When you donate $1500 to a political campaign to strip other people—people who are not your co-religionists—of their civil rights. Richard Raddon is, or was, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival. All hell broke loose after it emerged that Raddon, who is Mormon, had donated $1500 to the “Yes on 8” campaign. The LA Times:

After Raddon’s contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from “No on 8” supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.

Yet, the anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere, and according to one Film Independent board member, “No on 8” supporters also berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails. The recriminations ultimately proved too much, and when Raddon offered to resign again, this time the board accepted.

Raddon released a statement that said, in part, “I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights.” Except for when they’re not—and Raddon also believes that the religious should wield a veto over other peoples’ civil rights. He goes on to whine about being a “devout and faithful Mormon,” and about how his contribution to “Yes on 8” was a “private matter.” Uh… no. A donation to a political campaign is a public matter; and civil marriage rights for same-sex couples did not infringe upon the religious freedom of Mormons, devout or otherwise.

Bill Condon, the gay guy who directed of Dreamgirls, attempted to get Raddon’s back: “Someone has lost his job and possibly his livelihood because of privately held religious beliefs.”

No. No. No. Raddon lost his job due to criticism of his public political actions, not his private religious beliefs, and his public political actions were a part of the public record. If Raddon wanted to go to church and pray his little heart out against same-sex marriage, or proselytize on street corners against gay marriage, or counsel gay men to leave their husbands and marry nice Mormon girls instead, that could be viewed as an expression of his “privately held religious beliefs.” Instead he helped fund a political campaign to strip a vulnerable minority group of its civil rights.

“Millions of Californians definitely lost their civil rights,” says John Aravosis. “But I’m not hearing a lot of concern about any of those victims, only sympathy for their attacker. When you use the power of the state to rip away my civil rights, and force me to live by your ‘values,’ you are no longer practicing your religion. You’re practicing politics.”

In the wake of Prop 8 millions of gays and lesbians all over the country have decided that we’re no longer going to play by the old rules. We’re not going to let people kick our teeth down our throats and then run and hide behind “Nothing personal—just my private religious beliefs!” That game’s over.

137 replies on “When Are Your “Privately Held Religious Beliefs” Not So Private Anymore?”

  1. small fry

    THINK – Catholic bishops, who invited the Mormons to play

    really small fry

    might feel good, means nothing, those California Catholic Bishops must be having a silly ha ha ha fit, not targeted at all, what is with that?

  3. It is worth point out the Raddon did not “lose his job.” He resigned, and the board of directors accepted the resignation. They could have refused. If one wishes to engage in public political acts, then one must be willing to endure criticism and flack. That is the responsibility that inheres in the concept of free speech.

  7. 3, actually the board did refuse his first resignation. Only at his insistence did they accept his second resignation. By all accounts, he was a great director, and several prominent gay filmmakers came out in support of him.

    See unlike our Danny, Richard Raddon is a man of integrity, who resigned because out of concern that bringing further negative attention to his private life would hurt his work.

    This is a fatwa. And Savage is the Ayatollah of Hate.

  8. It’s a strange conundrum. I feel pity for the followers, the regular church-goers who may actually feel that gays should be able to marry, but who are bombarded by “offical” church messages to vote against gay marriage. The real blame, in my opinion, lies on the church leaders and not the followers; people who can’t think for themselves. The leaders are the ones who should get our attention and be put under the spotlight and be harrassed and punished. I feel bad for this guy losing his job. He probably felt bad voting and donating against gay rights, but his church basically ordered him to do it. When Stanley Milgram “ordered” people to electrically shock other people to death, most people did it… they felt terrible about it, but they did it. Who’s really to blame here?

  9. This is exactly right. Thank you Dan. Condon is an idiot. I’m going to imdb him right now so i don’t see his next project.

    Here’s an example of a privately held religious belief. Mark E. Peterson, one of the 12 Mormon apostles, speaking at BYU in 1954:

    “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage.That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.’…”

    btw dan– i’m still waiting for my response to the letter i sent with the receipt from my donation to no on 8. [gentle reminder]

  10. Schadenfreude is the fact that the Catholic Church will discard the LDS Church with wild abandon soon, just like they’ve done for their entire history. They dropped the Baptists, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Southern Baptists and the Jews, all after they’d used them up during some half-hearted “union”. Now, this is the leadership– most mainstream Catholics generally shrug it off.

    Several mainstream religions have a habit of fighting back and forth like this. It’s kinda sad, since minority groups ALWAYS get caught in the middle.

  11. We’re not going to let people kick our teeth down our throats and then run and hide behind “Nothing personal—just my private religious beliefs!” That game’s over.

    It’s about time. Why has it taken so long for this to catch on??

  12. Doing the right thing has often carried a price.

    Richard Raddon IS a man of integrity and will go on to do fine, thank you.

    Not so for those microscopically small petty vicious minds that gloat at his discomfort.

    DannyBeau-
    what did you have to get up for in the morning before you outed yourself as a 24/7 obsessive Mormon-hater?
    How’s life on the Dark Side?

