Dad links son's suicide to "The God Delusion"

[Pint0 Xtreme]

This caught my attention. Does anyone doubt the validity of this statement?

I can imagine an SDNet thread, "Dad links son's suicide to 'Preventing Homosexuality'", and then reading a two-page chain of posts decrying the Homophobic Fucktard Professors, and asking what the heck is wrong with this country where insensitive people like that are allowed to teach in public schools and universities.

One read-through of the Mississippi Prom thread (link) is sufficient to see this. Granted, the prom thread involves a board acting in an official position to kill an event, while in this hypothetical it's a professor acting on his own, out of a desire for one-on-one exchange of ideas. But only part of the rage in that thread is about abuse of power and separation of BackwardsBeliefs And State. The other part is outrage at the backwards beliefs themselves, and no doubt they'd also appear in this hypothetical.

So. With that said. Consider the two scenarios: one has a Christian shoot himself ostensibly(!) because of the Dawkins anti-religion book. The other has a gay student shoot himself because of the effects of reading an anti-homosexuality book. Should official reaction differ between these two scenarios? Should both scenario's professors be considered free from fault? Would this board be as willing to say of the gay student "if a book made him do that, he had issues anyway!"? Or is there a legitimate reason why one scenario should elicit a different reaction from the other?

Let's see... the former scenario involves a book that shatters a person's irrational beliefs that were reinforced by a lifelong process of social, religious reinforcement. The latter involves a book that reinforces ideas that are emotionally damaging to an individual who's presumably in the middle of their most sensitive phase of their coming out process and also has a very high degree of internalized homophobia instilled by a lifelong exposure to social homophobia. Somehow, something tells me the two scenarios are hardly logically analogous despite its seemingly similar characteristics on the surface.

[Stofsk]

So. With that said. Consider the two scenarios: one has a Christian shoot himself ostensibly(!) because of the Dawkins anti-religion book. The other has a gay student shoot himself because of the effects of reading an anti-homosexuality book. Should official reaction differ between these two scenarios?

Yes, to an extent. Homosexuals are discriminated against in the country by far and wide, to a degree Christians are not. To compare the two would be like apples to oranges.

Should both scenario's professors be considered free from fault?

Depends on the circumstances. Ultimately the person most responsible for their suicide is the one who commits the act in question. Blaming a professor who just challenged his student to read a book doesn't seem like it would have a leg to stand on, but then again as I mentioned above, homosexuality is far more discriminated against in society than Christianity is. Which means there may be more to the latter scenario.

Would this board be as willing to say of the gay student "if a book made him do that, he had issues anyway!"?

I don't know if the rest of the board would, but I would. Suicidal thoughts and tendencies are not the result of just one thing or object. The father is pointing the finger of blame at the book, which is scapegoating behaviour. You could argue he is letting his grief cloud his objectivity. All people who commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide have deep rooted problems that did not begin and culminate with reading one goddamn book. To suggest otherwise ultimately diminishes the very real problems a lot of these people cannot come to terms with. At best you might be able to say it was the straw the broke the camel's back, but that camel had to be pretty fucking overloaded with shit for them to contemplate offing themselves as a viable solution to their (perceived) insurmountable problems.

[Red]

(abridged) Let's see... the former scenario involves a book that shatters a person's irrational beliefs... The latter involves a book that reinforces ideas that are emotionally damaging to an individual who's presumably in the middle of their most sensitive phase of their coming out process... Somehow, something tells me the two scenarios are hardly logically analogous despite its seemingly similar characteristics on the surface.

Yes, to an extent. Homosexuals are discriminated against in the country by far and wide, to a degree Christians are not. To compare the two would be like apples to oranges.

The point you are making is correct and relevant. However, I'm afraid I don't follow the objection that the scenarios are not comparable. The shattering of the lifelong irrational beliefs can be just as damaging as the attack on an individual in the most sensitive period. Yes, homosexuals have less power and acceptance* than Christians in some areas; but is this reality enough justification for us to react to the two scenarios differently? Must we be more cautious in challenging one person's beliefs and values than another--depending on whether or not the position challenged is currently in the minority or is oppressed? I would think both should be held equally against the razor of truth...

