Speaker 1: Wear them fans that y'all, I don't know, but the
Speaker 1: boots on the ground decide to boots. A secular leaning
Speaker 1: organization from a Pride event, Flabergastic has the story Flabbergasted.
Speaker 2: Recovering from Religion, an organization that provides peer support and
Speaker 2: resources for people who are questioning and deconstructing from their
Speaker 2: religious beliefs, had their attendants at a Pride event and
Speaker 2: Saint John's Canada rescinded. Recovering from Religion originally had their
Speaker 2: attendants approved in early June. Than a month later and
Speaker 2: less than two weeks prior to the event actually taking place,
Speaker 2: they were informed that their attendance was rescinded, citing concerns
Speaker 2: that Recovering from Religion was not in strong alignment with
Speaker 2: the focus of their event. In response, Recovering from Religion
Speaker 2: reach out multiple times to clear up what they saw
Speaker 2: as a misunderstanding of their intent and mission. Saint John's
Speaker 2: Pride responded to a singular message expressing concerns with what
Speaker 2: they saw as combative language and refuse have any direct
Speaker 2: communication with Recovering from Religion from that point on, and
Speaker 2: still giving little to no meaningful explanation for why Recovering
Speaker 2: from Religion was no longer welcome. Despite that, the co
Speaker 2: chair of Saint John's Pride found time to have an
Speaker 2: interview with a local radio station once the situation became public,
Speaker 2: in which they stated that RfR was not part of
Speaker 2: their community and did not have a connection with their community.
Speaker 2: Language being used by Saint John's Pride had led people
Speaker 2: to be concerned the RfR was disinvited because their attendants
Speaker 2: may not have been seen positively by religiously affiliated groups
Speaker 2: and organizations. The story is from the Friendly Atheists. I
Speaker 2: haven't met that on July fifteenth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Oh what a tangle web we weave when we practice.
Speaker 3: Stuff and stuff?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean things, stuff and things, things and stuff.
Speaker 1: This is insane. Oh MG. You know I have to
Speaker 1: say this because, like you know, Recovering from Religion is
Speaker 1: a foundation that partners with the ACA a lot, and
Speaker 1: I know that we refer to them a lot, especially
Speaker 1: on people on callin shows where people are calling in
Speaker 1: looking for resources, especially in the process of their deconversion.
Speaker 1: And you know, URFR has like great, wonderful different resources
Speaker 1: that people can utilize in order to kind of help
Speaker 1: them through the process, I mean a secular therapy project
Speaker 1: also their call in line that they can do to
Speaker 1: talk to people who are trained to work with folks
Speaker 1: who are you know, going through their own deconversion. And
Speaker 1: I know that one of the things that really hits
Speaker 1: hard to meet specifically since I am you know, part
Speaker 1: of the LGBTQI plus community as far as like an
Speaker 1: allies concern and I work with them like in a
Speaker 1: professional manner as a social worker. You know, I know that,
Speaker 1: you know, just being privy to people who have you know,
Speaker 1: come out to family and friends and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you know, have been told just because they happen to
Speaker 1: identify as lesbian, as gay, as trands, non binary and
Speaker 1: the like, that you know, they have lost homes, they
Speaker 1: have lost sheltered, they have lost you know, community, and
Speaker 1: a lot of times, like you know, coming to a
Speaker 1: space that is you know, secular was more inviting than
Speaker 1: the ones who happened to be religious. Now I understand
Speaker 1: that there are religious organizations and churches and things of
Speaker 1: that nature who do embrace lgbt QY post community.
Speaker 4: And I'm grateful for them.