  13. @ 7, @ 12, Dan already refuted your points. So if you wish to keep repeating them, then maybe you ought to show how the anti-8 backlash fits your description, or refute Dan’s.

  14. The separation of Church and State was intended to protect churches as well as governments. When the division between those things isn’t clear, people find their faiths under attack because of actions in the political sphere. This case is an excellent illustration of why churches benefit from that separation as much as the state does — when properly exercised, it protects churches from the kind of open invective that is the common coin of the political realm.

    The explicit lack of a state-sponsored church is what allowed sects like the LDS to thrive in the first place in this country. Their attempt to breach that protective wall between Church and State is biting the hand that feeds. Here’s hoping this backlash reminds them of that.

  15. “Californians Against Hate has also organized boycotts of businesses that contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. If the FPPC determines fault, the Mormon church – whose members contributed more than $20 million to the campaign – could be fined up to $5,000 per violation.”

    from sacramento bee

  16. I don’t think he hates Mormons. Just, you know, their actions sometimes.

    If you knows pretty much nothing about Mormons (like me) read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer.

  17. 13, maybe if you got your head out of Dan’s ass and thought about the issue on your own for two seconds, you’d realize that he’s refuted nothing.

    We are aghast, and rightfully so, when behaviour like this comes from the religious right. We should be equally indignant when it comes from “our” side.

  21. Recently, John Brennan asked not to be considered for an appointment to any intelligence position in the Obama administration. He did so because vocal people (psychologists, librals, and anti-torture folks) were raising a ruckus.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25…

    Similarly, Vilsack, tool of agri-business is out of the running for Secretary of Agriculture in part due to the ruckus caused (in part) by a petition from the Organic Consumer’s Association

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11…

    The situation with Raddon is not any different. If you take a public stance on an issue, you will get a public response.

  22. This is Los Angeles Film Festival’s loss.

    Once the fires of bigotry and hate are fanned you can’t control who or what gets consumed.

    You shouldn’t play with matches, Dan.

  23. @ 17, I don’t think I’m the one with my head up my ass. He explained the public nature of this man’s actions, and blowback like this is as American as apple pie.

    BTW, nice sock puppet @ 20.

  24. @8 – I don’t know, in this case, the guy donated $1,500 of his hard earned money to this cause. It’s clearly not an example of someone who privately disagrees with the church on an issue, but doesn’t want to discard their entire faith because of it. He actively worked to pass Prop 8 by donating that sum.

    The analogy I have been fond of is if someone personally disagrees with the Catholic church on the issue of birth control, but regardless, donated $1,500 towards a political campaign seeking to outlaw it. Would we feel sympathy for that person? I wouldn’t.

    Similarly, I don’t feel sorry for this guy because he had free will, he exercised that free will, and he has to live with the consequences of that action (not the fact that he is Mormon — that’s the key point here, we’re judging him on his action, not on his religion).

  27. 23, I think you mean “as American as Sen. McCarthy”. There was no widespread public outcry here, just a bunch of screeching bigots who purport to speak for all of us.

    I’m sure Dan would *love* to be hounded out of his job by a mob of religious right wingers because he donated money to a pro-gay rights initiative.

    I”m sure Dan would *love* having his name and his address posted all over the internet, along with the school his child attends, because hey, that is just how brave he is.

    Or maybe Dan thinks we ought to live in little gay cocoons, and only interact with people who agree with us on every issue.

    Well fuck that.

  28. @ 27, Uh huh. Well, your comparison of an alt-weekly editor answerable to no one but Tim Keck and their readers to a US Senator demonstrates your tenuous grasp of the logic of the situation.

    I know some of the things they do here is fucked, but this isn’t one of them.

  32. 28, yeah of course, a sex columnist at an alt weekly is protected from answerability for his political choices because he’s surrounded himself by like minded people. Fantastic.

    The director of LAFF has no such luxury, and if you like, we can just flip that example – a gay director of LAFF having to resign because of Mormon protests at his donating 1500 to the No on 8 campaign. Are you telling me Savage and you and whoever else would be in favour of it then?

    Grow the fuck up.

  33. So explain: How is this different from McCarthyism exactly? Is it that McCarthyism came from the top down rather than the bottom up? Was the only problem with McCarthyism its choice of target? Are these tactics justified depending on whether you agree with their politics?

    Or from the other side: Let’s say this theater director guy was found to be donating to something undeniably objectionable, like Neo-Nazis or NAMBLA. Would his forced resignation be unfair then? Do you really think people don’t have the right to strenuously object to working with someone like that?

  35. It seems that the haters are those who plan to “punish and harrass” this man for supporting a cause he believes in.

    He voted with the majority to protect marriage.

    Those against Proposition 8 are attempting to destroy traditional marriage and to do so with hate and harrassment.

    There is no reason for gay and lesbians to “marry” when they can be legally bonded in a Civil Union.

    There is no “stripping of civil rights” here. Only a refusal to redefine marriage for those who have been denied it for religious reasons. Those who want marriage although they refuse to abide by its terms appear to be whining and crying for something that is a privilege of those who worship God. And when they didn’t get it, they are throwing a tantrum. Viciously. Shame on you, Gay and Lesbian community.