Otherwise, allow me to register agreement with a lot of what Stofsk wrote.

*yes, I made a blanket statement without sources or statistics. However, I hardly expect any serious poster here to object to the assertion that, when it comes to civic freedoms and being able to walk safely alone at night, a Christian faces less persecution than a homosexual.

[Jaevric]

So. With that said. Consider the two scenarios: one has a Christian shoot himself ostensibly(!) because of the Dawkins anti-religion book. The other has a gay student shoot himself because of the effects of reading an anti-homosexuality book. Should official reaction differ between these two scenarios? Should both scenario's professors be considered free from fault? Would this board be as willing to say of the gay student "if a book made him do that, he had issues anyway!"? Or is there a legitimate reason why one scenario should elicit a different reaction from the other?

I'm no debater, but here it goes...

Christianity is a belief about an invisible sky pixie who lays down more-or-less arbitrary rules that he expects people to follow if they don't want Bad Things To Happen To Them. People aren't born Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or any other religion. People are indoctrinated with those beliefs, usually by their parents or another authority figure. People can, and do, change religions when they find one that either appeals more to them or actually realize that the religion they were raised into is unrealistic.

Homosexuality isn't a "belief" that can be challenged through factual presentation of other options. I'm a straight guy, and you know what? It doesn't matter how many sexy naked men you show me, I'm not going to suddenly want to start banging guys. I seriously doubt any of the homosexual board members will pop into this thread and say "Yes, if you showed me enough examples of attractive members of the opposite sex, I'd probably become heterosexual."

It's a dumb comparison, and only a fundy could even attempt to trot it out with a straight face.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The point you are making is correct and relevant. However, I'm afraid I don't follow the objection that the scenarios are not comparable. The shattering of the lifelong irrational beliefs can be just as damaging as the attack on an individual in the most sensitive period. Yes, homosexuals have less power and acceptance* than Christians in some areas; but is this reality enough justification for us to react to the two scenarios differently? Must we be more cautious in challenging one person's beliefs and values than another--depending on whether or not the position challenged is currently in the minority or is oppressed? I would think both should be held equally against the razor of truth...

Otherwise, allow me to register agreement with a lot of what Stofsk wrote.

*yes, I made a blanket statement without sources or statistics. However, I hardly expect any serious poster here to object to the assertion that, when it comes to civic freedoms and being able to walk safely alone at night, a Christian faces less persecution than a homosexual.

How many people commit suicide when exposed to ideas that contradict their religious beliefs? Is there a documented and evidential link between religious deconversion and suicide? Compare that to the link between homophobic messages and the emotional harm it inflicts on LGBT individuals. There is a reason why roughly a third of all youth suicides are LGBT-related.

[Serafina]

"Here's another thing," he continued. "If my son was a professing homosexual, and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry.

"He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit.

"But because he's a Christian, I don't even get a return telephone call," the father told WND.

This caught my attention. Does anyone doubt the validity of this statement?

I can imagine an SDNet thread, "Dad links son's suicide to 'Preventing Homosexuality'", and then reading a two-page chain of posts decrying the Homophobic Fucktard Professors, and asking what the heck is wrong with this country where insensitive people like that are allowed to teach in public schools and universities.

One read-through of the Mississippi Prom thread (link) is sufficient to see this. Granted, the prom thread involves a board acting in an official position to kill an event, while in this hypothetical it's a professor acting on his own, out of a desire for one-on-one exchange of ideas. But only part of the rage in that thread is about abuse of power and separation of BackwardsBeliefs And State. The other part is outrage at the backwards beliefs themselves, and no doubt they'd also appear in this hypothetical.

So. With that said. Consider the two scenarios: one has a Christian shoot himself ostensibly(!) because of the Dawkins anti-religion book. The other has a gay student shoot himself because of the effects of reading an anti-homosexuality book. Should official reaction differ between these two scenarios? Should both scenario's professors be considered free from fault? Would this board be as willing to say of the gay student "if a book made him do that, he had issues anyway!"? Or is there a legitimate reason why one scenario should elicit a different reaction from the other?

