Nat, you completely missed the entire point of the argument and instead went on the defensive and accused me of attacking all christians.

You put forth a theory that believing in god makes one a better person. I countered that some of the most evil people in our society and in history believe in god, therefore the theory is false. Some good people believe in god, some bad people believe in god, some good people don't believe in god, and some bad people don't believe in god. Your theory is false.

BTW, though I gave examples of christian-based bad people, I assume that the article referred to all gods (and maybe even goddesses?) and religions, not just your version of a christian god.

I have always wondered about the banning of the number "zero" as heresy and the ways that has set us back in "evolution"--the figuring out of ways to either sustain the planet or get off it, yanno? Perhaps we'd be exploring other planets right now, or living on them, or discovering the universe more so than we are doing now, if we hadn't lost so much time due to punished heresy (say, female doctors, even, for example). I don't know--I guess I think of "evolution" as something else and don't put it in terms of morality, such as the impact of cheating or whathaveyou, so that is a bad example for me. I guess I am jaded entirely and see religious beliefs as a set back, spirituality as a set back to science.

There seems to be a catch 22 when it comes to altruism too, but then I am just a jaded athiest, I guess. I have never needed god to put me on a path to altruism and usually want to sin big in the eyes of god. God tends to make me a bit of a deviant.

Your reference to "Churches stuffed to the gills with folks who pray on Sunday and then go out and hate, extort, abuse, lie, cheat, etc." did seem to be a reference very specifically to Christians and it also seemed to suggest that you weren't just talking about "some of the most evil people in our society" but rather people who go to church.

As far as the theory goes, I thought it was interesting - that the experiment with the kids was interesting - and I don't think you know whether it is false for every person of faith. However it's not "my theory" and I didn't agree with everything in the article.

Personally, regarding my own faith, I do feel that thinking of the earth as something holy, as a mother, does help me to be a better person. It's not important for me whether it's a factual, provable belief or not, because that's not what it's about for me. It's more about beauty, meaning, a sense of connection with the universe and other people and other living things. It nourishes me in a way being an atheist did not. It's fine with me if the earth is just the earth and the universe is just the universe, because these things seem pretty awesome to me, even if you look at them only through a scientific lens.

I don't think I misread your disdain for people of faith or Christians, but I'm not omniscient - so maybe I did. If so, I apologize. :) Thanks for clarifying your thoughts.

This post reads like you must have a god to be a lover of the earth. I strenuously object to the idea that being a mother is holy. Being a mother does not make one holy. Holy is about religion. Motherhood has nothing to do with religion.

One does not need to be a 'believer' to see the beauty of the universe. You don't need god to make a connection with the universe. A god is not required to appreciate people or to have meaning in life.

If you found msdemeanor harsh concerning Christian (or any) monotheists, you certainly will not like what I think of them in general. It is a rarity to find a Christian today who has any idea what was taught by their Jesus.

I believe Jesus existed. I think he sounds like a pretty good guy, I think I would have liked him - I hope he would have liked me. I do not, however, believe for a second he was the Son of God. Please.

Jesus was a rebel. He was anti-capitalism. He distrusted the wealthy. A lot of what he said lined up well with socialism. He liked the idea of living communally and pooling resources. He didn't like the idea of "owning" and "consuming" a bunch of stuff - he wanted you to give your shit away to people who had none.

I'm quite sure plenty of people love the earth without religious sentiment and I understNd others don't enjoy the idea of a maternal deity or any deity. I don't advocate anybody believe as I do - I am just tired of seeing Christian-hating going unchecked in the lgbtq community. I think this rather rampant behavior costs the community and also serves to divide the community from within.

But the word holy from the Hebrew just means unique, singular, set apart or not ordinary. Moshe Habertal came to our synagogue and talked about this. Holy or kadosh from this perspective is not about religion. The word is applied to G-d because in Judaism G-d is the One. But the word itself can be applied to other things. This happens a lot when we start to use short hand explanations for things. The nuance is lost. I know it is not a nuance you care about Toughy! I do though and I like to understand the root of words.

But you are right in that a belief in anything is not necessary to appreciate people or find meaning in life.

MsD:

Actually, the point that Nat invoked is actually pretty good, solid evolutionary biology. I understand the point you are making and don't, necessarily, disagree with any particular point of it. However, the idea that religion is an evolved adaptation has some fairly good support for it. While reams of paper has been used to delve into this matter, I'm going to try to give a Cliff's Notes version of it. Before I start the explanation though (which is elegant and I hope I can do it justice) I have two caveats that I ask you to keep in mind: 1) When I talk about nature "designing" or "wanting" or "intending" I mean it *only* in a metaphorical sense. Things happen in nature, some of those things are solutions to various engineering problems, when looked at in retrospect it appears as-if nature was trying to get to a particular solution when, in fact, things just happened. 2) I am not a fan of group selection models, I think they are fundamentally flawed most times, however religion *may* be one of those instances where there is some selection pressure on groups. However, we can get to the same place without invoking group selection but for these purposes here, I'm going to use an explanation *as-if* groups were the unit of selection in regards to religion. So that out of the way...

