Cathi Herrod of the very religious political lobbying group, CAP (The Center for Arizona Policy), just sent out another letter to motivate her followers. She is watching the recent political discourse about marriage and wondering why anyone following the debate would “support the true definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” Based on her email, she seems to believe that the conversation leaves out the meaning and purpose of marriage. She then points out that “the reality is that marriage is the engine that drives our country.” She believes that marriage creates the ideal environment for personal independence, wealth creation, and the nurturing of future generations. She then goes on and uses the 41 year marriage of “Joe and Sarah” to demonstrate her point. Joe and Sarah stayed married a long time and raised two kids. One of their kids decided to adopt and isn’t this a wonderful result? Of course it is, Cathi and no one is arguing that marriage is a bad thing. In fact, most are arguing that it is such a wonderful thing that everyone should be allowed to participate. Going back to Cathi’s story, how will allowing a same sex couple to marry prevent future Joes and Sarahs from having future storybook marriages with great kids and adopted grand kids?

So far, Cathi and the marriage equality folks are on the same page—both believe marriage is a fine institution. Cathi wants to limit it to only one man and one woman but doesn’t make a convincing case for that position. There is more in the email.

She quotes statistics from a study performed at Princeton University that says kids raised in an intact house do better in school and generally have better lives. Lest we forget, Cathi likes kids with the possible exception of kids that turn out to be gay. Last year, she killed an anti-bullying bill on the off chance that it would protect gay kids from harassment. Here’s the VIDEO. In the reporting of Cathi’s action on the anti-bullying bill, they call her a “heavy weight lobbyist.”

She’s calling for prayers. She wants her people to join her at the Sandra Day O’Connor Federal District Court Houses to meet for a prayer vigil. Go for it! Because praying works SO well and by all means let’s do it in public in accordance with the Bible (Matthew 6:5) “When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get.”

The freethinking community of Tucson is not a homogeneous organization. It contains at least as many opinions as there are members. Some leaders within the community refer to their job as “herding cats” but others say it’s more like “herding butterflies.” Cats are limited to two dimensions, after all. However, there does appear to be a bias toward one end of the political spectrum.

Jim Wilson ponders the question, “Why do Freethinkers tend to be so liberal?”

Nonbelievers, Skeptics, Atheists and Secular Humanists tend to hang out at the left side of American politics and many unabashedly identify as liberals, progressives, or support the Left. Other political philosophies can be found, however.  There are Free-Marketers, Ayn Rand fans, and Libertarians along with the occasional self-identified conservative. Some gravitate toward philosophies that fall outside the conventional political spectrum which indicates that it is not necessary to be left-leaning to be an Atheist or Skeptic. Apparently, Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics from all over the political spectrum are less visible than their left leaning compatriots. Still, many Atheists are liberals and progressives; why is that?

Perhaps the conservative movement has declared Freethinkers to be an enemy.  The Right Wing conservative media outlets and think tanks have painted Atheists, Secularists, Secular Humanists, Evolutionists, and Intellectuals as the bad guys.  They believe Freethinkers are communists and un-American. Some go as far as blaming Freethinkers for the attacks on September 11^th.  Many conservatives believe Freethinkers are responsible for many of America’s problems and they long for the times when Freethinkers were less visible and less vocal.  They align themselves with ideologues such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Rick Santorum. The Right Wing has become the home for those who want: religious monuments in government buildings, teacher led prayers in public schools, and science classes that teach the Biblical creation myth instead of science. They are antagonistic to church and state separation, and favor using government to promote religious values.  Above all, the Right Wing is most likely to affiliate itself with the type of moral guardians who vocally oppose birth control, reproductive choice, and marriage equality.

Maybe it’s within the personality of the Freethinker. We live in a very religious society and people who reject religious views tend to be the sort who question other mainstream values such as those associated with marriage, family life, sexuality, artistic expression, etc.  Reactionary elements within the Right Wing demonize and alienate this personality type while the Left embraces it.   Our politics are dominated by two catch-all political parties and Freethinkers such as Atheist, Agnostics, Skeptics, and Scientists are not welcomed by the Right Wing and by necessity identify with the Left.

While the conservative and liberal political philosophies are not ideal, Freethinkers and non-believers tend to be more sympathetic to the liberal side of the so-called “culture war.” Political issues outside the social arena such as the economy or military intervention are areas where Freethinkers and non-believers often disagree and result in interesting discussions at many of our gatherings.

