WA United for Marriage (LGBT Group) Tells Atheists...

[Flagg]

...They won't be accepting a public endorsement despite taking their money.

Dear Freethought Leaders, Groups, and Organizations:

On July 13, 2012, the producers, cast and crew of the Tacoma-based “Ask an Atheist” radio show hosted a 24-hour telethon fundraiser for same-sex marriage equality in Washington State.

Prior to the telethon, we had assurances from Washington United for Marriage that our donations would be gladly accepted, that our endorsement of their campaign would not be rejected or suppressed, and that our show’s logo could join the collage of organizations, companies and faith groups supporting their effort on their website.

We took the campaign at their word, and Washington United for Marriage lied to us.

After weeks of deflection and multiple requests from the campaign that we re-submit our logo and endorsement application – and a week after our telethon – we finally got an explanation in a phone call from Washington United for Marriage’s Outreach Coordinator, Dustin Lambro. Lambro made it clear to us that the campaign would not include our show’s logo among its other endorsers for precisely the reason we had feared.

Dustin Lambro felt that his campaign—a campaign that prides itself on tolerance and diversity—could not risk any negative publicity that may come from association with an atheist organization.

For the past two months, we have tried to negotiate with the campaign directly and through their allies in Equal Rights Washington, an organization we are happy to say has no reservations about allowing us the same recognition as other allied supporters of LGBT rights.

What we have found most shocking about all of this is that it was not that long ago that the LGBT community stood exactly where we stand now. Fewer than ten years ago, they were being lectured by men with titles and suits that associating with the gay community openly would be too dangerous, and that it was safer for the sake of his campaign to accommodate the bigotry of the electorate.

We are not asking Dustin Lambro or Washington United for Marriage to agree with our opinions regarding religion or the existence of gods, and we are not asking our supporters to vote against marriage equality.

We are asking that the campaign openly acknowledge that we support their goals. We are asking for the same treatment that Lambro has given every Christian group, Jewish group, bakery, restaurant, dog groomer, software giant and coffee bar that has taken the same position in favor of equal rights. We are asking that the campaign be truly united for marriage.

For those who donated time and money to WU4M through the Ask an Atheist fundraiser, we urge you to contact the campaign and request your donation be returned unless and until this poor decision is reversed. For other freethought groups, we urge you to contact WU4M at (425) 954-3252 or via email at <info@washingtonunited.org> and register your anger that a vibrant and sizable segment of Washington citizenry has been told their existence as campaign endorsers is a liability.

Finally, we want to assert that our commitment to marriage equality has not wavered in spite of the hurtful way we have been treated. Religious dogma has no place in determining civil rights and secular laws. We look forward with great hope that the campaign reverses course and accepts our endorsement.

Sincerely,

The Producers of Ask an Atheist

Rebecca Friedman


Ask An Atheist, KLAY 1180 AM

askanatheist.tv

206-420-0997

For a press release about our streaming telethon fundraiser, visit <http://askanatheist.tv/2012/08/08/strea ... s-release/

Sorry there's no news story, I got this in an email today.

This is absolutely outrageous and downright bigoted of them. The irony burns. The dickhead in me hopes the marriage amendment fails just to teach them a fucking lesson, but I know I'll be voting pro-gay marriage as I'm not going to let a small number of ironic bigots destroy marriage equality for everyone else. Atheists remain the single most discriminated against group in America.

[Raw Shark]

Yeah, I'm all for gay marriage, but fuck this specific group right in the ear. You cannot climb another drowning person out of the water, assholes.

[Bright]

Here's a link:

http://askanatheist.tv/2012/08/27/on-th ... -marriage/

Someone in the comments mentions that the Ask an Atheist banner is now featured on the United for Marriage website. With so many logos to sift through (which is nice to see), I have to take their word for it.

[Scottish Ninja]

It is - just scroll all the way down.

[Flagg]

I hadn't heard that. Good to know. Hope they fired that dingleberry.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It's rather unusual for an LGBT rights group to treat atheist groups that way. After all, they're one of their most ardent allies. Glad to see it remedied in the end.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Atheists remain the single most discriminated against group in America.

Speaking as someone who is both gay and an atheist... No. Keep in mind, I actively experience both forms of discrimination.

Difference 1: People think you are weird if you are an atheist. They might think you are a bad person. However, they do not think that there is a massive atheist conspiracy out to corrupt their children. The whole "gay agenda" thing almost reaches the level of blood-libel in some places.

Difference 2: Religious leaders might blame atheists for shit, but they do not then turn around and say atheism should be criminal (anymore. That ended in the late 1800s in the most countries of european descent. Darwin feared being outed for example, until those strictures were lifted in his late life), while homosexuality was criminal in most of europe until sometime between the 1930s and 1980s (depending on the country) and was illegal in many states until 2004.

Difference 3: Atheists enjoy legal protection at the state and federal level from discrimination and housing. Homosexuals do not in some states, and still not federally (we have introduced it every year since 1994, and similar legislation off and on since 1974).