Humans are a social species and in the environment in which we evolved we lived in small, fairly tight-knit bands of around 150 people or so. While there was, of course, out-breeding most members of any given band were related to one another through either blood or marriage. What this meant is that in any given group, your genetic interests and my genetic interests were similar while not being identical. Because our genetic interests are similar, it behooves us to cooperate and maintain social harmony most of the time. However, because they are not *identical* if you can get the best of me and get away with it then you can promote your genetic interests over mine. This is the problem of any social species that aren't hymenoptera (ants, bees, etc.)--we need to cooperate but *perfect* cooperators are vulnerable to free riders. So for species like ours the most stable strategy is cooperate most of the time and cheat if you can get away with it.

There are certain things that are destructive to social harmony. There's the obvious big ones--theft, murder, rape, lying and infidelity, however there's *also* things like hoarding or boasting that can be destructive to harmony and group cohesion. Most tribal groups have prohibitions against, for instance, being a braggart. Even the best hunter, who everyone in the group *knows* is the best hunter, will face disapproval if HE claims to be the best hunter. But how to enforce these rules? Well, you can *try* to just convince people that this is in the their best interest. However, that argument may not work effectively. Far better if human brains had one or more modules that could be exploited for the purpose of making people believe that they were always being observed and that a breach of the rules or taboos would result in punishment. So are there such modules?

Yes, there are at least in play. The first is an overactive agency detector. The second is our penchant for bartering. The third is an overactive belief engine. The agency detector works sort of look like this; imagine you're out on the savanna in the tall grass. You hear the grass rustle and now there's a question before you; is it a lion or is it the wind. The answer can have serious consequences to one's reproductive fitness, to say the least. If you guess wind and it's a lion, you're eaten. We are the descendants, however, of people who imputed agency to the rustling grass and decided that it was caused by a lion. Here's the thing, even if you impart agency (the lion) to the rustling and it turns out that you're wrong and it was just the wind, you're out some calories but you live. If you get it wrong the other way, you're lunch. So our brains are tolerant of false positives (guess lion when it's wind) but not of false negatives (guessing wind when its lion). The penchant for bartering is so obvious that I won't belabor the point. The belief engine deserves some explanation. Anyone who has raised children know that kids will believe what the adults in their lives tell them. Again, there are very good evolutionary reasons this should be so.

So there we are: We tend to believe what our parents or elders tell us (the gods will be angry if you do X which is why X is not done). We tend to believe that, for instance, since the Sun moves across the sky someone must be behind the movement (imputing agency) and we tend to barter with other intelligent agents. None of those brain modules are 'for' religion but there are lots of parts of our behavioral repertoire that are cases of us hijacking one mental tool to achieve a different end. For example, we are all doing it right now as you read this. We didn't evolve to read, our brains did evolve to use language and we hijack the language module(s) and bond them with the vision modules to allow us to read.

So having explained the mechanics of it, why would this evolve? Imagine two groups living on opposite sides of, say, a valley. There are limited resources in this valley and both groups have need of those resources. Now, one group has a belief that they are watched by the gods or their ancestors. Even when tempted to cheat the thought that the gods or ancestors can restrain people. When conflict arises with the other group the group with gods is more cohesive *and* more willing to see the other as alien and deserving of destruction. Over time, any genes that create the right mental conditions for religious belief will proliferate through a population and become fixed.

This can *all* be true in the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptation) while having quite different effects in the current environment. Whenever we're talking about human behavior that evolved, it is useful to jettison--as much as possible--everything you know about humans living in modern cities and think about us as nomadic, hunter-gatherers living on the African savanna because while that's not where our *bodies* live anymore, our brains haven't gotten that memo.

Cheers
Aj

Two good points, T! Firstly, I used to be a theist and I have found that my appreciation for nature--in all its form, horror and splendor--has only been deepened by jettisoning any kind of divine being and just letting nature be, well, nature. There is something deeply humbling to realize that my brief life doesn't even *register* in the Universe. 80 years? That's nothing at all. You can't even really track geological changes that short and astronomical changes are right out! When I contemplate what a cat looks like to a bird or a rodent, I am in awe that both the bird and the cat are evolved creatures. When I think about the fact that birds are the only surviving descendants of the dinosaurs, I am awed. When I think about the fact that at the center of our galaxy is a supermassive black hole that is *billions* of times more massive than our local star, I am awed. When I think about the distance between us and the sun (93 million miles) and that it takes light 8 minutes to get here, I am made painfully aware of my own smallness. These are all good things.