Speaker 1: But if we're going to be honest, that is not
Speaker 1: in the majority, right, So it's kind of like sad that,
Speaker 1: you know, a organization that has been around for a
Speaker 1: long time, that has like multiple partners and also resources
Speaker 1: to help people, you know, basically not only come out
Speaker 1: of religion, but even like come out of the you know,
Speaker 1: triggers that actually are against their own personal nature be
Speaker 1: in this particular space with the point where they're disinvited
Speaker 1: to a Pride event is actually appalling. And I do
Speaker 1: apologize that I had to take some moments to say that,
Speaker 1: but that was on my mind. Guys, I'm so sorry,
Speaker 1: but no, I'm not sorry, but I just had to
Speaker 1: get that out. Thank you for allowing me. But you know,
Speaker 1: Fibergast that you introduce this segment, so I am curious
Speaker 1: to get some of your thoughts on the story.
Speaker 4: When you first, could you please.
Speaker 2: Elaborate, So, I mean, yeah, basically, it's a situation where
Speaker 2: a Pride event has looked at an organization and has
Speaker 2: decided at first to include them and then to take
Speaker 2: that inclusion away. And generally, in that kind of situation,
Speaker 2: you would expect some sort of explanation and the biggest
Speaker 2: problem here is that there hasn't been one. There's lots
Speaker 2: of very good reasons to exclude someone, even if they're
Speaker 2: a good organization, but the way that it was done
Speaker 2: is suspect, especially that in a lot of the communication
Speaker 2: that has been made public that the language around why
Speaker 2: they're not included is out of concern of religiously affiliated
Speaker 2: people not being happy about it, and that's a problem.
Speaker 2: And then they also talk about things like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: you're not part of the community. Well, who gets it,
Speaker 2: aside is part sufficiently part of the community. I'm a
Speaker 2: member of the queer community, and like, do you get
Speaker 2: to say that I'm not because I don't fit into
Speaker 2: your bubble? And but bud Light does apparently because one
Speaker 2: of their sponsors was bud Light. Bud Light is a
Speaker 2: more queer affirming organization as far as they're concerned than
Speaker 2: recovering from religion. So like, it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2: It's like they're post talk justifying it to make a
Speaker 2: particular group or people or organization happy, And that's problematic
Speaker 2: because no one is no group is more harmed by
Speaker 2: really well, there's lots of groups hard by religion, but
Speaker 2: religiosity harms the LGBTQ community far more than almost anyone
Speaker 2: else does. There is so much harm caused to the
Speaker 2: queer community as a result of religiosity. And if you
Speaker 2: have an organization that focuses on helping people with the
Speaker 2: trauma that explicitly comes from religion at a pride of it,
Speaker 2: you're like, nah, we don't need you here. Like, are
Speaker 2: you actually serving the best interest of that community? I
Speaker 2: would say you're probably not.
Speaker 4: I totally agree.
Speaker 1: I mean, like we have seen, like you know, I've
Speaker 1: I've participated in a few pride events, especially with another
Speaker 1: oral nonprofit organization that I used to work for, and
Speaker 1: I've seen, like you know, the religious sell its gather
Speaker 1: to say that hey, you attendees who are LGBTQI plus
Speaker 1: affirming or even.
Speaker 4: Part of that community are all going to hell.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't feel like I say, it's like
Speaker 1: people like yelling and screaming at you and all this
Speaker 1: other stuff. And they said, well, the Bible says, and
Speaker 1: I said, yeah, the Bible also says to dash baby's
Speaker 1: heads against stones.
Speaker 4: How do you feel about that? Right?
Speaker 1: So, like, let's not even go there about what the
Speaker 1: Bible says. But you know, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: it doesn't give anybody creatives to be hateful. So like,
Speaker 1: when you actually have like this like organization that is
Speaker 1: like geared to really help people like like navigate through
Speaker 1: these particular things, it's just like absolutely crazy that a
Speaker 1: Pride event wouldn't even allow them to be there for
Speaker 1: reasons that make no sense. I don't know you, I
Speaker 1: helped me out. What were your thoughts.
Speaker 4: When you actually write this particular article.
