Skip to main content

Is atheist rapper Charlie Check'm a bigot and a homophobe or do we just disagree?


There has been quite a bit of hubbub surrounding atheist rapper, Charlie Check'm, over at Atheist Nexus. The hubbub has resulted not only in the rapper's banning from Atheist Nexus but in the revoking of his invitation from Brother Richard of Atheist Nexus to perform at the Atheist Nexus sponsored "Live Dance Party" which is scheduled for the Atheist Alliance International convention that is coming up in October.

What started out as a civilized thread on Atheist Nexus discussing the topic, "Do Atheists Hate Gays," became a less-than-civil thread when Charlie Check'm began to interject his thoughts.

Now, it's not that atheists agree on all things. Not even close. But one thing that can typically be said for atheists is that they are very pro equal rights. So, when gay marriage was brought up in the thread there was a general consensus that gays should be allowed to marry. However, there was one person whose descent from popular opinion stood out.

Now, it wasn't the fact that Charlie was against gay marriage that got the group in an uproar. Not at all. We are all entitled to our opinions. What got people riled was what they described as hatred, bigotry, homophobia, and ignorance coming from Charlie.

In an attempt to defend his position, Charlie cited, according to Brother Richard, religious sites that have been exposed for their misinformation. ( and Richard also told me that "some did think he was a Christian posing as an atheists."

Charlie also said that homosexuals are homosexual because of mental disorders and because they had been sexually abused. He also seemingly likened homosexuality to bestiality and incest. He said things in the thread like (granted - they are out of context):

I"m (sic) an Atheist and I'm against gay marriage for the same reason I'm against people marrying their pets.

…I don't support sibling marriage, human and pet marriage AND gay marriage.

I'm an Atheist and I’m against gay marriage. Why? it's because it would be unfair to a man who wants to marry his daughter or a woman who wants to marry her dog or siblings wanting to marry each other.

… gay marriage is a result of a mental disorder for the gays who became gay due to some kind of trauma and THAT'S been verified.

… the people at Narth promote scientific studies from REAL SCIENTISTS. They're not bigots like you are. You're a bigot towards ANYONE who knows something is wrong with gay people's brain.

You must don't realize how easy it is for GAY scientists to rig a study. Keep in mind that the studies involve interviews with gay people. The question is, will gay people tell truth? HELL NO. They are die hard and they will lie, cheat and do what ever it takes to deceive people into thinking they aren't crazy.

Gay people are defined by being attracted to the wrong sex. So the very thing that makes them gay stems from a result of being molested or raped. It should be obvious that they have some kind of sexual attraction disorder. Some of them are gay because they're suffering from GID. That's been proven. The percentages are uncertain because gays lie a lot because they're trying so hard to prove they're normal.

… If you were a scientist and you discovered that homosexuality is a mental disorder, would you report it to the media or would you pretend you never discovered it? YOU WOULD DENY IT AND DESTROY ALL THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE YOU ARE BIGOTED TOWARDS ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SHARE YOUR GAY VIEWS.

Atheists shouldn't have anything to do with gays. Atheists primary concern should be Atheist rights, not gay rights. It seems as though gays are trying to turn the Atheist movement into a gay/Atheist movement.

Well, gay marriage is just as bad sibling marriage …

I'm not prejudice against gays. I just know some of them became gay because they were raped. I also know that some of them have the wrong gender's brain. It's a fact.

Deep down gays know something is wrong with them. So to counter that, they try to convince as many people as possible that nothing is wrong with them so they can feel better about themselves. Homosexuals don't want any barriers stopping them from seducing the person (gay or straight) of their choice. A major barrier is the way heterosexuals view homosexuality. In order for homosexuals to increase their chances of seducing the straight person of their choice, they need to convince as many people as possible to accept the gay lifestyle. The more heterosexuals accept the gay life style, the better chance gays will have of succeeding in seducing the straight person of their choice … Gays are hateful towards anyone who might say ANYTHING that will interfere with gays attempting to seduce the straight person of their choice.

So if you think a person can be sexually attracted to the wrong species (horses), you should understand why I think a person can be sexually attracted to the wrong gender.

Playing the victim role is one of the many tactics gays use to try and downplay ANYONE who simply opposes their gay views.