Nat, you make a good point however, it can't be said that Christianity hasn't--in some very significant ways that need not be belabored--*earned* the distrust and/or wrath of the GLBTQ community. Do I hold all Christians responsible for the behavior of some Christians? No. Do I hold Christianity responsible for its own theology? Yes. The theology of Christianity--at least traditionally--isn't the warm, fuzzy, ecumenical Christianity that most LGBTQ Christians practice. I sit somewhere between your position and MsD's and Toughy's although clearly closer to theirs than yours. I tend to think that divine beings are unnecessary kludges and inelegant hypothesis however I also recognize that I am a distinct minority of all human beings who have ever lived.

My reading of Nat's post, if read to the end, professes her personal belief, on the one hand, and an admission of other possibilities, on the other hand, Toughie. Neither makes a lot of difference to her. She simply states her marvel with nature, or "creation," as something sacred to HER.

I agree with you, Toughie, that MANY Christians do not have a clue about who/what Jesus was, or their views are limited. However, I would not even say most, unless you speak primarily of those in the U.S. There has been, after an unsuccessful attempt to snuff it out, a rebirth of Liberation Theologies.

The first of these initially began at Medulin, by Catholic Latin American theologians (who were all, at that time, all male). Using the framework of Paulo Freire's Pedogagy of the Oppressed, these theologians reread the Greek Bible through Friere's lens and from their own experiences working with the poor. They developed what is known as the "preferential option for the poor" theology, something that they read in the words and life of Jesus.

Following the Latin American Liberation theological movement, came the Black Liberation Theology, then, Feminist, and so on. These liberation theologies and theologians, especially in "Latin" America, fought oppressive governments and many were martyred with the people. The Pope silenced many of these men. Some were not to be silenced. A few left the church. The movement was thought to be dead.

In the interim, Latin American, Womanist, and Mujerista theologies developed. There followed women from various parts of Africa and of Asia. There is a new LT movement afoot. It is only a few years old, and for the first time, women and men are working together. The primary focus is the liberation of the poor and the oppressed. NO MATTER WHAT THEIR, the poor's, CONSTRUCTION OF GOD/S OR THE UNIVERSE.

There is a new Bible ... well, it is a few years old now ... the exegesis of original writings and the reflection of its meanings by Biblical scholars in Germany (not translated). The team that worked on this translation was led by Feminist and Liberation Theologian, Luise Schottroff and Dorothea Solle (RIP). The government terrorized these scholars because they have gone against tradition in their work. Luise taught in the U.S. for a while. I was one of her students. Her teaching on antiJudaism in biblical exegesis opened the eyes of many.

In the midst of fundamentalist religionS (deliberate capitalization) all over the world, in the midst of their loud truth claims, there are others who have a different voice, a different word, a different understanding. They are not a "few", they are many, but their voices are not loud enough, any more than ours are loud enough here on this website to counter the homophobia that presses down on all of us. But they, like we, continue.

Like Nat, I am disturbed with the anti-Christian rhetoric that seems to be in vogue in the community. Should we eliminate MLK's work and vision because he was a Christian. His Christianity, his understanding of the Bible is what led him to be the spokesperson that he was. Should Ivone Gebara, a Brazilian nun who works with the poor who live on the garbage heaps and writes of ecofeminism and the poor, be discounted because she is Christian? Should Adi Maria Issasi Diaz, who, in her work, En La Lucha, describes the theorizing of poor women, be dismissed because she is Christian? Should Katie Canon, whose PhD was based on Alice Walker's definition of womanist, and who is an episcopal priest, be dismissed? Katie has an international group of woman, religious women, mostly, but not all, Christian (some are Muslim, some both Muslim and Christian ... how novel - sarcasm here). Rosemary Radford Ruether stays within the Catholic church, bless her heart, and has/is helped women in the process of ordination, against the wishes of the Pope. Rosemary has written brilliant essays on why priests should marry. She is powerful enough to have the University of San Diego, undr pressure from the Bishop, retract the invitation to be the speaker at graduation there year before last. She is so powerfully feared that the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley's three Catholic institutions threatened to pull out of the Union if she came there as Professor. She came as Professor of Theology in the most liberal of the schools ... and the Catholic institutions did not leave afterall. Should she be dismissed? That is what the Catholic Church is doing to her.

There are people all over the globe who are making efforts to change their various churches and denominations. They are struggling against the fundamentalists truth claims. For me, it is sad that there is so little understanding of the struggles going on within Christianity. Evertime I hear some universalizing statements about Christians, it makes it feel that the struggle is so much harder. IMO, people who are trying to undo the wrong, to move in different, more progressive directions, should receive support, not condemnation, or be judged "guilty by association" (with Christianity). People are making changes, but are condemned by association by both "sides." How strange is that?