Well, if it is just one book, it won't cause suicide unless there is an immense self-delusion going on in that student (which, when cracked, depresses him so much that it might cause suicide).
Therefore, i would immedeately assume that there is more than just "he made him read a book" to both cases.
And while it is possible that a christian gets so indocrinated by his faith that losing his beliefs might cause a suicidal crisis, i do not see that possiblity with a gay person unless he is also heavily religious - otherwise, the book would get shrugged off easily.

[Darth Wong]

The point you are making is correct and relevant. However, I'm afraid I don't follow the objection that the scenarios are not comparable. The shattering of the lifelong irrational beliefs can be just as damaging as the attack on an individual in the most sensitive period.

So? A sufficiently neurotic individual could be triggered by all manner of stimuli. It doesn't mean that the stimuli in question should be treated as malicious or harmful. There are people who have become suicidal after watching Avatar, because the real world is not as fantastic or colourful as the Avatar world (seriously, this has actually happened to some people). Does this mean that Avatar is just as "damaging" as a vicious attack on an individual?

You're just fishing for some flimsy reason to pretend that it's harmful to dispel falsehoods. If there is a culprit here, it's the pre-existing neurosis, which apparently led him to have such a fragile outlook on life that a blow to his faith would destroy his entire world-view and lead to his suicide. People like this are like people who suffer from severe peanut allergies. If such a person should die, it does not mean that peanuts are evil. It means that an unfortunate tragedy occurred because something was wrong with him already.

[Red]

You're just fishing for some flimsy reason to pretend that it's harmful to dispel falsehoods. ... It means that an unfortunate tragedy occurred because something was wrong with him already.

... sir, I don't think I've said anything one way or the other. I'm interested in whether or not the two situations should be handled differently; if there is some fundamental difference between the two that would make us react with more disdain to the one professor or the other; to put more personal responsibility on the one distraught college student or the other.

So far, some people like Pinto seem to seem more sympathetic for the hypothetical gay student than for this Christian student, because LBGT people face a lot of persecution and have high rates of {insert unpleasantness here}. However, Serafina finds it marginally more likely that a book that destroys your faith might be more harmful than a book that destroys your sexual orientation identity.

Anyway. I'm not making a statement about the professor in the article, or the student, or the book. I'm just asking, does that fact that this is an article about the dismantling of someone's "god delusion" make it different from a similar article about an academic attack on someone's "homosexuality disease"?

[The Defenestrator]

I can imagine an SDNet thread, "Dad links son's suicide to 'Preventing Homosexuality'", and then reading a two-page chain of posts decrying the Homophobic Fucktard Professors, and asking what the heck is wrong with this country where insensitive people like that are allowed to teach in public schools and universities.

One read-through of the Mississippi Prom thread (link) is sufficient to see this. Granted, the prom thread involves a board acting in an official position to kill an event, while in this hypothetical it's a professor acting on his own, out of a desire for one-on-one exchange of ideas. But only part of the rage in that thread is about abuse of power and separation of BackwardsBeliefs And State. The other part is outrage at the backwards beliefs themselves, and no doubt they'd also appear in this hypothetical.

So. With that said. Consider the two scenarios: one has a Christian shoot himself ostensibly(!) because of the Dawkins anti-religion book. The other has a gay student shoot himself because of the effects of reading an anti-homosexuality book. Should official reaction differ between these two scenarios? Should both scenario's professors be considered free from fault? Would this board be as willing to say of the gay student "if a book made him do that, he had issues anyway!"? Or is there a legitimate reason why one scenario should elicit a different reaction from the other?

The God Delusion is a book about the nonexistence of God. If someone reads it and is convinced, they'll become an atheist. The anti-gay book you're talking about is part of a campaign to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation, and in the hypothetical it's being given to someone who it's obvious will feel attacked by it and who already gets the same message from other places as well. Giving someone an atheist book or a christian book or any other book arguing for a belief is not the same thing.

