “family values.” On the contrary, James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family (now under much better management), chose to side with GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore of Alabama against his highly credible accusers. “I have been dismayed and troubled,” Dobson said, “about the way he and his wife Kayla have been personally attacked by the Washington establishment.”It is as if Dobson set out to justify every feminist critique of the religious right. Instead of standing against injustice and exploitation — as the Christian gospel demands — Dobson sided with patriarchal oppression in the cause of political power. This is beyond hypocrisy. It is the solidarity of scary, judgmental old men. It is the ideology of white male dominance dressed up as religion.

Conservatives need to be clear and honest in this circumstance. The strong, moral commitment to the dignity of women and children recently asserting itself in our common life has mainly come from feminism, not the “family values” movement. In this case, religious conservatives have largely been bystanders or obstacles. This indicates a group of people for whom the dignity of girls and women has become secondary to other political goals.

We are a nation with vast resources of moral renewal. It is a shame and a scandal that so many religious conservatives have made themselves irrelevant to that task.

If the nation is lucky, the larger society will learn that if one wants a truly moral society the last place it will come from is evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who are in most cases devoid of compassion, concern for others, and basic decency.  Hatred and condemnation of others and false piety are their true hallmarks. 

Blue States Practice the Family Values Red States Pretend to Preach

One of the ironies - and signs of the sick hypocrisy of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who dominate politics in so-called  red states - is that red states have some of the highest levels of societal dysfunction in the country: highest teen pregnancies, the most child marriages, highest divorce rate, highest poverty levels, etc.  Meanwhile, red states also have the highest Internet porn usage and levels of prostitution.  In contrast, the blue states - godless states controlled by Satan if one believes the rants of Christofascist - have nowhere near the levels of societal dysfunction.  Stated another way, the majority of residents of blue states practice the family values the evangelicals claim to support while it is the evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians who most frequently trash true family values.  A column in the New York Times looks at the role reversal of who actually puts so-called family values into practice.  Here are excerpts:

As we watch Roy Moore thumping his Bible to defend himself from accusations of child molestation, let me toss out a verbal hand grenade: To some degree, liberals practice the values that conservatives preach.

This is complicated terrain with lots of exceptions, and the recent scandals involving Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K. and Al Franken underscore that liberals can be skunks as much as anyone else. Yet if one looks at blue and red state populations as a whole, it’s striking that conservatives champion “family values” even as red states have high rates of teenage births, divorce and prostitution. In contrast, people in blue states don’t trumpet these family values but often seem to do a better job living them.

[O]f 32 states, those with the highest percentage of high school students who say they have had sex are Mississippi, Delaware, West Virginia, Alabama and Arkansas. All but Delaware voted Republican in the last presidential election.

Meanwhile, the five states with the lowest proportion of high school students who have had sex were New York, California, Maryland, Nebraska and Connecticut. All but Nebraska voted Democratic.

When evangelical kids have sex, they’re less likely to use birth control — and that may be a reason (along with lower abortion rates) that red states have high teen birthrates. Nine of the 10 states with the highest teen birthrates voted Republican in 2016. And nine of the 10 states with the lowest teen birthrates voted Democratic.

“Red regions of the country have higher teen pregnancy rates, more shotgun marriages and lower average ages at marriage and first birth,” Naomi Cahn and June Carbone wrote in their important 2010 book, “Red Families v. Blue Families.”

“Blue family values bristle at restrictions on sexuality, insistence on marriage or the stigmatization of single parents. Their secret, however, is that they encourage their children to simultaneously combine public tolerance with private discipline, and their children then overwhelmingly choose to raise their own children within two-parent families.”

Liberals, in other words, may be wary of strict moral codes, but they want to make damn sure that their own kids don’t have babies while in high school. It helps that they believe in comprehensive sex education and reliable birth control.

[T]he dozen states with the highest rates of child marriage, all voted Republican in 2016.  “Child marriage is happening at an alarming rate across the U.S., but available marriage-license data show more parents, judges and clerks in red states than in blue states seem comfortable with this human-rights abuse,” said Fraidy Reiss, founder of Unchained at Last, a nonprofit that fights child marriage.

Divorce rates show a similar pattern: They tend to be higher in red states than in blue states, with Arkansas highest of all. “Individual religious conservatism is positively related to individual divorce risk,” according to a 50-state study reported in the American Journal of Sociology.