FreeThought Arizona has members and guest speakers from all over the political spectrum.  Many guest speakers identify themselves as liberal or progressive but some prominent ones do not. All that is necessary is that they support science, reason, and the separation of church and state.

This weekend is going to be great, in spite of the weather. The Tucson Festival of Books will be on the University of Arizona Campus, Roy Zimmerman will be performing in town, and the Skeptics of Tucson meetings return to the regular Denny’s restaurant on Speedway. There is plenty to look forward to this weekend.

This year FreeThought Arizona will be at the book fair. Thanks to the dedicated work of the members, we’ll have booths 351 and 352 right in front of the library. The bestselling author Chris Mooney will join with our own local celebrities to sign books. We have freebies to hand out and plenty of literature that visitors can take away. Books, magazines, and pamphlets will be at the booth. Members of FreeThought Arizona will be there to answer questions and engage in conversation and there will be information on the FreeThought Arizona, Tucson Atheists, Skeptics of Tucson, The Secular Student Alliance at the U of A, and American Atheists—all part of the Tucson FreeThinking Community.

On Sunday at 7 PM after the book fair, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson along with the Tucson FreeThinking community is sponsoring a concert by Roy Zimmerman. Tickets, which can be purchased at the door, are $15 for general admission and only $10 for students. He’s calling his tour the Wake Up Call and is sure to appeal to progressive thinkers with folk style songs in the same vein as Joni Mitchell and Tom Lehrer. In fact, Joni Mitchel says, “Roy’s lyrics move beyond poetry and achieve perfection” and Tom Lehrer himself says, “I congratulate Roy Zimmerman on reintroducing literacy to comedy songs. And the rhymes actually rhyme; they don’t just ‘rhyne.’” Progressive comedy and satire available here in Tucson without a two drink minimum, how can you miss that?

Finally, on Monday, the Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group returns its meetings to the Denny’s on Speedway just west of Alvernon. This month we’ll have discussion on articles posted on the Doubtful News webpage. The meeting begins at 7 PM and ends at 9 but people show up early for light conversation prior to the meeting.

Here is a summary of the important links contained in this blog entry:

FreeThought Arizona (associated Meetup Group)

Roy Zimmerman

Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group

 
By Jim Wilson:

For decades one of the few places a public figure can openly challenge religious belief is the wonderful world of stand-up comedy.  Here nothing is taboo and almost anything goes.  Humor and mockery are among the best ways to challenge the commonly held values and assumptions in society.  Comics are often some of our greatest exercisers of free speech in addition to being merely entertaining.I would like to present our readers this collection of some of my favorite irreverent stand-up bits about religion.  (Warning, these are not intended for children or the easily offended and some are NSFW).

1. Bill Hicks’ perfect response to an angry Christian: The end of this clip always makes me happy. I’m pleased to say I’ve used this response to a few believers myself.
2. Sarah Silverman says: Sell the Vatican Feed the World. Though it is technically not part of her standup show, this short by Sarah Silverman makes an excellent proposal for feeding the world, at the Pope’s expense, and provides some nice commentary on papal decadence.
3. Ricky Gervais on Noah’s Ark The former star of The Office, Extras, The Invention of Lying and many other projects, discusses the absurdity of Noah’s Ark.
4. Eddie Izzard: Jesus and the Dinosaurs. This takes on much of the Christian worldview.  My favorite part is when God asks Jesus about what he told his followers about wine.
5. Jamie Kilstein on Gay Marriage A wonderful rant on marriage equality and religious bigotry, also hilarious.  Nothing more needs to be said.
6. Julia Sweeney on the book of Revelation The former Saturday Night Live actress gives her thoughts on the rather psychedelic implications of the last book of the Bible.  This comes from her wonderful film Letting Go of God.
7. Bo Burnham’s Rant During his comedy central special, Bo Burnam breaks into this musical number.
8. Jim Jeffries: God Loves the Stupid Australian comic Jim Jeffries delivers a foul mouth dose of religion bashing, and explains the lack of Kangaroos in the Noah’s ark story.
9. David Cross: Heaven & Squagels The former Arrested Development and Mister Show star, discusses heaven and, as an added bonus, something called Squagels.
10. George Carlin: Religion is BS George Carlin at his best!