'There are occasional scientific attempts to deny or obscure the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of active homosexuals also molest children. These studies are invariably afflicted with one or more fatal flaws.' [He was quoting from]

Narth list several studies from several psychologists. It would be wrong to discredit every one of the studies. Pro-gay scientists have been caught masquerading gay activism as science but pro-gays won't complain about that. They would probably encourage any dishonesty that helps the gay movement.

Following the uproar, Brother Richard posted an explanation of his reaction to all of this. Following are some of the highlights of what he said:

For those interested, here is the verdict about Charlie.

There are two reasons it took so long. First, I wanted to get the opinions of the advisory board. Second, I have learned that the worst time to make decisions is when my emotions are at either end of the spectrum. Judgments made in elation or despondency can both have dire consequences. I usually have to sit back and wait for the dross to settle before I reach conclusions. It also helps me to listen to friends like you.

With all of our diversity, there will always be differences of opinion, and I like it that way. What is the point of only listening to people who agree with you? I’ve said it over and over, but I truly believe in Covey’s, 'Seek first to understand, and then to be understood.' I ask you all to try and live by this as well.


Charlie will not be representing Atheist Nexus at the AAI Convention. While he is free to hold whatever views he chooses, he cannot represent Nexus in any form.

Second, Charlie will remain banned from Nexus indefinitely.

While most of his statements were simply ignorant and prejudiced, there were a few that were clearly bigoted and hateful. Even when others tried to show him the error of his ways, he ignored their points and became even more repugnant.

That being said, if at some future date, Charlie claims to have 'seen the light,' and wishes to join us again, I will speak to him personally and make a decision at that time. He would have to show he has changed.

I do now, and will always, believe in redemption...

Charlie was distressed over the whole situation and expressed his dismay in a blog on his MySpace profile. He had his "mood" set to "betrayed" at the time he posted it. He wrote:

When I mentioned that some studies suggest that homosexuals may have a biological defect and gay marriage is unfair to siblings who want to marry each other(who choose to adopt instead of incest), some pro-gay Atheists reacted by saying,

1.  "f-ck you"
2. "you suck"
3  "you're just as bad as a racist"
4.  "you're a bigot"
5.  "you make me sick to my stomach"
6,  "you're not a real atheist"
7.  "you're just as bad as fundamentalists"
8.  "you're a Christian posing as an Atheist"
9.  "you're a homophobic
10, "you're irrational"
11.  "You're gay yourself"

it seems as though some pro-gay Atheists are just as bad as Christians if not worse. Not only did they say these hateful things, they pushed to get me banned from Atheist Nexus.  They also said they will spread the word that I'm a homophobic and my ATHEIST music (which is helpful to Atheists) shouldn't be supported by the ATHEIST community.

It seems like some pro-gay Atheists are putting the gay agenda over any Atheist issues.   They want to damage anybody including Atheists who don't agree with their views about gay issues. Their actions and words indicate that they're just using the Atheist movement to further their gay agenda. It seems like they believe the Atheist movement is completely useless unless it assist them with their gay movement. That means, Atheist issues alone are irrelevant to them.

I'm an Atheist rapper/activist. The pro-gay Atheist  members at Atheist Nexus know this and they KNOW my music is good for Atheists and they KNOW I fight for Atheist BUT THEY DON'T CARE. If they don't care about the fight for Atheists, they don't care about atheism. They only care about their gay agenda.  I posted this blog because I'm concerned about  people masquerading the gay movement as an Atheist movement. In the Atheist movement, their gay views should take the back seat and not have an impact on the main cause. Just like in a gay movement, people's Atheist views should take the back seat and not have an impact on the main cause.

So, is the atheist rapper Charlie Check'm a bigot and a homphobe? He says he's not. Does he really care if people think he is? Should he care? After all, according to one post he made in the thread, he believes that his music "...will sell regardless of how many pro-gay Atheists don't like [him].” While that may be true, there are many atheists who won't be buying it or supporting him.

Note: By the time this was posted, Charlie had deleted the MySpace blog post quoted above.


  • Greg B 5 years ago

    Charlie? F*ck'em.

    Sure, we don't have to get along... and that means we don't have to listen either.