Then there’s adultery and prostitution. One large international survey found that the largest group of customers on Ashley Madison, the dating website for married people, were evangelical Christians. And a major 2013 study found that men in the Houston and Kansas City metro areas were the most likely to call sex ads, while men in San Francisco and Baltimore were the least likely to.

[S]tatistical analysis suggests that religious conservatives end up divorcing partly because they marry early, are less likely to go to college and are disproportionately poor.

So the deeper problem seems to be the political choices that conservatives make, underinvesting in public education and social services (including contraception). This underinvestment leaves red states poorer and less educated — and thus prone to a fraying of the social fabric.

Liberals and conservatives alike don’t want kids pregnant at 16, and we almost all seek committed marriages that last. It’s worth noting that Bible-thumping blowhards like Roy Moore don’t help achieve those values, while investments in education and family planning do.

Here in Virginia, if one contrasts the conservative Christian/Republican areas of Southwest Virginia with the much more liberal so-called urban crescent, similar finds result.  The areas whining about family values practice them the least and are the most socially dysfunction.  Pretend piety in the pews does not translate into practice in everyday life.

Trump and Militant Evangelical "Masculinity"

A friend sent me a link to a piece in Religion & Politics that may help explain why 81% of evangelical Christians voted for a man who is the antithesis of what true Christian values should be. Indeed, it looks at the sickness that has overtaken conservative Christianity in general and created a reality where hatred of others and fear of anyone different - the "other " if you will - has supplanted any message of love and kindness. Oh yes, we hear the self-congratulatory, falsely pious "godly folk" talk about "love" of others, but when their actions and rhetoric are examined, it is almost invisible in practice. Instead of being a force for good - I have my doubts if Christianity has actually ever been truly a force for good - conservative Christianity has become one of the great evils in the world today. Only fundamentalist Islam is a greater evil given its adherents willingness to use murder and physical violence.   Yet both fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam at their core have hatred of others at their core and a bizarre view of masculinity.  Here are article highlights:

Yes, there were Supreme Court appointments and fears about religious freedom to consider, and a longstanding alliance with the Republican Party to contend with. But even so, how could the self-professed “Moral Majority” embrace a candidate who seemed to flaunt his own cruelty?

The truth is, many evangelicals long ago replaced the suffering servant of Christ with an image that more closely resembles Donald Trump than many would care to admit. They’ve traded a faith that privileges humility and elevates the least of these for one that derides gentleness as the province of wusses. Having replaced the Jesus of the gospels with an idol of machismo, it’s no wonder many have come to think of Trump himself as the nation’s savior.

Indeed, white evangelical support for Trump can be seen as the culmination of a decades-long embrace of militant masculinity, a masculinity that has enshrined patriarchal authority, condoned a callous display of power at home and abroad, and functioned as a linchpin in the political and social worldviews of conservative white evangelicals. In the end, many evangelicals did not vote for Trump despite their beliefs, but because of them.
 THE ROOTS OF THIS ideology can be traced back to the 1970s, a decade in which evangelicals began to stake a new claim on politics and culture. As they mobilized around “family values” issues, defining masculinity and femininity was central to their task. James Dobson was one of the earliest and most influential proponents of this effort.  . . . . To wit, men like to “hunt and fish and hike in the wilderness”; women prefer to “stay at home and wait for them.” More significantly, “men derive self-esteem by being respected; women feel worthy when they are loved.”

He saw this as a crisis of gender, but also as a threat to national security. For the sake of the nation, a “call to arms” was needed, a reassertion of the “Judeo-Christian concept of masculinity” in the face of feminists’ “concerted attack on ‘maleness.’”

To understand how changing gender roles could imperil the nation, the politicization of evangelical Christianity must be placed in the context of Cold War politics, and against the backdrop of the Vietnam War.

Evangelicals staunchly opposed communism, and their reasons for doing so were many: communists were anti-American, anti-God, and they threatened God-given rights and the integrity of the family. A strong military was necessary to ward off the communist peril, and strong men were essential to a strong military.