    Stay out of religion, and religious people will stay out of politics.

  37. What a little coward. How utterly gutless of him. Have these people no convictions at all? Spineless twit, to quit his job over his religious beliefs, which are accurately pointed out have no bearing whatsoever on how he does his job.

    Harvey Milk stood taller and endured more for his right to suck cock than these Mormons are doing for their so-called religious beliefs.

  38. 32, you’re welcome. I’m sure I can find you a spare brain from a cadaver somewhere. Should only work at like 10% capacity but it’ll exceed whatever you’ve got in there now.

  39. @32, The hypothetical Mormons in your scenario would probably get received about as well as the Westboro Baptists. Religious fanatics harassing a supporter of civil rights equality, trying to impose their religious beliefs on the citizens of California, would not be the same thing as marriage equality supporters taking on those who have worked to strip the LGBT community of rights they had already been given under the state constitution. I think it would be amusing if Mormons tried to get Dan to resign from the Stranger, though. I bet that would work.

  41. Had Mr Raddon donated $1500. to *NO* on Prop 8 he could well have been asked to resign from the Mormon Church. Others who opposed the LDS Church on this issue have been sanctioned, asked to resign or have resigned voluntarily. Any right he may have to privacy in political matters would not have helped him from being censured in the arena of his private religious beliefs.

    How we actually vote is private, but campaign donations are public. Stake holders in any issue have a right to know who their opponents are and how much money is being given by whom because secret money hobbles free expression. Raddon took a public stand, there are people who support him and people who don’t, that is the nature of coming out in any way.

  42. 35: Now you’re just talking out of your ass.

    “There is no “stripping of civil rights” here. Only a refusal to redefine marriage for those who have been denied it for religious reasons. Those who want marriage although they refuse to abide by its terms appear to be whining and crying for something that is a privilege of those who worship God. “

    News flash: Atheists are allowed to marry. (Well, male atheists and female atheists.)

  43. You don’t want your private life to impact your public life? It’s simple: don’t do anything that’s going to catch the public eye.

    He made a PUBLIC donation to a political campaign. The fact that he is a Mormon, while laughable on many levels, is irrelevant to the issue. After all, were he just a Mormon who hadn’t made a large cash donation to this campaign, he wouldn’t have caught any flak. He is a PUBLIC figure making PUBLIC statements about civil rights issues. You don’t like that political contributions are made public? Tough. Change the rules. But don’t bitch when you get called out because of it.

    You’re a straight-laced politician who wants to keep his career? Don’t buy drugs. Don’t hire call-girls/boys. Don’t offer blowjobs in public bathrooms. Don’t do any of the stupidly suicidal shit that’s going to get you laughed out of your career.

    Want a career in film, a form of media almost unanimous in its support of gay civil rights? Don’t make a public donation to a reactionary, bigoted campaign.

  45. @35: There is no reason for a black man to sit up in front of the bus when there is a perfectly fine seat there in the back. Is that what you mean?

    I’m an atheist and I’m married and I vote. Not in California, unfortunately.

    Religious beliefs are fine. Using religious beliefs to impose morality on those who do not worship your god is wrong. I do not understand why this is so hard for people to get.

  46. 41 – you are spot on. The critical point here is the public square. What you do there to engage society PUBLICLY can and will be discussed. If you are part of a community and stand PUBLICLY against the rights of many within your community (in these recent cases, film and theater) you can expect some sanction.

    Targeting large donors to Yes on 8 in this way is totally legitimate. Public Square.

    Targeting churches themselves or people of a certain faith is not. Private Faith.

    That WOULD be McCarthy and that, 33, is the critical difference.

  47. Targeting churches themselves or people of a certain faith is not. Private Faith.

    Can you read? Why should churches who engage in political campaigning as the LDS church has done have any expectation of “privacy” in these matters? That’s the whole friggin point. They are trying to have it both ways — they want their beliefs to be reflected in law but they don’t want their beliefs to be up for discussion.

  48. What I don’t get is why people are claiming that Raddon was forced out of a job. He resigned. He even had to do it twice, because the board really wanted him to stay. But he chose to leave. And because of what? Some bloggers were mean to him, and some people harassed him. So ignore the internet, change your phone number, change your email. People who have made unpopular decisions have had to do it before. If the contribution to the yes on 8 campaign reflected your deeply held, uncompromising beliefs, then you should be proud and willing to stand by it. Not whining that it should have been a private matter. Campaign donations are never a private matter. If you didn’t want people to know about this, you should have kept your involvement to your vote.

  49. 33 – I think you’ve hit on one of the main issues here. Some of us see donating to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign as being closer to Neo-Nazis or NAMBLA than it is to “expressing religious beliefs”. So, of course, we think, it’s perfectly appropriate to raise a ruckus about it. Others don’t think the donation is that objectionable, so they don’t think the calls for his resignation were fair…

  50. “Once the fires of bigotry and hate are fanned you can’t control who or what gets consumed.”

    Something that Mr Raddon should have considered before he chose to fan those flames with his PUBLIC $1500 donation.

Comments are closed.