  • Paul Fidalgo 5 years ago

    Wow, I had no idea this was going on. Just based on your piece, though, I think it's bad form for an atheist social network to ban people for having stupid, grossly misinformed, idiotic opinions. It's a social network - if people don't want to socially network with him, that's their businesses, not Atheist Nuxus's.

  • Shelley Mountjoy 5 years ago

    @Paul: Charlie was not banned for being against gay marriage but rather (as Richard statement says above) because the statements were bigoted and hateful.

  • felch 5 years ago

    Paul: "I think it's bad form for an atheist social network to ban people for having stupid, grossly misinformed, idiotic opinions."

    He was banned more for generation of vast quantities of pointless noise, endlessly repeating identical statements, and finally post bombing dozens of "I win !!!! YOU LOSE !!!!!!!!!!!! LOSERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" messages. Ignorance, even idiocy, is forgivable. Mindless vandalism is not.

  • Hugh Kramer, LA Atheism Examiner 5 years ago

    I don't know Charlie Check'm or his case other than what I read here. Nor do I feel qualified to second-guess whether the action taken concerning him was appropriate or not. I am willing to give Atheist Nexus' administrators the benefit of the doubt there and I'm happy I don't have that job.

    I can only comment on what I do about trolls on a blog. I just don't feed them. There's no rule that says atheists can't act like trolls. I know a couple at Atheist Nexus who are obnoxious enough to fit the bill. When they say innappropriate things and keep repeating them even after correction, I just pay them no further attention. I can't stop others from paying attention to them but if they didn't acknowledge it either, they'd be surprised at how fast the troll-like behavior subsides.

  • BathTub 5 years ago

    Wow it's hard not to see, a poe or a troll in those comments, I mean he hit pretty much every cliche didn't he?

  • Buffy 5 years ago

    Is he a bigot and a homophobe? Short answer, yes. Sadly according to his Website he's studying Psychology. I have to wonder where if he's citing NARTH as "science". Ugh.

  • Margaret 5 years ago

    I someone said the same things about African Americans, NO ONE in their right mind would have defended them. As stated above, it was not due to political issues. Atheist Nexus has more political variety than any other atheist site I have been on. I was almost more disgusted that it took them so long to get rid of him. He was hateful and made it clear he was not open to any new ideas. And he was VERY abusive to everyone.

  • Thomas M 5 years ago

    How can anyone defend this jerk? I think we should all vote with our wallets and not buy his music anymore. We have protested business for much less than this.

  • Mark 5 years ago

    Well I'd never heard of this jerk beforehand, and something tells me he'll be disappearing from my consciousness as quickly as he's just arrived in it. If you're a bigot and/or troll I have no interest in you whatsoever. There's no rule that says that just because we (seemingly!) share a POV on the existance of fairies that I have to like you.

  • Greg 5 years ago

    Shunned from the church! lol. Hilarious. The atheist nexus is a ridiculous concept to begin with, now they have their first witch hunt. Don't say I didn't tell you this would happen, because I did.

    No-one can prove they are an atheist, the entire network exists on faith that others are not lying when they say they believe there is no god. If they don't say so, they are not atheists anyway. DNA test for atheism or how do you know for sure?

    No way to tell. This faith based organization is now shunning people. Good grief.

    Slow learners.

  • Megan 5 years ago

    Greg, either you are being ironic with your attempt at poe and trolling, or you are ignorant of definitions.

    Atheism means without god. That's it. Atheism is a belief system like bald is a hair style. You don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the believer only.

    Nexus is a private organization and they can do what they want. No one has a right to be there. I think there are quite a few others who should have been banned.

  • felch 5 years ago

    Greg: "Shunned from the church! lol. Hilarious. The atheist nexus is a ridiculous concept to begin with, now they have their first witch hunt."

    You don't just sound like Chuck, you also lack his comprehension skills. What does church or shunning have to do with anything ? Is it necessary to make things up to get upset about ? Have you to got a bitter experience from doing this kind of thing to excess as well? An entire community doesn't unanimously get sick of hearing someone throwing a juvenile tantrum because of no one believes his concocted gospel proofs by accident. I don't think there's a community anywhere that would not have booted him to the curb, and not done so far earlier than Nexus did.

