The Gaytheist Agenda

Several days ago I was reading The Friendly Atheist and came across the story of Mayor Larry Langford, who was dealing with the ever-increasing rate of crime in Birmingham, AL. His answer was to pray and to pass out Bibles to the citizens.

Langford is holding a family summit April 4, where he will hand out 5,000 bibles in English and Spanish.

“I’m gonna give you something far better than a gun to protect yourself with. I’m gonna give you the word of God,” Langford said. “He is the only source of protection you’ve got. I make no apologies for it. I serve a good God and I’m glad He found me.”

Just yesterday Ebon sent me this update on the crime-fighting tactics of Mayor Langford. It seems the Bibles weren’t enough.

Mayor Larry Langford declared Friday as “It’s Time to Pray Day” in Birmingham and will mark the event with a prayer service at Boutwell Auditorium.

Langford made the proclamation Tuesday during the City Council meeting.

“We’re going to pray for a change in this city,” he said.

During the service, participants will be given sackcloth to wear and ashes to put on their skin. The practice is mentioned in the Bible of the Bible as an act of repentance and humility.

Langford ordered 2,000 of the sacks.

“Even if you get upset, we’re still going to have it,” Langford said. “This city needs to humble itself.”

…..

“The moral fiber of this community is also our responsibility,” he said.

Langford also admonished the pastors surrounding him and others not to attend the rally for spectacle, but for a religious experience.

“Do not come looking pretty,” he said. “If you’re too cute to put a little ash on your hands, stay home. If you’re too cute to pray, stay home.”

There are definitely issues with Separation of Church and State there. Beyond that, I wonder if Mayor Langford has ever seen this study from 2005 that debunks the belief that a moral society depends on faith and religiosity.

A STRENGTHENING of religious faith is often raised as the answer to society’s ills. Peter Costello has said, for example, “that a recovery of faith would go a long way” to solving many of our society’s problems. The Prime Minister, too, has publicly argued for the societal benefits of religiosity, claiming that “the Christian religion is the greatest force for good in this nation”. Labor’s Lindsay Tanner, a self-described agnostic, seems to agree, stating that “without some kind of sustained spiritual input” our society will “degenerate into a bleak utilitarian shell that debases us all”.

Many ordinary Australians share the belief that religious faith is an indicator of morality, and it is accepted wisdom that high rates of religious practice correlate with lower rates of crime, promiscuity and abortion.

However, a study published in the Journal of Religion and Society, an American academic journal, set out to test this hypothesis and found there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and public health and social stability. The study, “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies”, compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy using data from the International Social Survey Program, Gallup and other research bodies.

“In general,” writes the author, Gregory Paul, “higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.”

A striking example of this is the US, which has the highest degrees of religious faith and the highest rates of homicide, abortion, STD infection and teenage pregnancy. The least religious countries - Japan, France and Scandinavia - have the lowest rates of violent crime, juvenile mortality and abortion….

He might also be interested in this study that shows prayer doesn’t work–at least not in the way intended.

Seeking to assess the effect of third-party prayer on patient outcomes, investigators found no evidence for divine intervention. They did, however, detect a possible proof for the power of negative thinking.

The three-year Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP), published in the April 4 American Heart Journal, was the largest-ever attempt to apply scientific methods to measure the influence of prayer on the well-being of another. It examined 1,800 patients undergoing heart-bypass surgery. On the eve of the operations, church groups began two weeks of praying for one set of patients. Each recipient had a praying contingent of about 70, none of whom knew the patient personally. The study found no differences in survival or complication rates compared with those who did not receive prayers. The only statistically significant blip appeared in a subgroup of patients who were prayed for and knew it. They experienced a higher rate of postsurgical heart arrhythmias (59 versus 52 percent of unaware subjects). …

It would behoove Mayor Langford to use more proven, practical means of solving his city’s crime problem. Handing out Bibles and forcing his religious faith on the citizens is not the answer. It will solve absolutely nothing, and in fact may make matters worse.

 

What is it that these groups can’t achieve their agendas using facts, rational discussion and cooperative effort? Oh, that’s right. The facts aren’t on their side, and why use rational discussion or cooperative effort when fear-mongering and strong arm tactics have worked so well in the past? Now The Eagle Forum of Alabama is falling back on the tried and the true to enrage local residents against immigrants in a series of workshops called What You Can do About Illegal Immigration.

 

Clearly aimed at riling up nativist fury, the fliers for the event allege that “the average illegal immigrant household receives approximately $30,000 in government benefits each year but pays only $9,000 in taxes.”