But the rising generation caused reason for concern. Young men sporting long hair and flowered shirts dodged the draft, shunned authority, and shirked their duty to protect America from the threat of global communism. The Vietnam era would emerge as a pivotal moment in the relationship between American evangelicals and the U.S. military. . . . . evangelicals who supported U.S. military action in Vietnam came to hold the military itself in high (and often uncritical) esteem.

Evangelicals like Dobson responded with a clarion call to turn back the tide of impending chaos by reasserting moral absolutes and reestablishing a “Christian civilization.” Defining and defending distinct gender roles was at the heart of this effort, providing conservative evangelicals a clear identity against secularists, feminists, and other liberals.

Reflecting the unsettled times, Promise Keepers called for a new Christian masculinity, an alternative both to the “softer,” modern version they found lacking, and to the “macho” version they feared had become outmoded. Their solution: the archetype of the “Tender Warrior.”

Authors like Steve Farrar, Gordon Dalbey, and Stu Weber—all white evangelical men—pioneered this “Tender Warrior” motif. Significantly, all three looked to Vietnam for the source of masculine identity. . . . In words that would echo through the movement, Weber insisted that God himself was unmistakably “the Warrior of both testaments.” Forget “gentle Jesus, meek and mild”—Jesus was “the ultimate man.”

WITH DEMOCRATIC President Bill Clinton sending the military on “emasculating” peacekeeping missions, and with debates raging about women in combat and gays in the military, the crisis only deepened. Before long a new slate of books on evangelical masculinity appeared, offering instructions on how to raise properly masculine sons in a “feminized” culture. Abandoning any lip service to “tenderness,” these books championed an unabashedly aggressive, testosterone-driven masculinity. In 2001 Dobson himself joined the growing outcry against a “war against boys” in America. In his Bringing up Boys he again he criticized a “small but noisy band of feminists” who attacked “the very essence of masculinity.” He derided “feminists and other social liberals” who wanted to make boys more like girls, and men more like women—“feminized, emasculated, and wimpified.” Bringing up Boys found a receptive audience, quickly selling more than a million copies.
 Also in 2001, Douglas Wilson’s Future Men insisted that boys must be raised to be warriors. Central to Wilson’s “definition of masculinity” was the concept of dominion . . . Women’s role was a passive one: women yearned to be fought for. They possessed something “wild at heart,” but it was “feminine to the core, more seductive than fierce.” . . . . Aggression was “part of the masculine design”; men were “hardwired for it.” Attempts to pacify men only emasculated them: “If you want a safer, quieter animal, there’s an easy solution: castrate him.” Yes, “a man is a dangerous thing,” he wrote, but the very strength that made men dangerous also made them heroes.
 It is not difficult to imagine how evangelicals, steeped in literature claiming that men were created in the image of a warrior God, might be receptive to sentiments like those expressed by the late Jerry Falwell, in his 2004 sermon “God is Pro-War.” In fact, surveys demonstrate that traditionalist evangelicals are more likely than other Americans to approve of U.S. engagement in a preemptive war, support military action against terrorism, and condone the use of torture.

This brand of militant masculinity also helps explain the lack of outrage on the part of many evangelicals when it comes to Trump’s character issues.  Ominously, though, there is a fine line between merely speaking of brute force and enacting violence. Less than a month after the election, a 28-year-old white man shot up a D.C. pizzeria with a military-style assault rifle. He said he was in search of a child sex slave ring linked to Hillary Clinton, which turned out to be a hoax generated by fake news reports. Chillingly, he cited one of his favorite books, Wild at Heart, in a post-arrest interview with The New York Times.
 What makes a strong leader? A virile (white) man. And what of his vulgarity? Infidelity? Bombast? Even sexual assault? Well, boys will be boys.
 Trump appeared at a moment when evangelicals feel increasingly beleaguered, even persecuted. Issues related to gender—from the cultural sea change on gay marriage to transgender bathroom laws to the Hyde Amendment and the contraceptive mandate—are at the center of their perceived victimization. The threat of terrorism looms large, American power isn’t what it used to be, and nearly two-thirds of white evangelicals harbor fears that a once-powerful nation has become “too soft and feminine.”

In Donald Trump, they have found the leader they have been looking for.

In my view, these people are mentally disturbed and pose a clear and present danger to America and the world. Frighteningly, Trump has nominated many such religious extremist to his cabinet.  The truth is that these are not nice and decent people.  They harbor a sickness and hate filled core that needs to be eliminated.