  • Paul Fidalgo 5 years ago

    I want to just make clear, in case I was misunderstood: I am not defending Check'm's actions, words, opinions, stances, etc. My initial reaction was about whether or not a social network ought to ban a user for unpopular opinions -- I have since spoken to some folks and found that the problem was far worse than that (confirming Trina's reporting, not that there is any reason to doubt her!). Someone who is a real nuisance is an organizational matter, and that's fine. I do think it's a good broader question to ask, particularly for a marginalized group like atheists, what's our line that must not be crossed? And are we concerned with supporting atheists or human rights and tolerance in general? I think it's an important discussion that's been opened up.

  • Megan 5 years ago

    Paul, and I think Atheist Nexus handled it very well. In fact, they were more delayed in response than any theist site guaranteed. All those poor guys get is second guessers and protesters. They are truly damned if they do and damned if they don't. I for one applaud them and thank them for being so cautious and doing a thankless job.

  • Megan 5 years ago

    sorry didn't mean to speak for Paul. It was supposed to be:


    And I think...

  • Buffy 5 years ago


    Nobody was "shunned from church". They were booted from a privately run forum because they repeatedly violated the TOS.

    And no, you can't "prove" you're an atheist, particularly online. But you also can't "prove" you're a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else. People just have to take you for your word. That doesn't make the concept of AN any more ridiculous than other philosophy/theme-based forums.

  • Heather M. 5 years ago

    A couple things:
    He copy/pasted some of his comments over and over. When asked to clarify a comment, or asked to consider other apects of the issue, he'd direct a hostile reply at the poster followed by a defamitory comment about homosexuals. His actions made it clear that he wasn't in that discussion for the purpose of exchanging ideas, or to present an alternate opinion, he was there for a fight. Nothing more than a troll.

  • Daniel A 5 years ago

    Having been there when Charlie started posting, I commented that it was like watching a train wreck. Or that crazy person on the street spinning in circles and shouting at passers by. It was difficult to stay out of it.

    As Felch and Hugh both comment, the way to kill a Troll is to starve it. On a site with >10,000 members, it's difficult to imagine everyone with the self discipline not to jump in. All in all, this was handled very thoughtfully.

  • Nathalie (AK47) 5 years ago

    Here is our latest bulletin at The Anti-Religious Movement, a group I run with my female partner.

    Rapper Charlie Check'm Is The Atheist Ted Haggard!

    The A.R.M. have told Charlie Check'm that he is out of The ARM and that we will no longer be funding or organising his UK tour due to a rule three breach.

    Rule Three in The ARM states that: "Members must not promote monotheism, sexism, homophobia, racism (although disliking cultural ideologies is acceptable), or promote cruelty to children or animals."

    Evidence has come to light that, despite the fact Charlie was going to take the hospitality of my partner and I (we are an engaged gay female couple) by staying in our home while our organisation funded and organised his UK tour, he is the most homophobic son of a bitch since Ted Haggard. Thus we have even been asking doth protest to much perhaps? He has written a number of MySpace blogs spreading misinformation about homosexuality, comparing it to incest and bestiality, and labe

  • Kristy 5 years ago

    Normally, I would agree on the 'starve a troll' policy. But this was not ordinary trolling. This was a person performing publicly and making money from being an 'atheist' rapper who genuinely did not see that his remarks were offensive. If we had remained silent, he would obviously think his view that gays were defective was a reasonable, if alternative, viewpoint backed by valid, if not mainstream, scientific sources. I have always held by the maxim "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." In the case of Charlie's bigoted views I think a lot of very good people did stand up and do something.

  • Randall 5 years ago

    Here's an excerpt of Charlie's recent post:

    "They can kiss, hold hands, have sex with a fake dick, have anal sex and tare their bodily tissue. They can live together, call each other husband and what ever else. Gay men can wear lip stick and deny they're not suffering from GID. Lesbians can dress like men wearing a strapped on fake dick and deny they're suffering from GID. They can have gay parades. Men can swish their hips like women and call anyone homophobic who doesn't want to hang out with them."

    We need to get the word out to boycott him! Contact everyone we know.

    Also, I read he is hosting a hip hop concert on the same night of the AAI Nexus party. And, Greydon Square is performing with him.

    If someone has a contact to Greydon, he needs to be told that he will be boycotted to, if he preforms with him. Because this will come across as an endorsement.