[Darth Wong]

You're just fishing for some flimsy reason to pretend that it's harmful to dispel falsehoods. ... It means that an unfortunate tragedy occurred because something was wrong with him already.

... sir, I don't think I've said anything one way or the other. I'm interested in whether or not the two situations should be handled differently

First you have to establish that they are analogous, otherwise the question of whether they should be handled differently is trivially easy to answer.

You have not done this, apart from simply acting as if they are. The scientific evidence clearly refutes anti-homosexual hate literature. The same is not true for Dawkins' statement that religion is a collective delusion. Moreover, anti-homosexual hate literature clearly attempts to describe homosexuality as evil, which is a considerably harsher criticism than merely calling it a "delusion".

[Red]

First you have to establish that they are analogous, otherwise the question of whether they should be handled differently is trivially easy to answer.

You have not done this, apart from simply acting as if they are. The scientific evidence clearly refutes anti-homosexual hate literature. The same is not true for Dawkins' statement that religion is a collective delusion. Moreover, anti-homosexual hate literature clearly attempts to describe homosexuality as evil, which is a considerably harsher criticism than merely calling it a "delusion".

Ah, it would be more accurate to say that I was asking for what reasons why would not be analogous. Do you think that the nature of the content should be part of what we base our decision on? We should be upset with the professor that pushes anti-homosexual literature because it flies in the face of scientific evidence, while we tolerate the professor in the article because the book he pushed did not violate science so?

Or, do we look more kindly upon this article's professor because the book merely called the belief a delusion, while we would abhor the hypothetical professor for pushing propoganda that calls homosexuality evil? In this case, would we be equally upset with a professor who pushed literature that called religion utter evil, in the manner that anti-homosexual literature refers to LGBT? (Rand or Nietzsche come to mind)

I apologize, I'm having trouble seeing where the (superficial?) analogy doesn't hold. Both situations--the article's story and the hypothetical anti-homosexual scenario--involve the core belief and social identity of the student being challenged by the professor, who suggests the student read a book which flatly disagrees with the lifestyle--Christian, or homosexual--of the student. One professor says "Oh, so you believe in the Christ? Why don't you read what Dawkins thinks* about your beliefs and underlying motivations?" while the other says "Oh, so you enjoy a homosexual identity? Why don't you read what the Focus on the Family organization thinks about your identity and underlying motivations?"

There may be some differences between a challenge to someone's religious beliefs and a challenge to someone's orientation (though, does this line not blur if the anti-homosexual text is religious in nature, a "God wants you to be straight" tract?). I agree entirely with the sentiments posted so far about the struggles LGBT teens face, for example. Part of what I want to know, is in what way people consider the two challenges to be different, or if they are much the same.

My main question is, do those very differences in context justify a different reaction towards the professor and the book author in these two cases? Should the suffering of LGBT teens and the comparative lack of suffering from a Christian teen in America weigh into this decision? Or is any difference in reaction driven by other factors, such as an objective measure of how the professor's pushed literature aligns with scientific research, or how harshly critical the literature is of the position it's decrying?

* having not read The God Delusion, I'm making an assumption about what the book says about religion. Please correct me if I'm off the mark here.

[Darth Wong]

Tell me, do you think it's equally wrong to say that smoking is evil, or that "being black" is evil? Also, do you honestly think it doesn't matter whether something is true?

[Jaevric]

[bold]Red:[/bold]

The basic problem with the analogy, to me, is that you're equating a state of being with a belief. Now, I fully expect someone to jump down my throat if I say something incorrect or offensive here, and I apologize in advance. I tried (badly) to get this idea across previously; as I understand it, homosexuality is not a decision. People are not raised to be homosexual; if anything, the pressure is to be heterosexual growing up! And a homosexual person won't "convert" to heterosexuality when faced with "evidence" of heterosexuality being superior -- not and be mentally healthy afterwards, at least. Sure, society can pressure someone into behaving as if they're heterosexual, and someone may well delude themselves into believing they are heterosexual if you can go by certain members of the Republican party. But it isn't healthy for a person to do so, and it isn't natural for that person; I once again refer you to certain members of the Republican party who have demonstrated amply that homosexual preferences will come out in the long run. A person is homosexual, or bisexual, or the person isn't.

