Psychologist Darrel Ray, who was raised in a conservative Christian household, conducted an online survey to determine the impact of religion on sexual satisfaction.
Ray set out to confirm whether his own experience- that his sex life vastly improved when he ditched religion- bore out among others. Ray, who authored the book The God Virus: How God Infects Our Lives and Culture, sought out 14,500 people who had once been religious or raised in a religious environment before becoming atheist or agnostic. What Ray discovered is that guilt seems to heavily influence sexual satisfaction in many specific subsets of Christianity.
The survey did not adhere to social science study guidelines, but Ray reported the results as follows:
Those who had been raised Mormon with their strict views about sex, showed the highest rating among those who had sexual guilt with an average score of 8.19 out of 10. Others with similar responses were Jehovah’s Witness, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist and Baptist.
Catholics, on the other hand, rated their guilt at 6.34 and Lutherans came in at 5.88. Atheists and agnostics were the lowest in guilt at 4.71 and 4.81.
University of Texas at Austin associate professor Mark Regnerus dismissed the survey as biased and said Ray’s methods were “unscientific,” adding:
“It appears that it was a ‘fill it out if you want to’ kind of survey that is not random, not nationally representative, and relies entirely on self-selection,” he said. “In other words, they have data from people who felt like filling out a survey on atheism and sex. As a result, I am not surprised at their findings.”
Regnerus said the results were based on “hearsay or guesswork,” and opined:
“I don’t fault the author for running the survey he did, but it does display research methods which do not meet the standards of most published social science.”
Indeed, the results would have been a bit more interesting even just stacked against responses from religious folk who consider themselves sexually satisfied. Do you agree with Ray’s findings? Does religion or lack thereof significantly affect your view on sex?
Mohyeldeen Mohammad, who held the main speech in the muslim demonstration against Dagbladet (the newspaper that recently reprinted one of the Mohammed cartoons) last friday, tells Klassekampen (a left-wing newspaper) that gays must be killed.
Mohammad explains that he supports the islamistic al-Shabaab rebels in Somalia, who recently stoned a man to death.
– To my knowledge, that person was a homosexual, and that’s the punishment he deserves. That’s the point of view every muslim is forced to have through his religion, says the 24-year old from Larvik (a town about 2 hours south of Oslo) to Klassekampen.
Mohyeldeen Mohammad has a his roots in Iraq, and currently studies in Medina, Saudi-Arabia.
When asked about why he demonstrated against Dagbladet after saying that muslims don’t have to participate in the Norwegian democracy, he replies:
– The demonstration was a legal way to respond to the attack. In other countries we would have used other methods. Democracy has no place in Islam, because Islam forbids man-made laws. The only one who can create laws is Allah.
He then goes on to reject that a society based on sharia is a dictatorship.
– Sharia is not a dictatorship. It’s the best and most just laws. But today, no countries are ruled by God’s laws. Those who claim to rule according to sharia don’t.
The judge’s ruling said exactly what most people would want to hear in an adoption case.
It said that the 1-year-old boy who had been living with his foster parents was “happy and thriving” — and that a permanent adoption made perfect sense.
It should be a simple story with a happy ending.
Except it is not.
That judge’s ruling — which focused solely on the child’s well-being — enraged some on the religious right.
Why? Because the little boy’s adoptive parents are gay.
So now those who profit from division are pouncing.
They aren’t the people who have cared for this little boy, who have nursed his wounds and tucked him in at night. In fact, they haven’t done a thing for him.
They haven’t consulted the experts — everyone from a child psychologist to a Guardian ad Litem — who say the parents provide precisely the loving environment that this child needs.
All these critics know is that they don’t want gay people to have the same rights as straight people.
So they want him separated from the parents who love him.
“Arrogant judicial activism” was how the finger-waggers at Orlando’s Florida Family Policy Council described the ruling in an alert it sent out to its members last week.
And to make their point about just how frightening this ruling was, the Policy Council included a photograph of the couple — a strange and androgynous-looking duo, one with bleached skin and both with mullet haircuts. The couple look so odd (you literally can’t tell whether they are male or female) that one might wonder how any judge could place a young child with such a disturbing-looking duo.
Except the judge didn’t.
The abnormal-looking couple that the Policy Council chose to illustrate this story is not the same couple granted the right to adopt the child.
No, the two-woman couple awarded custody of the 1-year-old — South Florida trade-show executive Vanessa Alenier and her partner, Melanie Leon — look more like J.Crew models: all-American with catalogue clothes and smiles.
The picture that the Policy Council chose was a grotesque caricature.
These are the dirty tactics of Christianity’s far-right warriors.
Not the majority of mainstream Christians, mind you. Not those who are focused on caring for their own families and practicing their own faith — but those who are obsessed with homosexuality.
These extremists wage their campaigns of intolerance based on deception and misrepresentation.
WASHINGTON — The fight over a proposed same-sex marriage law here heated up this week as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said that if the law passed, the church would cut its social service programs that help residents with adoption, homelessness and health care.
Under the bill, which has the mayor’s support and is expected to pass next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform same-sex weddings or make space available for them.