I hope you enjoy watching these as much as I have.

In Tucson in the spring, there is a concentration of social activities. We just had a new one on Sunday at the Shanty where we discussed the subject of Atheism and the spectrum that it represents. Atheism is actually simple. All it takes is a lack of belief in God or gods. There are aggressive Atheists and some that are quiet in their lack of belief. Most Atheists are Skeptics, but not all. Very few are Atheists because they are “mad at God” or believe in Satan, although we hear these charges often. To be an Atheist only requires a lack of belief. Richard Dawkins represents the spectrum of belief with a scale that measures from 1 through 7 where a 1 represents a total believer, a strong Theist and 7 represents a person who doesn’t leave any room for a god belief, a strong Atheist. Of course, on his scale a 4 would represent a person who gives God a probability of 50%. Most of the Atheists I know say that they are a 6 on the scale. They are a De Facto Atheist. The probability that God or gods exist is extremely low, almost zero in fact. Here is the entire scale from Wikipedia:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God.
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equally-probable.”
5. Leaning towards Atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
7. Strong atheist. “I know there is no God.”

If I were to make up a histogram chart showing the number of people at each level, there would be a high concentration of 1’s and very few 7’s. It is more difficult to believe that something exists than to say positively that it doesn’t. Most Atheists I know are thoughtful, intelligent people. If you gave them convincing evidence of God or gods, they’d change their minds. Handing evidence to a non-believer is conceivably easier than handing “lack of evidence” to a committed believer. That’s just the breaks but as difficult as that may seem, take a walk in a Christian evangelist’s shoes when they try and convert Atheists to follow their beliefs. In the WikiHow article on converting an Atheist to Christianity they advise the evangelist that “…you may find the person you are trying to convert is better versed in the Bible than you, “ and “Remember that some aspects of God and his existence cannot be explained logically…”

On March 10^th the Tucson FreeThought Community (Freethought Arizona, Tucson Atheists and Skeptics of Tucson), will be hosting a performance by humorous singer/song writer Roy Zimmerman.  The performance will take place at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson Located at 4831 E 22^nd Street.

Roy has been performing satirical folk music since the early eighties, as both a solo artist and a member of the Fore (a group who had the distinction of playing the national conventions of both major parties in 1996).  Roy’s music focuses on political and social issues, and his songs about religious topics have made him quite popular in the FreeThought Community.  Here are a few examples:

1.  Jerry Falwell’s God
2.  I want a Marriage like they had in the Bible
3.  Creation Science 101

Zimmerman’s lyrics often come from an admittedly liberal or progressive point of view and may alienate some more conservative listeners. However, Roy’s performances are fun, enjoyable and often hilarious. The Tucson FreeThought Community is proud to sponsor this fine entertainer along with other entertainers and speakers from a wide variety of view points.

Come and join us for this fun night of song with Roy Zimmer on March 10^th at the Unitarian Universalist Church.  Hope to see you there!

It gives me great pleasure to post this blog entry. Cathi Herod and her homophobic minions were handed a defeat in Phoenix last Tuesday. I posted a blog on the “Red Herring” tactic being employed by the Center for Arizona policy. It took a couple of days to write and I may even have lost a friend over the posting but it’s good to see that reason won out over irrational bigotry in our state capital. At issue was the passing of the amendment to Chapter 18 of the Human Relations Commission section in city code. Here is the declaration of policy as posted in the original blog entry:

It is declared to be among the civil rights of the people of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, to be free from discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and for it to be contrary to the policy of the City and unlawful to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, or marital status, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, OR DISABILITY in places of public accommodation and employment and it is contrary to the policy of the City of Phoenix and is unlawful for employers doing business with the City of Phoenix that are vendors, suppliers or contractors and employ more than thirty-five persons to discriminate against any person because of sexual orientation OR GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION.

As you can see, the intention was to add to the list of folks that companies are not allowed to discriminate against in their public accommodations and employment. For some reason, the CAP believes that companies have a constitutional right to discriminate against people of different sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability and should be free to do so in their public accommodations and hiring.