But religion, any religion, is determined by upbringing and indoctrination, and a person can "legitimately" believe in a religion, or decide based on evidence that there is no religion. A person raised by Buddhists, in absence of any other information, will probably be Buddhist. A person raised Christian, in absence of other information, will probably be Christian. And when you expose people raised in one belief system to another belief system, or to a lack of belief system, that person can legitimately change their mind.

[Darth Wong]

I'm starting to suspect that Red is one of those people who thinks religion is just as innate as homosexuality.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm starting to suspect that Red is one of those people who thinks religion is just as innate as homosexuality.

You mean one of those people who sprout that some study seems to show people's brains have a tendency to religiosity?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Assuming that the father's accusations are true, the content in "God Delusion" is not the primary cause of the individual's psychological problems but rather a generally harmless event that happened to have pushed this already distressed individual over the line. In contrast, the content in an anti-gay book is the continuation of the same stream of homophobic and psychologically harmful messages that LGBT individuals grow up with.

[Red]

I'm starting to suspect that Red is one of those people who thinks religion is just as innate as homosexuality.

Now you're just taking cheap shots. :/
To answer your question, I'm honestly not sure about the smoking question. It is immediately obvious to me that it's wrong to say that being black is evil, but the smoking question is a bit complex. It's an action that tends to have ill effects for bystanders, but it's also a decision you make about how to treat your own body. I can certainly sympathize with someone who decries the evil of smoking, but I'm not about to agree wholeheartedly with them.

(Abridged)
The basic problem with the analogy, to me, is that you're equating a state of being with a belief.... a homosexual person won't "convert" to heterosexuality when faced with "evidence" of heterosexuality being superior -- not and be mentally healthy afterwards, at least. [But] when you expose people raised in one belief system to another belief system, or to a lack of belief system, that person can legitimately change their mind.

In contrast, the content in an anti-gay book is the continuation of the same stream of homophobic and psychologically harmful messages that LGBT individuals grow up with.

Jaevric states it well, I think; but it doesn't really answer the question. The book that challenges held beliefs is fine, but the one that challenges actions and identity is not. Is this because the anti-homosexual book goes against scientific evidence? Like, is that the relevant metric: does it jive with science or not?

Or is the metric more like what Pinto's getting at? While the "does it jive with science" question is nice, Pinto seems to be appealing more to the context of the issue challenged. Because the anti-homosexual book jives with psychologically harmful messages, it should be derided and the professor chastised; meanwhile the anti-Christian book shares no special relation with a stream of hate literature (to say nothing of the perspective that Christianity itself is hate literature, so The God Delusion could be considered a good response against it)?

Please don't just respond to me with some condescending "one book attacks a held belief, and one attacks a biological identity!", because that doesn't answer the question. Yes, I agree, that's entirely accurate**! However, do we hate the anti-homosexual book because it's founded on bad premises (ex: homosexuality is a choice)? Or do we not really care about the logic of the book itself, but instead we judge it by its probable consequences (ex: contributing to LGBT suicide rate)? Or am I missing some other factor here.

To address a question asked by Darth, let me please ask for your opinion sir. Should it matter if something is true or not? The article refers to academic freedom--the free flow of ideas. Of course, in the academic world you are expected to adhere to certain standards. One who panders out misinformation and propaganda will not last long at all! However, my thought is if we are going to say "The hypothetical professor should be held to blame if she or he shares the anti-homosexual book which, using scientific evidence as our metric, is blatantly untrue", then are we beginning down the road to censorship***? Granted, this is not nearly the same as trying to ban The Diary of Anne Frank. But, doesn't the statement "we should lay (some) blame at the professor for sharing such literature" directly lead to "professors will self-restrict their actions, based on fear of legal reprecussions"?