Hypocrisy Alert: Anti-LGBT "Christian" Activists Stick with Trump

Other than rapist, murderers and other violent criminals, there are few individuals in America who I hold in lower regard than right wing Christians - the Christofascists - who are a study in hatred of others and stark hypocrisy.  As a group, these people deserve no respect and absolutely no deference for "deeply held religious belief."  They can believe what they want and worship in their ignorance embracing churches, but the rest of us are free - and, in my view, should - view them with contempt and call out their lies and hypocrisy.  A piece in the Washington Blade looks at this hypocrisy in the wake of Christofascists' continued embrace of Donald Trump:

After months of stoking fears about sexual assault in the bathrooms as a result of transgender non-discrimination protections, social conservatives are sticking with Donald Trump despite a recent unearthed recording in which he brags about making aggressive sexual advances on women.

The fears over assault and violation of privacy in the bathroom were invented and stoked by conservative activists opposed to transgender protections, but actual claims of sexual assault from the Republican nominee aren’t enough to register the same level of concern with these anti-LGBT activists.

Tony Perkins, president of the anti-LGBT Family Research Council, conceded in a statement he finds the behavior exhibited in the video “deeply offensive and degrading,” but nonetheless still supports Trump.

Just two months ago, Perkins commended U.S. Judge Reed O’Connor for issuing a court order blocking guidance from the Obama administration barring discrimination against transgender students in accessing the restroom consistent with their gender identity.

At the time, Perkins called the decision “a win for parental rights and the privacy of schoolchildren nationwide,” insisting issues of privacy and safety are of paramount importance.

Ralph Reed, an anti-LGBT activist and chair of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, was even less bothered by the 2005 recording of Trump in a statement to media outlets.

“I’ve listened to the tape, my view is that people of faith are voting on issues like who will protect unborn life, defend religious freedom, create jobs and oppose the Iran nuclear deal,” Reed said. “I think a 10-year-old tape of a private conversation with a TV talk show host ranks pretty low on their hierarchy of concerns.”

Social conservatives have been fear-mongering over transgender people using the restroom at least since a non-discrimination ordinance was on the ballot last year in Houston. At the time, opponents aired TV ads in which a man follows a young girl into a public restroom stall and slams the door behind him before the video ends. The ordinance ended up being defeated at the ballot.

The image in that video isn’t far from the actions about Trump boasts about in the 2005 video made public Friday by the Washington Post. Trump talks about hitting on a married woman and being able to grab women — sometimes by their genitals — to kiss them, saying they allow him to do that without reprisal because he’s famous. At the time the video was made, Trump was recently married to current wife, Melania Trump.

These people are monsters.

Conversion Therapy Quacks and the Demonization of Gays

The Southern Poverty Law Center ("has released a new report on "ex-gay" conversion therapy and the frauds and quacks who advocate for and psychologically torture - and sometimes physically, as well - gays who more often than not are forced into the therapy by their parents, the majority of whom view themselves as "godly Christians."  For those unfamiliar with the SPLC, it was founded in 1971 by civil rights lawyers Morris Dees and Joseph Levin Jr. to work to ensure that the promise of the civil rights movement became a reality for all.  Originally focused on the civil rights of African Americans, SLPC later expanded its focus and now works to ensure civil rights of children, women, the disabled, immigrants and migrant workers, members of the LGBT community, and many others who faced discrimination, abuse or exploitation.  In the process it identifies and works to oppose hate groups of all stripes, including those who hide behind the cloak of religion.  A number of so-called "family values" Christian organization which are sadly provided a platform by a lazy mainstream media have been certified  as hate groups because of the deliberate lies and hatred they promote against the LGBT community and others.  

This past week, SPLC released a report of the fraudulent and potentially deadly "ex-gay" conversion therapy industry which is financed by hate groups and involves unscrupulous quacks and religious extremists.  The lengthy report, which looks at some of the leading quacks of the "industry," can be found here.  It is crucial to remember that behind the support for "ex-gay" conversion therapy, there is the anti-gay political agenda of those I call Christofascists and other right wing religious groups.  It is also important to keep in mind, that such therapy is very lucrative for the parasite like practitioners who promise to do the impossible.  For my part, I am proud that I helped expose Michael Johnston as a fraud and also first unearthed Arthur Goldberg's criminal record.  Here are some report highlights:

Will standing in a circle of naked men deep in the woods turn gay men straight? Is disrobing in front of a mirror alone with your therapist and then touching “your masculinity” a cure for homosexuality? Does beating a pillow representing your mother really help develop “healthy” relationships with other men?