As for me, I call myself a Christian because of who Jesus was, and what he said. Like Betonoir, at least to some extent, I find it difficult to believe that one man was sent in one particular point in time, to save one people (and later learned from a WOMAN that he had to stretch further!). I believe that people are sent, or come along, according to the culture and needs of a particular time. And, of course, they are "sacrificed." Like Ghandi. Like MLK.

Please excuse the length of this tome. This is a troubling discussion for me. I came to work early to use the computers in the lab so that I can get this off my chest, and to also lend support to Nat. Thanks for your patience!

Can you tell me if the woman who coined the neologism "kyriachy" is part of this Liberation Theology movement. I know she is a theologian at Harvard? I can't remember her name. Excuse me if you mentioned it above.

I say I am a Dianic Wiccan. That does not mean I believe in a Creator/personal diety. I don't.

The (goddess) archetypes found in giving a name to the attributes of the people and the world speak to me. It gives me a way to order parts of my world. I need that because I believe I need to feed both my intellect and my emotion. Intellectual understanding and emotional understanding are two different critters.

The mind is an amazing thing. Electricity and Chemistry combined. Your brain can create a feeling of the 'hand of god' with electrical stimulation only. Your brain can create hallucinations all by it's self. I like accessing that part of my brain chemistry that elicits joy, peace, love. I can do that with any of the forms of Buddist/Hindu meditation and chanting. Meditating is not really about asking for something from someone outside your self.

I do not pray because prayer is asking for something from outside myself. All the answers are inside me. I am.

----
lgbtqi folks having issues with or hating Christians is divisive because some of us are Christians???.............I for the life of me have no idea how any member of this community would want to be a follower of the God of Abraham. It makes absolutely no sense to me. But it's not my choice and it's not my problem. To each their own. It is not my place to judge anyone (within certain boundaries).

As to hate............I don't hate anyone. I repeat I don't hate anyone. I wonder how anyone can live with themselves if they live in hate. Such an awful place to be. Hate and fear go hand in hand. I am not about to give my power to hate and fear. I give my power to compassion and joy.

That would be Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza. And, you are correct, she is at Harvard, the list time I heard.

I did not mention her, although she crossed my mind. There are just do many.

I'm back on the smartphone ...:(

He was also a radical Jewish activist according to quite a few Jewish scholars. Christians have totally coopted him, if he did exist in my opinion. And then some, not all, will say Jews are screwed and facing hell. That kinda logic is not in my definition of "evolved".

The message of Jesus was liberation theology/social justice. The Catholic Church sure did defrock a bunch of priests over that.

What appears to be mainstream Christianity has nothing to do with that message or Jesus. Mainstream Christianity is rapidly becoming a message of hate. You cannot deny that.

I use the word appears for a reason. Where are this generation's MLK or other great leaders to counter the message of hate? The overwhelming majority of media is about hate, not social justice. That appears to be mainstream then. Where are the social justice leaders?

and, now, Beck spits out the words *liberation theology* like it is a disgusting concept perverting the message of Christ and/or Christianity.

I don't think there is a pretty answer to wrap up the divide between the GLBTQ community and what many of have suffered/are suffering at the hands of those who invoke their Christianity as a means to hate us. The Christian, Mormon, and Catholic unabashed disdain for our community is not something we can say doesn't exist.

I had a band of christian mothers demand that my son be expelled from school because of the presence of myself with my partner at that many concerts and performances because it's a Fine Arts Academy. I swear to GOD they went all the way to the school board.

Do I hold all Christians responsible? No. Do I hate Christians? No. Want to know why? Because REAL CHRISTIANS would not participate in that kind of hatred. Unfortunately, this country is brimming with people who think that they are Christian while at the same time practicing a religion that in no way resembles the teachings of Christ.

Should I pretend things like this video are not prevalent in my life? I can't. But I promise that it doesn't mean I'm a God hater because I refute the hatred thrown my way.

Toughie, I did not mean to infer that you hate. I don't believe that I said that. My address above came from frustration, not so much from your post, but the collective put downs.

To each his/her own. I no longer believe in goddess worship because, for ME, it has only swung the tables on patriarchy. It is not rational to me to eliminate half the population from edification. Whatever it is that is within me, I do not believe has a gender at all. Nor a material form. Like Shug Avery, in the Color Purple, *I* think that G-d is an "it."

All this does not exclude my annual participation in the SF Goddess Conference. I am simply drawn to rituals. Many are beautiful and meditative. My "religion" is truly synthetic. There are bits in many that hold value for me

That's so messed up, SuperFemme, and am sorry you and your family experienced such hatred and ignorance.

I am curious as to how the Board and/or school responded or resolved these complaints if you don't mind sharing.