But officials from the archdiocese said they feared the law might require them to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples. As a result, they said, the archdiocese would have to abandon its contracts with the city if the law passed.
The church’s social services arm, known as Catholic Charities, serves 68,000 local residents, including about a third of the city’s homeless people, who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church, city officials said.
The threat is not the first time a religion-based provider of social services has said it would stop providing services in response to a same-sex marriage law, gay rights advocates say.
In 2006, Boston’s archbishop, Sean P. O’Malley, said that Catholic Charities there would stop its adoption-related work rather than comply with a state law requiring that gay men and lesbians be allowed to adopt children.
On Wednesday, the Washington Archdiocese said it had no choice.
“Religious organizations and individuals are at risk of legal action for refusing to promote and support same-sex marriages in a host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said in a statement. “This includes employee benefits, adoption services and even the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples.”
Ms. Gibbs added that religious organizations like Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or could no longer partner with the city to provide social services.
In the last three years, Catholic Charities has received more than $8.2 million in city contracts, according to the City Council.
“This is a decision that the archdiocese will make on its own, and the city will be prepared to respond accordingly,” said Councilman David A. Catania, the sponsor of the bill.
Councilman Phil Mendelson, a Democrat, said the city would not, based on threats, broaden the exemptions the law offers to religious groups.
“Allowing individual exemptions opens the door for anyone to discriminate based on assertions of religious principle,” Mr. Mendelson said. “Let’s not forget that during the civil rights era, many claimed separation of the races was ordained by God.”
Some religious groups in Washington echoed Mr. Mendelson’s sentiment.
“The Catholic Church hierarchy is at a crossroads,” said the Rev. Dennis W. Wiley, the co-chairman of Clergy United for Marriage Equality and the pastor of Covenant Baptist Church. “They must decide whether they are in the charity business for charity’s sake, or if imposing their will on the D.C. City Council and the citizens of the district is their primary interest.”
But in a letter sent this week to Mr. Mendelson, Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the archdiocese, said the debate over the proposed legislation must be seen in the context of balancing competing interests, and, specifically between “the interest of the homosexual community to be able to marry freely and the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely.”
A manager at a Massachusetts retail store claims he was unjustly fired after he told a colleague he thought her impending marriage to another woman was wrong.
Peter Vadala, 24, told FoxNews.com he was terminated in August from his position as second deputy manager at a Brookstone store at Boston’s Logan Airport after a conversation he had with a manager from another Brookstone store who was visiting the location.
Vadala claims the woman, whom he declined to identify, mentioned four times that she had married her partner. He said he then left the store briefly to visit the airport’s chapel before returning.
“I found it offensive that she repeatedly brought it up,” Vadala said. “By the fourth time she mentioned it, I felt God wanted me to express how I felt about the matter, so I did. But my tone was downright apologetic. I said, ‘Regarding your homosexuality, I think that’s bad stuff.'”
The woman, according to Vadala, then said, “Human resources, buddy — keep your opinions to yourself,” before exiting the store.
Two days later, Vadala, who had been employed for just a matter of weeks, received a termination letter citing the company’s zero-tolerance policy regarding “harassment” and “inappropriate and unprofessional” comments.
“In the state of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal and there will be people with whom you work with who have fiancées or spouses who are the same gender,” the Aug. 12 letter read. “… While you are entitled to your own beliefs, imposing them upon others in the workplace is not acceptable and in this case, by telling a colleague that she is deviant and immoral, constitutes discrimination and harassment.”
Vadala disputes using the words “deviant” and “immoral” during conversations with human resources employees on the matter.
“I did say I regard that lifestyle as deviant, as in deviating from the norm, but I never, ever said to that to the [manager],” he said. “In general, I believe people don’t want to hear about controversial issues like that in the workplace. They shouldn’t have to.”
Vadala, who has not hired a lawyer, said he is considering filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In a statement issued to FoxNews.com, Brookstone President/CEO Ron Boire said a “thorough and fair investigation” had been completed in the matter.
“We do not comment on any specific personnel issues,” the statement read. “However I will say that Brookstone is an equal opportunity employer, meaning that we maintain a healthy, safe and productive work environment free from discrimination or harassment based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, physical or mental disability, or other factors that are unrelated to the Company’s legitimate business interests.
“We are proud of our diverse workforce of varying cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds.”
Asked why he felt the need to comment on the woman’s personal life, Vadala, who has since left the Boston area, said he felt compelled to do so.
“I see, like all real Christians, homosexuals as people who, like me, are sinners and need to be told the truth in a loving way,” he said. “In this situation, I took issue with the behavior. I think it’s lunacy to call that type of behavior marriage in any kind of form. I had to express that I’m intolerant of that behavior. It’s a love-the-sinner, hate-the-sin kind of deal.”
Vadala said he felt “intentionally goaded” by the manager to comment on her relationship.
“She knew how I felt about homosexuality,” he said. “When you talk to someone about something like that, you want their support. She was kind of looking into my eyes for that social cue for me to say, ‘I’m happy for you.’ But I really couldn’t feel happy for her.”
Thanks to JThundley for this story.