The note I got from the CAP states that, “On Tuesday this week, approximately 500 people packed into a downtown Phoenix auditorium and witnessed injustice.”Cathi Herod also thoughtfully provided this LINK (local Phoenix news coverage of the vote). Now, Cathi is on the war path claiming that her legal concerns were not addressed by the council. She’s identifying the council members that voted for the measure and reminded her loyal subjects that “elections matter.” The most pleasing part of her note on the subject was the part where she turns her ire on many of the people protesting against the measure alongside her. She states in her note, “I must share my deep disappointment with how some who opposed the ordinance handled their statements.” She further stated that people on her side were:

“using God’s name in a mean-spirited, bigoted way to oppose the ordinance. Or perhaps you heard some oppose the ordinance in ways that I am sure were grievous to God and grievous to those sitting in the audience. A public hearing seldom is the venue in which one should stand up and speak condemnation on others from a supposed Scriptural standpoint. Regrettably, the misguided words of a few who spoke out against the ordinance greatly hurt our testimony.”

How are you supposed to come out against a provision which expands equality without appearing to be “mean-spirited” or “bigoted?” Telling an entire class of people that you’re not entitled to equality is by definition “mean-spirited.”

In any case, good job Phoenix! Way to stand up for human decency against the tyranny of religious bigotry! And Cathi, keep criticizing your supporters we can use the help.

I’ve been sitting on this submission for a little while now for a couple of reasons. Jim Wilson gave it to me after one of our Desert AIR Podcast recording sessions. He makes valid points in the article but I was reluctant to post it due to the fact that I felt it was a personal rebuke of an offhand comment I had made. We were talking about Brother Jed’s pending visit to the campus of U of A and I joked that wouldn’t it be great if we could get one of those speech jamming devices. It was a joke of course not to be taken seriously but unfortunately sometimes jokes are taken more seriously than intended. Now, Jed is gone and by his own reports he doesn’t have any complaints about how he was treated by the Atheists at the University of Arizona.

Here’s Jim Wilson’s article:

Years ago I worked in a call center environment doing some of the most monotonous work the white collar service sector had to offer. I often found that most irritating calls were not those from people who were angry with the company but those of people whose phones caused me to hear an echo of my own voice while working with them.  The echo would quickly derail my train of thought and leave me fumbling for words.   Recently in Japan, scientists have taken experiences such as mine and turned them into a marketable device.  It’s a speech-jamming gun that causes unsuspecting loudmouths to hear an echo of their own words, delayed at .02 seconds.  The echo completely throws their brain for a loop, silencing their speech (More information on this device can be found here:  http://phys.org/news/2012-03-speechjammer-gun-quash-human-utterances.html).

Most of us have had times when we wished we had such a device to point at some obnoxious individual in our vicinity.  Maybe it’s someone who won’t stop chatting in a movie theater or family member who won’t stop going on about the playoffs.  Then again maybe it’s some full-time professional or semi-professional nuisance, like the professional conspiracy theorist, the lying politician, the dishonest salesman, or the racist bigots holding a rally down the street that you would like to point this device at.  Some people are simply jerks and morons who say horrible mean-spirited things.  Some may do it just for the attention, while others may truly be trying to promote their own nasty world view.  The Phelps family, which is famous for protesting the funerals of fallen American soldiers, think that “God hates America” for its tolerance of homosexuality is an excellent example.

The temptation to stifle their speech with a speech-jamming device or even government action, is very strong but it is the wrong approach.  We need to allow people to say whatever hate-filled, bigoted, and crazy moronic things they wish.  Silencing people only legitimizes their cause.  Many of the most hate-filled people out there fancy themselves as victims of persecution.  Doing anything to validate their claims will only make them stronger.  For example, I recently heard it argued that the Bible must be an accurate depiction of reality because it is banned in multiple countries.   This argument makes absolutely no sense but it is a great example of how silencing someone allows them to play the victim card.  In another example, countless people flocked to show support for the bigoted management of Chic-Fil-A after some cities threatened to forbid the restaurant chain from operating within their limits.  In short, silencing people turns them into martyrs to rally around.

It can also lead to the individuals or points of view that one is attempting to silence getting even more attention than they otherwise would.  Attempts to ban the Phelps from protesting in various locations inevitably results in the group getting free publicity and more of the attention they so desperately wanted in the first place.  This greatly parallels the phenomenon known as the “Streisand Effect” in which an individual or group’s attempt to suppress information leads to that information gaining greater circulation and publicity.  The phenomenon is named for Barbara Streisand who tried to prevent pictures of her home from circulating which ultimately led to a greater circulation of the photos.  More information on this can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect.