The men and women who people this industry known as “conversion,” “reparative” or “ex-gay” therapists are like modern-day phrenologists, the “experts” beloved by the Nazis who thought they could identify inferior human beings by measuring their subjects’ skulls. They employ theories that have been thoroughly debunked by virtually all relevant medical associations. They cite bizarre studies that were shot down decades ago as key documents. They use techniques that were described in court by one expert as “worse than snake oil.” They are quacks.

[T]he promotion of conversion therapy has a cynical side. If being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender is merely a chosen behavior, one that can be “fixed” with the right mental health treatment, then criticizing LGBT people for their sexual choices is akin to simply criticizing bad behavior. Unlike attacking someone for their skin color, reparative therapists can condemn the gay “lifestyle” and still claim that they are not LGBT-hating bigots.

The real science is perfectly clear. A consensus of the vast majority of psychiatrists, psychologists and other counselors and their professional organizations agree that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality. Likewise, they condemn reparative therapy and other attempts to change sexual orientation.

This report is built around revelations that emerged from a lawsuit that was tried in New Jersey last year. Represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other attorneys, several gay plaintiffs sued Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing, or JONAH (formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), under a state consumer fraud law.

The case did not go well for JONAH. The judge in the case barred almost all testimony from the six experts proffered by the defendants, saying that “the theory that homosexuality is a disorder is not novel but like the notion that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it instead is outdated and refuted.” In the end, the plaintiffs won a hands down victory and JONAH went out of business. But in depositions and the trial itself, the creepy world of reparative therapy was laid bare.

Based on this study, the SPLC recommends several steps:

·        At a minimum, states and localities should outlaw the provision of conversion therapy to minors. Already, four states and two cities have passed such laws. Many more are considering similar action.
·        Congress should pass the Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act introduced last year by U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) A companion bill was filed in the Senate this April by U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.). The legislation would classify conversion therapy as a fraudulent practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act, making it illegal to advertise or sell.
·        Professional associations licensing psychiatrists, psychologists and other counselors should sanction members who engage in it.
·        Insurers, both private and public, should refuse to reimburse claims made by reparative therapists.

If these things are not done, if the quacks who make up the reparative therapy business are not stopped, lives will continue to be ruined.

James Phelan, Joseph Berger, Christopher Doyle and Joseph Nicolosi all key figures in the conversion therapy movement wrote lengthy reports to the judge outlining their purported expertise.  Superior Court Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr. barred them all.

Conversion therapy, also known as “reparative” or “ex-gay” therapy, is on the ropes. Virtually all relevant U.S. medical associations plus, just this March, the world’s largest professional association of psychiatrists have condemned it. In the last four years, four states and two cities have outlawed its use with minors. One after another, both secular and religious ex-gay groups have been embarrassed by gay sex scandals involving their founders or top officers. And the civil suit against JONAH which produced hair raising testimony about nude counseling sessions, group cuddling exercises, bizarre re-enactments and other “therapy” exposed the creepy world of the conversion therapy industry and the quacks who run it.

But there was a more cynical reason as well. If being gay, lesbian or transgender was a “choice,” as most of the religious and secular right contended, then criticizing the LGBT community would be akin to simply criticizing bad behavior. It was, in other words, fundamentally different than skin color, over which people have no control. The tactic was seen as a firewall against being attacked as gay-hating bigots. While reparative therapists might condemn the gay “lifestyle,” they could still claim to be simply trying to help people clean up their unhealthy and unhappy lives.

At the same time, with the rise of many types of religious fundamentalism, growing numbers of young men and women felt painful conflicts between their own urges and the prohibitions of their faiths. As a result, there was an enormous market of Christians, Jews, Mormons and others who faced condemnation by their co-religionists if they acted on their attractions to members of their own sex.