Speaker 5: Firstly, it was surprising to me that they don't know
Speaker 5: who RfR is because I'm not specifically familiar with any
Speaker 5: examples of their work, but I know generally what they're about,
Speaker 5: and I, like the author of the article, would think,
Speaker 5: would assume that that's exactly who you would want at
Speaker 5: such an event, because like how many people and I'm
Speaker 5: asking genuinely because I don't know, but like how many
Speaker 5: people are attending their first Pride event every year, like
Speaker 5: after first coming out or after first leaving religion or
Speaker 5: being kicked out of their home and having their entire
Speaker 5: like religion and their community and their support never gripped
Speaker 5: away from them, and they are like literally in a
Speaker 5: progressing sense or in an ongoing sense, I mean to say.
Speaker 3: Recovering from religion.
Speaker 5: And I would think that that's ex exactly who you
Speaker 5: would want these types of events. That being said, Pride
Speaker 5: events aren't for me. Like I've been to one and
Speaker 5: it was a pretty gucci time, but like I was
Speaker 5: there to like support like my friends and my partner
Speaker 5: at the time, So like, I don't form an opinion
Speaker 5: about who should and shouldn't be there.
Speaker 3: I didn't form one and and I won't.
Speaker 5: But I think about it, like if I was organizing
Speaker 5: an event for like secular veterans, which is like a
Speaker 5: label that I would claim, I would want RfR there
Speaker 5: because I think that they do good work for people
Speaker 5: that are secular that belonged to any other demographic. So
Speaker 5: that's sort of where I landed it. They Perhaps it
Speaker 5: seemed to the like organizers that RfR was coming off
Speaker 5: as a sort of like do you have any idea
Speaker 5: who we are? Sort of attitude, and that's that's unbecoming
Speaker 5: of anybody.
Speaker 3: It's not a good look. But at the same time,
Speaker 3: like do they have any idea who RfR is? Like
Speaker 3: that was that's how I felt like.
Speaker 1: Reading, Yeah, I don't know, I don't I don't know
Speaker 1: if they do. To be honest with you, like I
Speaker 1: think this like a. I don't know, like a cursory
Speaker 1: research would have just been like oh wow, these these
Speaker 1: this organization is like really about, you know, affirming people
Speaker 1: who happen to be part of the queer community, because.
Speaker 4: I know that they are. I mean like I had, like.
Speaker 1: A had gnawsy long conversations with doctor Darryl rhyd and
Speaker 1: and also talk to Gail Jordan and Glenda her daughter,
Speaker 1: and and you know, like and I mean like like
Speaker 1: these they are super affirming when it comes to you know,
Speaker 1: the LGBGQQ plus community, and they are They take a
Speaker 1: lot of pride in that. So for like Saint John's
Speaker 1: to say no, you're uninvited is like ridiculously But you know,
Speaker 1: Fola Gas, I'm going to come back to you. I'm
Speaker 1: going to ask a question and I want you to answer.
Speaker 1: How can communities balance protecting vulnerable members from perceived harm
Speaker 1: while uvoiding exclusion or gatekeeping then they hind your ally shit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's just like any other relationship, any
Speaker 2: good relationship. Anyways, It's about communication, right. You can't treat
Speaker 2: situations like this as a tender profile where you just
Speaker 2: like skim through when you're doing your investigation and skip
Speaker 2: or pass right. The kicker here is that the initial
Speaker 2: communication here really did seem to go well. Like they
Speaker 2: accepted them, they were excited about it. There was even
Speaker 2: conversations between the religious organizations that were part of the
Speaker 2: Pride event and RfR. They were fine. So what could
Speaker 2: RfR really have done better when they were seemingly ghosted
Speaker 2: out of nowhere? So like it's when you're asking the question,
Speaker 2: how do we balance these things? We balance them by
Speaker 2: making sure we're communicating properly, to make sure we understand
Speaker 2: where people are coming from. If there's you know, doubt,
Speaker 2: when sometimes doubt can be valid. And that is actually
Speaker 2: an issue with with rfrs. As those who are familiar
Speaker 2: with RfR knows how affirming RfR is. But if you
Speaker 2: don't know RfR, that might not be so easy to
Speaker 2: find out. And that's fair, that's valid. So you have
Speaker 2: the communication, you have conversation, you ask them, you look
Speaker 2: into it. You don't just swipe left or right or
Speaker 2: whatever one it is on tender. I don't know how
Speaker 2: spen enough time on it.