** of course, to be perfectly clear.... Christian is a belief system, but it can also form a person's self-identity: "I believe with my mind in Christ" versus "I am, at the core of my being, a Christian". Meanwhile, homosexuality is an action or tendency, but it can also form a person's self-identity: "I prefer same sex relations" versus "I am, at the core of my being, L/G/B". It this sense, I think we have to be careful about claiming one scenario attacks held beliefs, and another attacks identity. Rather, one professor's book challenges "both held beliefs and the person's self-identity", while the other's attacks "both biological impulses and the person's self-identity". I'm afraid the difference in comparisons is not trivial?

*** I'm assuming(!) that the professors in the article and the hypothetical scenario acted one-on-one with the student. I think we can all agree that a professor, acting in the official capacity of teaching a class, has a duty to teach scientifically valid truth... and if he or she assigns as class reading some anti-homosexual literature, then we're in a whole new debate entirely about the standards of education, and I think we can all agree on the implications here. However, if we're talking in the realm of one-on-one discussion and exchange of ideas, perhaps we can get away from that duty aspect.... Or, can we?

[Simon_Jester]

To answer your question, I'm honestly not sure about the smoking question. It is immediately obvious to me that it's wrong to say that being black is evil, but the smoking question is a bit complex. It's an action that tends to have ill effects for bystanders, but it's also a decision you make about how to treat your own body. I can certainly sympathize with someone who decries the evil of smoking, but I'm not about to agree wholeheartedly with them.

This is interesting.

Imagine that I decide to stab myself in the arm. If I am the only person injured, by your standards this is not an evil act, right?

Now imagine that there is a second person who suffers an identical injury to anything that happens to me- when I am cut, they bleed. I stab myself in the arm and they get hurt. Is my act any less evil because it is a choice about "how I treat my own body?"

If yes, if the act of stabbing myself and harming another in the process is NOT evil, then:

What if I stab this other person in the arm, inflicting the same wound on them directly, without being harmed myself? Presumably you would say that this is evil. But then I have to ask: how did the evil act (stabbing someone else) become a neutral act (stabbing someone else and myself)? How does doing harm to myself justify the harm that I do to another person?

[Jaevric]

Red:

The standard for this sort of thing *should* be truthfulness and scientific accuracy. If I'm trying to pick up a woman in a bar and I tell her I'm rich, then she takes one look at my car and says "No you aren't" so I go drive off a bridge, is it her fault for pointing out that I'm not rich?

Society can't function on the idea that people should not be exposed to ideas that hurt their sense of "identity."

[Red]

The standard for this sort of thing *should* be truthfulness and scientific accuracy... Society can't function on the idea that people should not be exposed to ideas that hurt their sense of "identity."

Ah, so in response to something Darth wrote, about how "... anti-homosexual hate literature clearly attempts to describe homosexuality as evil, which is a considerably harsher criticism than merely calling it a "delusion": even if the God Delusion called religion flat-out evil, that's ok because the anti-religious literature does not violate a scientific finding?

Simon:
No no, I made no assertion. I just really didn't want to get into the smoking debate. It's a hot issue around Kentucky, because large cities and universities are placing wholesale bans on smoking in public places--which includes privately-owned stores, or places on campus there were previously designated and publicized as smoking areas. Add in people who approach it from the "costs to the public health care system" perspective... and I'm just tired of listening to the arguments. I simply wanted to avoid the specific issue; not make a statement one way or the other. I apologize if I was too ambiguous.

[Jaevric]

I apologize, I'm having trouble seeing where the (superficial?) analogy doesn't hold. Both situations--the article's story and the hypothetical anti-homosexual scenario--involve the core belief and social identity of the student being challenged by the professor, who suggests the student read a book which flatly disagrees with the lifestyle--Christian, or homosexual--of the student. One professor says "Oh, so you believe in the Christ? Why don't you read what Dawkins thinks* about your beliefs and underlying motivations?" while the other says "Oh, so you enjoy a homosexual identity? Why don't you read what the Focus on the Family organization thinks about your identity and underlying motivations?"