In 1998, the drive to portray homosexuality as changeable culminated in a $600,000 newspaper ad campaign, entitled “Truth in Love,” that was funded by 15 religious-right groups “the Normandy landing of the culture war,” according to a Family Research Council official. The poster children of this campaign were John and Anne Paulk, who said they were formerly gay but now happily married. A photo of the couple ran on the cover of Newsweek under the headline “Gay for Life?”

After the religious right’s expensive 1998 ad campaign brought the reparative therapy movement to national attention, things went from bad to worse.

John Paulk, who had been the ex-gay poster boy for the 1998 ad campaign, was removed from his position as Exodus board chairman after LGBT activist Wayne Besen photographed him in a Washington, D.C., gay bar. Although Paulk initially dissembled about his reasons for being there, some 15 years later, in 2013, he would divorce his wife and say, “I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people.”

Paulk’s fellow ad campaign star, Michael Johnston, soon ran into trouble of his own. Johnston, who had been featured in 1998 TV ads touting reparative therapy and was the founder of “National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day,” was accused in 2003 of infecting men he met via the Internet with HIV. The American Family Association, which had partly funded the ad campaign, acknowledged that Johnston, who was featured in its “It’s Not Gay” video, had had a “moral fall.” Nevertheless, the group, after initially stopping, soon resumed distributing its video.

In 2010, NARTH officer and scientific advisory board member George Rekers was exposed for traveling abroad with a male prostitute. He denied sexual contact with the man, saying he was merely helping to carry luggage, but the man told a wholly different story. Rekers resigned from NARTH’s board a week later.

The reparative therapy movement was also seriously damaged as professional organization after professional organization followed the lead of the American Psychiatric Association in declassifying homosexuality as a disorder.

In November 2012, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit against JONAH, founder Arthur Goldberg, affiliated counselor Alan Downing, and Alan Downing Life Coaching LLC. Although the suit would not go to trial until 2015, the 2014 depositions of JONAH’s would be experts already foreshadowed problems in the courtroom.

Some of what came out in those depositions was astonishing. One of the purported experts had cited a study by a “therapist” who turned out, unbeknownst to him, to be a massage therapist. Another’s articles had been published in a “journal” that charges authors $35 a page. Most cited studies that dated back to the 1960s and before and had long been discredited; one of them was a 1947 article on extrasensory perception. One man denied news reports that he had claimed success rates of 75-90%. Another described how clients needed to insist on taking female dates to the restaurant they chose to assert their masculine authority or risk finding themselves attracted to a waiter. The practice of a New Guinea tribe that encourages young boys to consume as much semen from older men as possible was cited with approval as an exercise in building heterosexuality.

And it came out that Goldberg, who had allowed himself to be addressed as “doctor” and “rabbi” although he was neither, was a convicted con man. In 1989, he was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison in a $2 billion municipal bond scheme. The prosecutor said Goldberg, who was later disbarred, was a man who “habitually took advantage of people” and “did not hesitate to lie or cheat or cover up.”

On June 24, 2015, the jury in Judge Bariso’s courtroom unanimously found JONAH had committed consumer fraud and engaged in unconscionable commercial practices under New Jersey law by selling services that it claimed could change clients from gay to straight. In December, as part of a settlement, JONAH agreed to close its doors and its principals promised to cease all related commerce and to resign any leadership posts in ex-gay groups. The plaintiffs were awarded $72,400, and JONAH agreed to pay some of their legal fees.

Quotes of the Day - Religious Flim-Flam Men (and Women)

I do not deny that I am very hard on religion and the professional Christian class in particular which is comprised by far to many charlatans and con artists who prey on the ignorant and vulnerable.  A fellow critic of the falsely self-labeled "godly folk_ is Bob Felton, a North Carolina blogger who almost daily confronts the the bashitery of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Among other things, Bob routinely debunks the Christofascists' claims to upholding "family values" as their self-styled leaders call on followers to put God - and, of course, their guidance, ahead of spouse and children. He summed up the con game they play well this way:

[T]ake away their permission to debase you, and Albert the Pious, Russell Moore, Robert Jeffress, Pat Robertson, on and on ad nauseum, are just a bunch of plaid-suited flim-flam men.