Speaker 4: Apparently means left, I left right, aft.
Speaker 1: Left or no whos left right?
Speaker 5: I agree though, I think because the organizer that did
Speaker 5: the radio interview that I think we're going to talk
Speaker 5: about a little bit, Like he mentioned, like the way
Speaker 5: the way he's talking, it sounds like he's just doing
Speaker 5: the best his best to protect like queer entrance people
Speaker 5: in I think his local physical community is how I
Speaker 5: interpreted what he was saying, whether or not from our community.
Speaker 5: So I think it's just true that, like he wasn't
Speaker 5: sure who they were, he would rather like the consequences
Speaker 5: of being cautious and being wrong and like getting a
Speaker 5: false positive, Like just like when our ancestors were watching
Speaker 5: for predators in the bushes, the consequences of a false
Speaker 5: positive are a lot more dire than the consequences of
Speaker 5: a false negative. So I think that's just what it was. Like,
Speaker 5: if you don't know who they are, just say that
Speaker 5: that's fine. Ignorance is no problem. But when you make
Speaker 5: decisions virtuous of that ignorance. Hi, the Vatican, I'm looking
Speaker 5: at you, that's when we have the problem.
Speaker 6: You know, I see a lot of looking at the
Speaker 6: Vatican slot.
Speaker 2: You know what was almost like it's justified or something.
Speaker 6: You know that far.
Speaker 1: Right there, you know, don't don't give me star talk
Speaker 1: by folicism, I get triggered real quick, like cringe anyway,
Speaker 1: But like I want to ask this question to both
Speaker 1: of you, like ELI want to start with you and
Speaker 1: then flabbergasts that I want to come to you.
Speaker 4: But what does transparency.
Speaker 1: Look like and dialogue clay when difficult decisions like this
Speaker 1: are made in the community spaces, especially during events centered
Speaker 1: around inclusion and support.
Speaker 5: Well, I think that undoubtedly there are people that live
Speaker 5: in that area that we'll be attending that Pride event
Speaker 5: that know who RfR is and because it was mentioned
Speaker 5: that they're going to have their booth like off the
Speaker 5: premises of the Pride event, but still nearby so that
Speaker 5: people can get in touch with them if they happened
Speaker 5: to be happened to come across them and want to
Speaker 5: so they'll still be available. But I think there are
Speaker 5: undoubtedly people who will be attending to know who they are,
Speaker 5: and they are gonna want to know. They are gonna
Speaker 5: want that transparency about like what actually happened here, Because
Speaker 5: I agree with flabberg Acid that like it's it's super
Speaker 5: strange if they just if they had initially like denied
Speaker 5: their request to attend as a vendor because they didn't
Speaker 5: know who they were fine that. I think that probably
Speaker 5: would have been a lot less like turbulent if it
Speaker 5: had just been an outright denial. But they approved it
Speaker 5: and then came back later and was like, you know what, nevermind.
Speaker 5: And I don't remember when it was mentioned, but it
Speaker 5: was the.
Speaker 3: The idea of being off putting, I think to.
Speaker 5: Queer and trans led religious groups that might be attending.
Speaker 5: They didn't want to be alienating to those groups, and
Speaker 5: that was like, I think a primary justification given.
Speaker 3: So I think the transparency is going to be important.
Speaker 3: What does it look like?
Speaker 5: I don't know because the two versions of the community
Speaker 5: of the interaction that both RfR and Saint John's Pride
Speaker 5: organizers are telling, these versions are already slightly different from
Speaker 5: each other, so it's really difficult to tell at this
Speaker 5: point what really actually was said or.
Speaker 4: Have that's fair, What do you have? What are your
Speaker 4: thoughts flabbergasted?