Difference 4: I can be an atheist anywhere outside certain developing countries and be safe. I am not safe as a gay man even in some places within the US. Hate-crimes against atheists are rare compared to hate crimes against gay people

It's rather unusual for an LGBT rights group to treat atheist groups that way. After all, they're one of their most ardent allies. Glad to see it remedied in the end.

Sounds like a decision initially made in some sort of committee. Then, when the bad press happened someone in the organization with a brain made the Executive Decision to tell the committee to go fuck itself. In my experience with Homo sapiens politicocatamites that is what tends to happen.

[Grumman]

Difference 1: People think you are weird if you are an atheist. They might think you are a bad person. However, they do not think that there is a massive atheist conspiracy out to corrupt their children.

They don't? Not even if you get between them and their school prayer or their insertion of iron-age myth into science classes?

[Flagg]

Difference 1: People think you are weird if you are an atheist. They might think you are a bad person. However, they do not think that there is a massive atheist conspiracy out to corrupt their children.

They don't? Not even if you get between them and their school prayer or their insertion of iron-age myth into science classes?

Yeah, AD is way off base on that one. I can't count the number of times I've heard about the "Secular Humanist" conspiracy.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Difference 1: People think you are weird if you are an atheist. They might think you are a bad person. However, they do not think that there is a massive atheist conspiracy out to corrupt their children.

They don't? Not even if you get between them and their school prayer or their insertion of iron-age myth into science classes?

Yeah, AD is way off base on that one. I can't count the number of times I've heard about the "Secular Humanist" conspiracy.

I don't agree with AD on that point as well but his general point remains; as a gay atheist, the barbs of LGBT discrimination is definitely felt a lot more than the religious discrimination on atheists.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Difference 1: People think you are weird if you are an atheist. They might think you are a bad person. However, they do not think that there is a massive atheist conspiracy out to corrupt their children.

They don't? Not even if you get between them and their school prayer or their insertion of iron-age myth into science classes?

Yeah, AD is way off base on that one. I can't count the number of times I've heard about the "Secular Humanist" conspiracy.

Really? I am in Texas and troll street preachers and I never get that one. Not even when the school board tried to change science and history texts to write out the atheist founders and insert John Calvin into the list of great western thinkers everyone needs to know. Hell, I even get the action alerts for the American Family Association and have never seen that term. The only time I ever see atheists and humanists get bandied about as some organized threat is when said action alerts refer to it as a religion threatening christianity in the end-year donation drive and occassionally when the fundies talk among themselves. It is not something I have ever seen used in public. The Gay Agenda thing gets used in public. Broadcast even.

So, forgive me if I give you a skeptical glance while tentatively grabbing my small violin.

[Flagg]

Yeah, AD is way off base on that one. I can't count the number of times I've heard about the "Secular Humanist" conspiracy.

I don't agree with AD on that point as well but his general point remains; as a gay atheist, the barbs of LGBT discrimination is definitely felt a lot more than the religious discrimination on atheists.

I don't disagree that gays get more open discrimination but the fact remains that a majority of Americans would not vote for an Atheist. I think "discriminated" was the wrong word to use in my OP, so point is conceded.

[Simon_Jester]

At a guess, someone in WA United panicked at the thought of handing some church the ammunition "THE GAYS ARE ENDORSED BY GOD-HATERS!"

[Channel72]

Really? I am in Texas and troll street preachers and I never get that one. Not even when the school board tried to change science and history texts to write out the atheist founders and insert John Calvin into the list of great western thinkers everyone needs to know. Hell, I even get the action alerts for the American Family Association and have never seen that term. The only time I ever see atheists and humanists get bandied about as some organized threat is when said action alerts refer to it as a religion threatening christianity in the end-year donation drive and occassionally when the fundies talk among themselves. It is not something I have ever seen used in public. The Gay Agenda thing gets used in public. Broadcast even.

Really? FoxNews is always ranting about the "secular agenda", or "secular progressive agenda", which is basically a blanket term for liberalism/atheism/the set of things that are not conservative-Christian. Whenever there's some dispute about public religious displays all the fundies come out using terms like "atheist agenda" or "secular agenda". Just watch a typical episode of the "700 club" on CBN and count how many times they complain about gays vs. how many times they complain about atheists. It's probably about equal, depending on what's headlining in the news at the moment.

But regardless, it's probably worse to be gay than it is atheist on a day to day basis, so you have my sympathies. The fact that you're atheist is less likely to even come up anyway. Obviously it depends where in the US you live. In many places it wouldn't really matter much at all, but you really couldn't have picked a more difficult place than Texas - (excluding Austin, or so I've heard.)

[CaptJodan]

Good that it was reversed, but I can't see why it happened in the first place. They should be well aware that atheist groups are a major supporter of gay rights, and that a not insubstantial portion of gays are non-religious. It's baffling. I hope the theories are right, that this just came across some numbnuts' desk and wasn't intended to be a slight against atheists. Really stupid if this was intentional and then retracted just because of the bad PR it generated for them.