A reader also pointed out the corruption and self-dealing that permeates much of the professional Christian class and a source to learn more about their innate corruption and love of money in a comment:

I encourage your readers to check out the Freedom From Religion Foundation, FFRF.org, whose monthly paper, Freethought Today, prints a report on religious misleaders who have been accused/confessed to/convicted of various crimes, from inappropriate touching to putting their hands in the till to attempted or accomplished murder.

And Franklin Graham has been doing well -- quite well -- for purportedly doing good. Strolls through Charity Navigator can be illuminating. The president of the Thomas More Law Society, for example, Richard Thompson, gets $216,428 for his efforts to deprive LGBT Americans of the same rights that other Americans have and to inflict Catholic sharia onto health care for American women.  

To see the prevalence of church leader crimes, here's but one link from  last year to a roster of crimes.  I am not a member of FFRE, but may join so as to have another source that helps expose the lies, corruption and hypocrisy of those who pretend to be "men of god" as they prey on others and enrich themselves.   

Prostitute Loving Vitter Loses Louisiana Governor's Race

With so many Republicans falling into the thoroughly despicable category nowadays, it is sometimes difficult to estimate which ones are the most despicable.  By any measure, prostitute loving, gay hating Senator David Vitter (R-La) has to rank near the top in terms of both utter hypocrisy and sleaze factor.  Vitter for years ridiculously used the excuse that he had repented from his erroneous ways to get himself reelected by simpletons and godly folk in Louisiana.  Last night Louisiana voters seemingly finally got their heads out of their asses and Vitter went down to Democrat John Bel Edwards who garnered 56% of the vote.  While the results suggest that Republicans in Louisiana may be belatedly coming to their senses, the same unfortunately doesn't hold true elsewhere.  A piece in Talking Points Memo looks at Vitter's delicious loss.  Here are highlights:

[I]t is nice to see the political career of David Vitter - someone we've been following closely at TPM for almost a decade - go down in flames tonight. But there's an additional part of the story, an additional piece of good news. As Catherine Thompson explained here, Vitter devoted the last week of his campaign to demagoguing the Syrian refugee issue in a desperate effort to save himself. He even went beyond the standard scare talk and hyperbole to trying to whip hysteria against a specific Syrian refugee who Vitter falsely claimed had mysteriously disappeared and was now at large in the state. (The man in question had, all through official channels and with appropriate notifications, been relocated to the Washington, DC region where he had relatives.)

[T]he race had become a potential bellwether for Syrian refugee hysteria and politics. Perhaps even the fear of terrorism or hatred for the desperate and forlorn was not enough to overcome the state's building revulsion for the man-child senator.  

Not only did Vitter not make a comeback. The final election results (almost a 10 point win) suggest the last minute immigrant-terror bashing had no effect at all. 

We're still seeing how this all plays out. I don't mean to tell you that Syrian refugee hysteria politics is nothing. But in this case it wasn't enough. Indeed, it does not appear to have helped Vitter at all - not even to partially close the gap. And that is worth noting.

Religious Extremism - Words Can Be Just As Dangerous As Knives

Annette in action

One of the principal forces opposing the civil rights of LGBT citizens are the "godly folk" and the professional Christian set who live off of the ignorance and bigotry of their parishioners and, of course, the GOP base, like leeches and other parasites.  To keep the money flowing it, it is crucial that the sheeple be convinced that they are under attack and that their "rights" are threatened.  As the prior post notes, one favored target is the black community (and by extension all other non-whites).  Another favored target is the LGBT community.   And in order to fan the requisite paranoia and fear, all kinds of hate words are the principal currency.   Facebook friend and fellow activist Annette Gross looks at how dangerous such hate words can be in a piece in Huffington Post.  Here are highlights:

For the past week, the City of Goshen, Indiana has been a hot-bed of debate about whether the City Council should grant civil protections to its LGBT citizens. Goshen mayor Allan Kauffman brought up the conversation at the end of the city council meeting on Tuesday, May 19, handing out copies of the city's 2009 failed amendment.

Mayor Kauffman also said that he does not want anyone who lives outside of the city to provide input at the meeting. That can be a problem for Eric Miller, executive director of Advance America, a right-wing organization that claims it is devoted to protecting the constitution and the family.

On Tuesday, July 14, Miller spoke to a crowd of about 100 people at Calvary Assembly church. He stated that, "The homosexual agenda has now come to Elkhart County. These two ordinances (Goshen and Elkhart) are wrong. These two ordinances need to be defeated."