Silencing ideas also makes these ideas more interesting to those who are unfamiliar with them.  As children many of us were fascinated with R-rated movies or gangster rap music because our parents forbade it.  Some developed an interest in doing illegal drugs largely because they are forbidden.  Removing the mystique that surrounds the forbidden makes it more mundane.  It also opens it up to criticism.  When racists and neo-Nazis are allowed to publicly share what they believe it allows the rest of us to respond by pointing out just how stupid and harmful such ideas really are.

Sometimes the jerks may actually have a point or two or contribute to the conversation.  I know a few people today who years ago would like to have silenced the speech of Atheists and yet they are now Atheists themselves.  Allowing one’s beliefs to be scrutinized by people who disagree makes it possible for one to purge incorrect ideas and to form a more accurate and mature worldview.  Sometimes the most irritating people do have a valid point or two which often makes them even more irritating.  Even the most despicable people may bring some useful insight to the conversation or at the very least they may serve as a useful example of what is wrong with their way of thinking.  Either way, the market place of ideas is enriched when more a diverse array of people participate in it.

Free speech is meaningless when we only apply it to those we agree with. That is why all ideas should be allowed to compete without the threat of being silenced or without government support or favoritism.   I support free speech at all levels of society. That is why I will resist the temptation to buy the Japanese speech jamming device.

By Jim Wilson

Spoiler Alert! The entry discusses in detail some important story elements of Joseph Heller’s acclaimed novel Catch-22.  Those who wish to read the book for themselves should tread no further!

Joseph Heller’s 1961 novel Catch-22 details the trials and tribulations of Captain John Yossarian, a U.S. Army bombardier stationed in Italy towards the end of World War Two.  The somewhat satirical book is widely regarded as being simultaneously funny and disturbing. It documents Yossarian’s numerous attempts to prolong his life by evading his duty to go on additional bombing missions.  He comes to regard the war as essentially already won and resents his commanding officer’s practice of putting the lives of  the 256th squadron in danger solely to advance reputation and ambition.  Heller himself was bombardier stationed in Italy during World War II who flew 60 missions.  He stated that the odds for his survival were not in his favor.  Much of the book was drawn from his own experiences, though he says he never had a bad officer and much of the book’s cynicism came from the Korean War and the Red Scare rather than World War II.

Catch-22 is the obscure military rule that obstructs Yossarian from getting out of flying the increasingly growing number of required missions. Catch-22 is now widely used to describe a no win situation. It stipulates that, “a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that are real and immediate is the process of a rational mind” and those who possess a rational mind are not crazy and must fly their missions.  Only the insane were excused from service and since asking to be relieved was a sign of sanity, this made it impossible to be relieved from duty;  ” If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.”

Of course, no such rule officially ever existed, but because Yossarian’s commanding officer acted as though such a rule did exist, it became very real in practice.  Colonel Cathcart, Yossarian’s commanding officer,  throughout the book continues raising the number of missions each individual is expected to fly before they can go home.  He led his men to believe that each increase would be the last but it was always followed by another.  Yossarian believed the colonel’s dishonesty and willingness to put lives at unnecessary risk, not to mention the residents of the cities being bombed, was driven by personal ambitions and had little to do with advancing the war effort.  Indeed, Yossarian tells another member of his squadron:

“The enemy is anybody who’s going to get you killed, no matter which side he’s on, and that includes Colonel Cathcart. And don’t you forget that, because the longer you remember it, the longer you might live.”

Eventually, Yossarian publicly refuses to fly more missions and captures the attention of Cathcart himself.  Cathcart vehemently hates Yossarian and would very much like to have Yossarian court marshaled but realizes that  Yossarian would get exactly what he wants–to be relieved of flying missions.  Eventually Cathcart and his sidekick, Colonel Korn, decide to make Yossarian an offer.  He can get out of flying more missions on one condition. Colonel Korn’s one condition is, “Like us”. Korn further elaborates the terms of the deal:

“Like us. Join us.  Be our pal. Say nice things about us here and back in the States.  Become one of the boys. Now that isn’t asking too much is it?”