[Zadius]

There have been polls that suggests atheists are more disliked/distrusted than gays, but I don't think this translates into more discrimination in reality. There's a difference between what people answer in polls and what they really believe. Looking at the gallop poll I linked, gays and lesbians actually were more distrusted than atheists and only surpassed atheists sometime between 1978 and 1999. I would bet it is because the gay rights movement made it increasingly politically incorrect to dislike gays, and people sometimes answer polls with what they know is the politically correct answer rather than what they really believe. People still seem to have a stronger visceral reaction against gays and lesbians, and despite those poll numbers, and I think they are more discriminated against than atheists still today. Atheists haven't had a rights movement that has had that kind of sway, but that is partly because there is less of a need for one. Atheists are protected by all the laws that protect minority religions. I think AD's points are spot on.

That said, gays and atheists do have so much in common that they should be natural allies. We (I'm a straight atheist) have the same enemies, we share the risk of being disowned by family and friends when coming out of the closet, we are accused of being immoral sinners who deserve to burn forever. Being an atheist has given me so more more empathy for what the LGBT community goes through. I would still believe strongly in tolerance towards LGBT people even if I wasn't an atheist, but I honestly may not have been as passionate about it if I wasn't an atheist -- the kind of passion that leads to fundraisers such as the one in the OP. There is a very strong alliance here that shouldn't be squandered.

[Instant Sunrise]

I do know that lately there's been a lot of backtracking and distancing going on between progressive groups and big-A Atheists. Because the Atheist Movement has finally started to get called on harboring a lot of racism, misogyny and homophobia. (pretty much everything involving The Amazing Atheist, the entirety of r/atheism, the elevator incident and subsequent reaction, the hacking of a major listserv and threat to out an atheist blogger who was both a trans woman and recovering addict)

So they could also not want to risk being associated with that.

[Losonti Tokash]

Sorry, but the only way atheists are the most discriminated against group is if you don't count LGBT, blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, women, etc etc. Obviously there's still a great deal of it, but atheists aren't a group that can be easily distinguished in most cases unless they're the type of ass that has to constantly remind everyone around them how big of an atheist they are. And like IS said, there's a bit of distancing going on with high profile atheists just being huge assholes to people, such as when the Amazing Atheist tried to deliberately trigger a rape victim.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

The Amazing Atheist is hardly high-profile.

He is a huge fucking douchebag though. And most of the atheists getting "called on" their shit is being done by other atheists.

[Flagg]

I would say Atheists face the most prejudice, rather than discrimination. After all, how many open Atheists hold federal office?

[Block]

I would say Atheists face the most prejudice, rather than discrimination. After all, how many open Atheists hold federal office?

How many open Atheists have run for office? How many have run for office on platforms that anyone supports?

[General Zod]

I'm not sure how recent this is, but I think this is interesting.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/det ... it-godless

However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected. This provision of the state constitution is similar to provisions in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The provisions follow:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The Amazing Atheist is hardly high-profile.

He is a huge fucking douchebag though. And most of the atheists getting "called on" their shit is being done by other atheists.

Yeah, but that does not make one bit of difference. No one ever said people needed to be rational. One thing one learns being a member of a generally disliked minority group is that the actions of one person reflect on everyone if it gets sufficient press. This is because of confirmation bias and a lack of exposure. People expect atheists to be unethical, and as a result, they remember instances when atheists are douches, and forget the time an atheist (wearing a darwin fish t shirt, as I often do) stops to help them on the road. Hell, the last time I did that the person asked what church I go to (because only christians behave like upright human beings), and was shocked and amazed to learn I am an atheist.

Then there is the lack of exposure. Most people know one or more atheists, but unless said atheist goes out of their way to let those people know through things like an atheist oriented t shirt, no one notices. One of the best ways to defeat prejudice is to build a relationship with someone, and then out yourself, I have found. You provide a counter-example to their bigotry that no amount of cognitive dissonance reduction can selectively forget.

Other than that, the examples most people get are...well... Richard Dawkins. Richard is a great guy. I have had the pleasure of speaking to the man on a few occasions. However, he is a very cordial Englishman with a low bullshit threshold and the usual Straight-White-Male blinders (It is something we just have to get used to. The blinders exist), and can be a bit oblivious at times. So he comes off as a bit of a dick if you are inclined to think of him that way. The other example they get happen to the The American Atheists--who really are a bunch of dicks with a giant steel rod up their collective ass.

I would say Atheists face the most prejudice, rather than discrimination. After all, how many open Atheists hold federal office?

Pete Stark D (CA)

Also possibly Bernie Sanders. He is Jewish, but that does not also mean he is not an atheist, especially given that he is a self-described european style social democrat. Some of his political positions would make him REALLY reform, and he is hard-line on church/state separation issues, and gets a good amount of Atheist-Press. I would consider it likely that he is one, but is culturally/ethnically Jewish.

However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected.

And I bet the ACLU ate it raw.

[CaptJodan]

I'm not sure how recent this is, but I think this is interesting.

Wait, what? Seriously, how is that legal? How does that not violate the separation of church and state? I don't get how those types of statements in the constitution haven't been challenged.

[General Zod]

I'm not sure how recent this is, but I think this is interesting.

Wait, what? Seriously, how is that legal? How does that not violate the separation of church and state? I don't get how those types of statements in the constitution haven't been challenged.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a serious legal challenge to them, but look at the states they're written in and everything is answered.