There may be some differences between a challenge to someone's religious beliefs and a challenge to someone's orientation (though, does this line not blur if the anti-homosexual text is religious in nature, a "God wants you to be straight" tract?). I agree entirely with the sentiments posted so far about the struggles LGBT teens face, for example. Part of what I want to know, is in what way people consider the two challenges to be different, or if they are much the same.

My main question is, do those very differences in context justify a different reaction towards the professor and the book author in these two cases? Should the suffering of LGBT teens and the comparative lack of suffering from a Christian teen in America weigh into this decision? Or is any difference in reaction driven by other factors, such as an objective measure of how the professor's pushed literature aligns with scientific research, or how harshly critical the literature is of the position it's decrying?

* having not read The God Delusion, I'm making an assumption about what the book says about religion. Please correct me if I'm off the mark here.

The part in bold is what I initially keyed on, Red, and I admit I was reading and posting in a hurry while on break from work so I may have misunderstood or misrepresented your thought process. In answer, yes, the differences in context justify a different reaction towards the professor and towards the book author in those cases. I don't care--and I suspect on this forum most people don't care--how harshly critical the literature is; frankly, someone who was inclined to do so could argue that religion is evil, and there are enough historical examples to give such an argument significant weight.

Facts should matter. Context should matter. How harsh the criticism is should only matter in relation to the facts and context supporting the criticism, and whether the facts and context support the criticism. This is particularly true in an academic situation.

Even if homosexuality were a conscious choice, calling it "evil" would require a lot of justification showing how homosexuality is causing harm to people. Claiming it endangers someone's "soul" is worthless, because it requires you to prove that souls exist and are being harmed by homosexuality.

Conversely, if I wanted to argue that religion is evil, I would start trotting out all the usual examples -- the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, various Islamic fundamentalist issues, the negative impacts on the school system resulting from the damned fundies here in Texas, etc.

To me, personally, how oppressed a particular group may be does not affect how I feel towards criticism of that group; but I say that as a white, middle-class, employed male. Someone else may strongly disagree with me.

[Kanastrous]

Both situations--the article's story and the hypothetical anti-homosexual scenario--involve the core belief and social identity of the student being challenged by the professor, who suggests the student read a book which flatly disagrees with the lifestyle--Christian, or homosexual--of the student.

This jumped out at me, because while Christianity certainly could be described as a 'lifestyle - ' after all, the Christian person decides on a more-or-less daily basis whether or not to live in what they view as a Christian manner - sexual nature is not a 'lifestyle,' it's innate to the person themselves.

Unless you're in the "gay people can be 'cured' through faith in (insert belief-of-choice here)" camp. In which case...well, whatever.

[Liberty]

This jumped out at me, because while Christianity certainly could be described as a 'lifestyle - ' after all, the Christian person decides on a more-or-less daily basis whether or not to live in what they view as a Christian manner - sexual nature is not a 'lifestyle,' it's innate to the person themselves.

Ah ha! That's why evangelicals keep calling it the "gay lifestyle!" Now that makes perfect sense. If they can prove that it's not innate to the person but is instead a "lifestyle," they win.

Example: http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstu ... 000804.cfm

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Or is the metric more like what Pinto's getting at? While the "does it jive with science" question is nice, Pinto seems to be appealing more to the context of the issue challenged. Because the anti-homosexual book jives with psychologically harmful messages, it should be derided and the professor chastised; meanwhile the anti-Christian book shares no special relation with a stream of hate literature (to say nothing of the perspective that Christianity itself is hate literature, so The God Delusion could be considered a good response against it)?

Mike brought a good point with the Avatar example. For those viewers who became suicidal from watching Avatar, would you blame the film for their reaction? No, you would point to their mental condition prior to watching it. If someone was depressed about their self-image and I decided to make fun of their looks to the point that it drove to become suicidal, would you consider my actions to have the same weight of responsibility as the film Avatar did to the suicidal film-goers? The anti-gay book is like that person except in the form of a book. It is part of the overarching reason that drives LGBT kids to suicide rather than a generally irrelevant event that accidentally triggered suicidal action.

[Kanastrous]

It is a nice ego-boost, though. The Avatar part, that is.