Eric Miller has long been a foe of LGBT Hoosiers. He was one of the proponents to have same-sex marriage banned in Indiana by way of a state constitutional amendment. He testified at every hearing at the Statehouse in order to push his agenda. He also was present in 2005 when the Marion County City Council debated inserting sexual orientation and gender identity into their Human Rights Ordinance. He was one of the people seen with Governor Pence when Pence signed RFRA behind closed doors.

Eric Miller claims that he is trying to protect families. He falsely claims that churches and businesses could face punishment or legal problems if they refused to take part in a gay marriage ceremony. We know these are scare tactics. Miller warns repeatedly of the "homosexual agenda."
He [Miller] uses religion to push his agenda. He has been known to bus people from all over the state to hearings on same-sex marriage and LGBT equality.  Miller uses words to make his points. But words hurt -- just as much as violence can hurt. So my question is -- where does this go? Last week we saw an Orthodox Jewish man stab six people at the Jerusalem Pride Parade.

There is no excuse for killing anyone in the name of religion. And there is no excuse for telling lies and mistruths in the name of religion. When I look at people like Eric Miller, I get scared. He may not be wielding a knife or a gun, but his words can have an impact on those who believe them. Words have been known to lead people to do dangerous things. How far will people go? I cannot imagine going to any house of worship to listen to words of hatred and discrimination.  

What will they say to stop LGBT Hoosiers from gaining these rights? What ideas will they put in peoples' heads?

We have to be vigilant. Not only do we have to write letters and speak with our legislators -- we have to call out the religious zealots who will deny our friends and loved ones the rights they deserve. We need to talk to our religious leaders -- those clergy who support equality and fairness. We need to urge them to call out people who hurt others in the name of religion.

I have watched Eric Miller and his friends Curt Smith (from the Indiana Family Institute) and Micah Clark (from the American Family Association of Indiana) for the past ten years as they push their messages of discrimination. It is about time we call them out and not allow them to hijack the good that religion really is. Religious extremism is dangerous -- whether by using knives and guns -- or by using words. 

People like Miller are dangerous.  And Annette is right - we need to call on the "good Christians" and other gay friendly faith leaders to get off their butts and end their silence.  Bad things happen when good people remain silent. 

TLC Pulls "19 Kids and Counting" from Schedule in Wake of Moestation Admission

Back last year when there were rallies outside the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, as the Court considered the case of Bostic v. Rainey, among the anti-gay hate mongers outside the courthouse was now confessed molester Josh Duggar (pictured standing next to Victoria Cobb of The Family Foundation, one of Virginia's leading hate groups and enemies of equality for minorities of all races and sexual orientation).  Duggar has admitted to multiple molestations of minors in the past and has resigned from his position with Family Research Council, another hate group, and adopted the usual Christofascist bullshit defense/faity tale that "I sinned, but God has redeemed me."   Here's the line that made me want to grab a vomit bag: 

I am so thankful for God's grace, forgiveness, and redemptive heart that allowed me to transform into a man of faith and testimony. 

Joe Jervis has details on Duggar's disingenuous resignation letter here.  How anyone with over a 70 IQ believes such crap amazes me.  But, then again, studies have shown a correlation between low educational/intelligence levels and adherence to fundamentalist Christianity.   Meanwhile, TLC seems to have finally recognized the reality that the Duggars and their family freak show are toxic and out of the sane mainstream.  As Towleroad reports, TLS has pulled "19 Kids and Counting" from its schedule - hopefully, the move will be permanent.  Here are highlights:

Wrote the network on its Facebook page:

Effective immediately, TLC has pulled all episodes of 19 Kids and Counting currently from the air. We are deeply saddened and troubled by this heartbreaking situation, and our thoughts and prayers are with the family and victims at this difficult time.

Last November, a petition calling on TLC to cancel the show over the Duggars' "LGBT fear mongering" caught fire on the internet and amassed over 100,000 signatures.

The hypocrisy of the Duggars, who have been active in opposing gay rights and denigrated LGBT individuals is stunning, given that Josh Duggar and his parents knew that he was a five time molester of underage girls.  If anyone is a threat to families, it is the Duggars themselves.