littlejohn Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 10:06 am

My view is that we have a lot to learn from the gay rights movement, with which we have a great deal in common (We are a minority, but a fairly large minority, we are primarily opposed by religious zealots, we really have no choice about what we are, etc.)

Thank you Littlejohn for giving me a revelation tonight: we DON’T have a choice about what we are. I never thought about it that way. My beliefs are intrinsically part of me, internalized. Religious people would sometimes have me believe that I just haven’t heard enough of The Good News yet or I would be bound to change my mind. I could no more become a religious believer than I could suddenly become a cat or a toaster.

This may be useful the next time I “come out” to someone. I love many religious people without reservation. If I set the example, hopefully they will learn to love me without expectations as well.

However, if people are rude enough to insist on bringing up religion when they talk to me, I generally either change the subject or say “I don’t know, I’m not a churchgoer.” This has never caused me any difficulty, nor has it resulted in hurt feelings because it was never accompanied by a judgmental statement or assumption from me.

My dearest friends and family are all religious, and they know I’m not, but it’s no big deal because I simply refuse to discuss religion with any of them, period. But because I’m polite and compassionate with them when the important stuff comes up, such as caring for each other, they treat me just the same, for all our differences.

1. Interference with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
2. The assumption of the ‘right to judge’ by the activists.

This queasiness remains with Vas’ proposals. Yet … One idea I took from the gay outings still applies here. If someone sets themselves up as the defender of the faith, all the while leading another life that directly contradicts the public rhetoric – I am more in sympathy with an outing.

As someone who was sent home from school in 1967 for refusing to say the ‘under God’ part of the Pledge of Allegiance when I was 7 years old, I probably have as much right to judge as anyone. Is it worth it?

Let me just point out, real quick–since you say you’re still researching and thinking about outing people–that even Harvey Milk–who I do think was a hero–only pushed for people to out themselves. Maybe the movie with Sean Penn only skirted the issue and I don’t know all the details, but I never saw him taking it upon himself to out other people against their wishes.

You wanna do what he did, fine. I’m all for that. All I object to is the idea of outing someone against their wishes. And, please, don’t compare atheism to racist hate groups or radical Muslims–people who actively endanger their community. I, personally, don’t see how that’s different from comparing gay marriage to pedophilia, as the Right loves to do.

I am SO not ok with that mentality. And I don’t want to become what “they” are.

Name-calling? What, you mean like calling someone a ” simpering little gimp” or saying someone has a “selfish attitude” for wanting to make personal decisions about their own private life? I didn’t feel the need to engage you in debate about your, *ahem*, “self-righteous” ideas because Heidi and others were doing a good job of it already. But I just wanted you to know that, beyond the fact that your ideas are misguided, they also make you look like a jerk. Forgive me, I guess that’s what I should have said.

Vas, your ideas make you look like a jerk.

One of the biggest problems we atheists have with religion is that it thinks it has the right to interfere with other people’s lives. How many times have we heard it said that we wouldn’t make such a big fuss over people’s ridiculous beliefs, as long as they don’t try to legislate those beliefs or push them in the schools? You accuse me of acting like a christian, but your idea of making personal decisions for other people sounds a lot more like their m.o.

And as to the “audacity to suggest that [you] should not even be allowed to contemplate something”?
Puhh-leeease. I asked “how dare you”. That’s a question, not a invective like, oh, say, “Shame on these cowards and all those who enable their selfish pursuits at the expense of our collective future”
So I asked, “how dare you?” What gives you the right to make such judgments? Don’t play the martyr here just because I called you a name directly–you called thousands of people names and played the “I’m so radical” card as though that put you above criticism.
Whatever. I don’t buy it. You think you have the right to make personal decisions for other people “for their own good”, then that puts you squarely in the same category as the religious right, in my opinion.

@John Frost
How dare I even contemplate?!? I’m definitely a jerk?!? What the hell is wrong with you, you speak of personal freedom and have the unmitigated audacity to suggest that I should not even be allowed to contemplate something. Well guess what, I am allowed to contemplate anything I please and you are completely powerless to prevent my contemplation on any subject whatsoever, further I am at liberty to express those thoughts. Beyond that you are also powerless to prevent any action I choose to take up to and including outing anyone I damn well please. To date I have not but if I choose to you can do nothing to stop me, (just for the record I have no plans to out anyone). Despite your name calling and self righteous indignation you are in a word ineffectual in dictating what thoughts I am allowed to have. How sad that on this forum you feel free to call people name because you disagree with their position on a particular subject. In fact your views do not make me feel uncomfortable, you give yourself far to much credit, however the fact that you have twice now resorted to singling me out by name and calling me childish names shows an appalling lack of character on your part. Others have been able to disagree with me without resorting to name calling and have been able to temper my opinions, this is the nature of productive dialog as opposed to your approach which comes off as shrill, childish, dogmatic and psudo-authoritarian. You sir have earned my scorn and total lack of respect. I will not play by your ridiculous rules that insist that some subjects may not even be contemplated, this is an absurd proposition. You sir have no authority nor enforcement mechanism to dictate the allowable thoughts of your fellow man, even if you are offended by those thoughts.

P.S. I just added “agnostic” to my public viewable facebook profile. But I still prefer to keep my “Jeff” alias here unassociated with my full identity. If and when I chose to make that connection, I want it to be my choice.

You’ve said yourself that you’re comfortable and suffer no persecution for your OUT status. How dare you, then, even contemplate OUTing someone else in wildly different circumstances than you?

While it’s all noble’n all to talk about taking care of people who lose their jobs because you’ve taken it upon yourself to out them, the atheist community doesn’t have that kind of cohesiveness or resources for that right now.

And what about people who don’t lose their jobs, but simply get overlooked for promotions or relegated to more menial tasks? What about the small-business owner who now can’t get any business? Who is he going to sue for a breach of his civil rights?

In the end, it comes down to personal freedom. I’m no Libertarian, but the idea of making the decision to out someone else is about one of the grossest violations of freedom of conscience I can imagine.