All Yossarian has to do to get out of his missions is publicly speak in favor of Cathcart and Korn. Korn points out that after Yossarian does this it will be much easier for them to coerce the rest of Yossarian’s friends into flying more missions and states that they may even use him as an example. Everything about the idea repulses Yossarian but he considers doing it anyway.  In exchange for this agreement, Yossarian is promised not only freedom from his military duties but a comfortable life as “one of the boys” in Cathcart’s well connected circle of military cronies.

There is a similar Catch-22 found in the Christian faith.   Cathcart and Korn’s offer to free Yossarian from clear and present danger in exchange for compulsory praise is very much like what the Christians think their God offers us non-believers.  We are happy that there is no evidence that the God of the Bible exists. God is depicted in both Testaments of the Bible as a petty, murderous, sexist, capricious, bigoted, genocidal monster. My lack of belief means that he is also not able to put me in the Catch-22 where I am forced to like (no, love) him or be subjected forever to eternal torture.  Any being that would arrange for us to be subjected to complete and utter torment forever unless we submit to ourselves to his complete authority and talk ourselves into liking it, is undeserving of admiration or respect.  Furthermore, such an offer would be a far worse Catch-22 than anything described in Heller’s book.

The Center for Arizona Policy just sent out an email urging Phoenix citizens to contact their city council and tell them to vote no on “the amendment to Chapter 18 of the Human Relations Commission section in city code.” According to the release, the pending amendment will put young children in the crosshairs of sexual predators if transsexuals are allowed to use the women’s public restrooms. Businesses will suffer and churches will be in peril. Cathi Herod hopes that you’ll be squicked out by the prospect of a transgender individual using a women’s public restroom. Aside from being a “Red Herring” argument, no one should care if the feet in the next stall are facing toward the toilet or away. The vote for the amendment will happen on the 26^th of February. You can go onto their web site and make up your own mind but I’m sure they’d rather you just to take the CAP’s word for it that it’s a bad bill and we should do everything in our power to stop it.

As much as Cathi and the Center for Arizona policy would like you to think that it’s all about who can use what restroom, the fact of the matter is that the ordinance in question is simply adding gender identity to the list of things you can’t discriminate against and expands protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s about tolerance and fairness and could very well help the economy of Phoenix.

Here is the Declaration of policy:

It is declared to be among the civil rights of the people of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, to be free from discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and for it to be contrary to the policy of the City and unlawful to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, or marital status, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, OR DISABILITY in places of public accommodation and employment and it is contrary to the policy of the City of Phoenix and is unlawful for employers doing business with the City of Phoenix that are vendors, suppliers or contractors and employ more than thirty-five persons to discriminate against any person because of sexual orientation OR GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION

Here are the talking points expressed in the email

• Churches should not be forced to hire people who disagree with their religious beliefs. Yet under this law, city government will force Phoenix’s religious institutions to either compromise their beliefs, or face criminal prosecution. 
• The Bathroom Bill creates a “sue first and ask questions later” mentality.
• No matter your views on homosexuality, under the Bathroom Bill you will face the threat of frivolous lawsuits.
• It is irresponsible for the City Council to put every child, business owner, church, and religious organization at risk because of a political agenda from a vocal minority.
• Despite Mayor Stanton’s campaign commitment to transparency, the Bathroom Bill has been rushed through city government in order to hide the true atrocities buried in this law. 

Somehow this “bathroom bill,” as they call it, will negatively impact every Phoenix Business—regardless of their views on the issue and will put churches at risk by preventing them from following their faith.

What are restrooms like in churches these days? Is it common to have a men’s room, women’s room, and unisex “family” facility or do they have a “one holer” with a lock on the door? Does every Phoenix business have separate facilities? Of course not! Larger businesses do but the smaller ones have a single toilet. The larger bathrooms consist of sinks with individual stalls.

That’s a lot of bathroom talk for an ordinance aimed at discrimination. Equality Arizona President Rebecca Winiger contends that all the bathroom talk is bogus. “This legislation will have no effect on the bathroom that any individual – transgendered or otherwise – is currently allowed to use.”

Cathi is urging her minions to pray for the ordinance’s defeat but prayers aren’t enough. They also ask you to call politicians and express your deeply held fear of equality to protect the right to discriminate against people on basis of sexual orientation. Apparently a “family value” such as homophobia is just too valuable to trust with simply prayers to the all-powerful creator of the universe.