The problem, as is often the case with the “facts” nativists dredge up to illustrate the evils of immigration, is that these calculations are wildly misleading at best. The numbers above originate in a quote from Robert Rector that was posted on the website NoFreeMustang.com, a new anti-immigration site put up by the conservative Heritage Foundation where Rector is a senior fellow. The website’s title refers to the difference between the two numbers above, $21,000, which Rector alleges is the net cost taxpayers pick up for undocumented workers. “That’s like buying each of these illegal immigrant families a brand new Mustang convertible,” he claims.

Rector is almost certainly wrong, as is reflected in a fact sheet summarizing immigration studies that was put together by the Immigration Policy Center.

According to a 1997 study by the National Research Council, part of the National Academies that also includes the National Academy of Sciences, “the average immigrant pays nearly $1,800 more in taxes than he or she costs in benefits” each year — and undocumented immigrants receive far less in government benefits (for which they are ineligible) than legal immigrants. Generally, the federal government profits the most, because it gets Social Security and other taxes, while state and local governments pick up such costs as emergency medical services for the undocumented. Still, according to a 2006 study by the Texas state comptroller, even “[u]ndocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.” A 2007 report by the Iowa Policy Project put it like this: “Rather than draining state resources, undocumented immigrants are in some cases subsidizing services that only documented residents can access.”

No surprise there. It’s a constant refrain I’ve heard that “illegals” drain the social service system and produce nothing. Yet much of the RW is very fond of “guest workers” for the lowest of the low work and treats them like slaves. They both claim they hate these individuals, yet secretly want them here so they can exploit them. It’s quite a vicious cycle.

 

That’s not all. Rector’s analysis also fails to take into account the fact that second- and third-generation immigrants increasingly benefit the United States economy, paying more and more taxes and growing the overall economy. And he ignores efficiencies that the economy gains by having these workers available to do the kind of work that most Americans shun, such as agricultural labor. The general consensus among economists is that immigrants of all types — legal and illegal — provide a substantial net benefit to the U.S. economy.

This isn’t the first time that Rector’s been wrong. In 2006, he told the far-right NewsMax.com that the proposed Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill would likely result in a minimum of 103 million legal immigrants in the next 20 years. For that to happen, nearly the entire current population of Mexico would have to migrate to the U.S. And to reach his maximum estimate of 200 million people moving to the United States in that same period, you’d have to throw in the equivalent of the current population of Central America, too.

There are many reasons the bigots put forth for opposing immigration, be it legal or “illegal”. On the surface they’ll speak of laws, the economy, etc. What is often left unsaid except by the more openly racist is that if “too many” immigrants come to the USA from places like Mexico we’ll eventually have more non-whites than we will whites, and the bigots see that as very bad indeed. The notion of the US being anything but predominantly white and English-speaking strikes terror in their hearts. Giving up their majority status, and therefore their self-proclaimed right to run things, is simply not part of their plan. (Have you ever asked yourself why there are no Minutemen and no proposals for a “wall” at the Canadian border?) The fact that Latinos tend to vote Democratic is no doubt a factor in the RW’s desire to keep our South of the Border neighbors out.

 

It’s not surprising that the Eagle Forum is touting misleading information about immigrants. In the last few years, the group has added immigration to its list of social evils, which had long centered on the gay rights movement. In 2005, the group joined the “Secure Borders Coalition.” An alliance of Christian Right groups, hard-right organizations like Accuracy in Media and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and strident anti-immigration outfits including the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, the coalition issued a statement attacking all amnesty and guest worker proposals and vowed to oppose any candidate, regardless of his or her stance on other issues, taking a different tack.

Phyllis Schlafly, who heads the Eagle Forum, has also been a major proponent of the dominant conspiracy theory now animating the anti-immigration movement — the so-called “North American Union,” a supposed plot by global elites to surrender American sovereignty in a planned merger with Canada and Mexico. Schlafly has called for a congressional investigation into the North American Union and for the disclosure of supposedly secret documents related to the non-existent union.

I get the impression that some people might simply fall apart if they didn’t have an “enemy” to hate and fight against. Hence the need to create one. Once the Cold War was over, the RW no longer had an enemy and they began looking within the US. That’s when their war on “immorality” began, and LGBTs and womens’ reproductive rights have been the target ever since. Now that those issues are less lucrative for them both financially and at the ballot box the RW is searching for new ways to whip up the masses. Enter Illegal Immigration. The Mexicans are coming, and they want your money, your jobs and your way of life.

Of course people like those in The Eagle Forum conveniently forget that their ancestors were the original “illegal immigrants”. I rather wonder if some Native Americans wish their forebears were a little stricter about border control.