Speaker 2: I think whenever we're talking about transparency, full transparency always
Speaker 2: is the best transparency, and a pride event is meant
Speaker 2: to represent the community as a whole, and so you
Speaker 2: should be able to justify to that community why anyone
Speaker 2: is or is not included, especially especially in a situation
Speaker 2: like this, right, you should be able to demonstrate and
Speaker 2: explain thoroughly. And it's interesting because in the article they
Speaker 2: say that, oh, well, all of our board meetings minutes
Speaker 2: are available, we have full transparency. You can go to
Speaker 2: our board meetings. You need to read them. Well I have.
Speaker 2: I've read all of their board meeting notes going back
Speaker 2: nine months, seven months, eight months roughly, and no, they
Speaker 2: don't have full transparency. Not only do not have full transparency,
Speaker 2: RfR is the only organization that they actually name specifically
Speaker 2: as a vendor. They mention when before they approved them, like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: RfR is an organization, do some investigation before approving them.
Speaker 2: Then they get approved a month later, they just state
Speaker 2: RfR had their stuff rescinded it. That's all they said.
Speaker 2: No justification, no explanation, And they're going to point to
Speaker 2: their board meeting minutes like they have full transparency. They don't.
Speaker 2: And that's part of the problem, right, Like if it
Speaker 2: was in there and there was a justification or an
Speaker 2: explanation that you could point to and explain and be like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is why this is a conversation we had, This
Speaker 2: is what someone said specifically that made us concern. They
Speaker 2: don't have any of that. So what kind of transparency
Speaker 2: should you have? You should have full transparency because you
Speaker 2: should be able to justify these decisions on behalf of
Speaker 2: the people that you are supposed to be representing, which
Speaker 2: is in this case, the entire Pride, the entire queer
Speaker 2: community of your area, and you did not provide them that.
Speaker 6: Well, uh, chech and mate, may I say.
Speaker 2: I thought about or something?
Speaker 4: Yeah, like something like that.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, guys, if you're interested, I do have
Speaker 1: a final reflection about this whole shindik, if you will so.
Speaker 6: As a secular humanist, we champion open dialogue, inclusion, and
Speaker 6: freedom of conscious It's troubling to see an organization like
Speaker 6: Recovering from Religion an ally that supports the LGBTQ plus community,
Speaker 6: excluded from Saint John's Pride event without a clear evidence
Speaker 6: face rationale. As Flabbergasted aptly pointed out, rfr's mission is
Speaker 6: not to evangelize atheism, but to offer support to those
Speaker 6: recovering from religious trauma, something many individuals have painfully experienced.
Speaker 6: Their presence at Pride could have been healing and affirming
Speaker 6: for attendees navigating identity and belief instead of the decision
Speaker 6: to exclude them. It suggests a discomfort with non religious voices,
Speaker 6: even when those voices advocate for equity, dignity, and compassion.
Speaker 6: Pride is meant to be celebrated of authenticity and shared struggle,
Speaker 6: a space where all who genuinely support the LGBTQ plus
Speaker 6: community can come together. That includes people of faith, and
Speaker 6: it must include those without it to do otherwise replicating
Speaker 6: the very exclusion that Pride exists to overcome. How can
Speaker 6: we ensure that exclusion inclusion rather at Pride isn't limited
Speaker 6: to certain beliefs, but instead extends to all those committed
Speaker 6: to equality, healing and human dignity. And I just want
Speaker 6: to also point out to you, dear viewer, that if
Speaker 6: you are looking for resources coming out of religion and
Speaker 6: also need a space where it's safe and then you
Speaker 6: can talk to people, especially if you are experiencing exclusion
Speaker 6: because of non belief or even exclusion because you're part
Speaker 6: of the LGBTQIA plus community, please visit Recovering from Religion
Speaker 6: dot org. They have resources, they have support groups, They
Speaker 6: even have a phone line that you can call in
Speaker 6: and talk to a volunteer, and they can even point
Speaker 6: you out to other resources that can assist you with
Speaker 6: navigating the process.