  • Kristy 5 years ago

    Charlie's latest blog (pt 2):

    Note: The definition of "homophobic" is an unreasoned fear of homosexuals.

    There are several reasons other than unreasoned fear why a person doesn't want to hang out with homosexuals. The person could simply be single and prefer to hang out with people who are into the heterosexual dating scene. Also, a person could be in the dating scene and doesn't want anyone to assume he or she is gay. Some women are terrified of meeting a down low homo[sexual]. If a straight woman sees a man with a bunch of homosexuals, that might turn her completely off.

    Homosexuals often misuse the word "homophobic" They use the word as a weapon to downplay anyone who doesn't submit to the homosexual wishes. I've heard of a homosexual calling someone "homophobic' just because the person refused to let the homo[sexual] suck his d*** [word not allowed on this site].

  • Kristy 5 years ago

    Charlie's latest blog (pt 1). Too good not to preserve - he seems to keep writing 'em and deleting 'em:


    If someone says,

    "homosexuals are attracted to the wrong gender"

    Typical homosexual reply,

    "You hate homosexuals and you're a bigot"

    Note: It should be obvious that the statement doesn't imply that the person hates homosexuals. It's just an opinion.

    If anyone says anything about homosexuals that the homosexuals don't like, the homosexuals set out to punish their victims with lies and slander. In order for the homosexuals to have an acceptable reason to downgrade, insult, and downplay someone, they have to justify it by lying about the person's views. The homosexuals believe if they play the victim role, they can get away with bashing and verbally abusing anyone who admits that homosexuality is wrong.

    If someone says,

    "I don't hang out with homosexuals"

    Typical homosexual reply,

    "You're a homophobic"


  • Basic Atheist 5 years ago

    No No No, you've got Charlie Check'm tagged all wrong. What in the he-ll is wrong with you people? You just dissed an atheist brother just because he has an odd opinion that doesn't agree with the majority? Hello!!! Isn't that the same thing atheists are fighting against? You jack-asses just did the same fu-cking thing to Charlie as those nimrod christians do all the time to atheists. What in the he-ll is going on? - Look, Charlie's main concern are the heterosexual kids that may be living with married homosexuals. He fears it would disrupt the child's natural environment and deprive the child the right to a heterosexual family. He wants to protect the rights of children. He's having trouble coming up with some justification, so the next best thing he can think of is to deny gay marriage, say they have a mental disorder, and they shouldn't be allowed to raise children, until science comes up with a better solution. He does have a valid point about the kids. I understand his concern.

  • Sarina 5 years ago

    First of all, gay marriage is completely different from racial discrimination. He didn't say anything hateful or bigoted. I can't believe Atheists would go so low to slander a talented Atheist rapper all because he doesn't agree with their views about gays. Atheists Nexus is making Atheists look bad. Atheists can no longer complain about witch hunts. They go after anyone who opposes gay marriage like a bunch of red necks going after a slave.

  • Derrick 5 years ago

    I agree with him. Something has to be wrong with homos. Any man who thinks about screwing men in the booty has to be sick. What kind of a man wouldn't like a females beauty? They're crazy. I'm with Charlie

  • Amp Po 5 years ago

    Sarina, (if that's your name)you are an idiot and obviously did not read the quotes given here. I read TONS of things Charlie said that were bigoted. They were disgusting and hateful.

    Also, for the record, Atheist Nexus NEVER told people to boycott Charlie. It was the individual members who did that. And that is the way things work. You say things right or wrong you must live with the consequences.

    I think it is funny that Charlie is lying about how things went down. He is either delusional or a total liar. He made his own bed, now he has to LIE in it

  • sarina 5 years ago


    Quote ONE thing he said that was hateful? I don't see it. Just because it's the harsh truth doesn't make it hateful. You guys helped him. Because if Atheist Nexus, I now know he exist and purchased his album.

  • Brinaka 5 years ago

    For ONE!

    there is NO proven study that suggests homosexual people are "crazy" as Charlie has stated. Unless of course it was a study funded by Christians. rofl.

    and for interesting scientific study:

    for all you homophobic people that side with Charlie... did you know that in the wild the MAJORITY of our closest cousins such as apes are homosexual? AND giraffes were found to be homosexual more than heterosexual.....interesting huh? so are the animals "crazy" too?

    don't believe me...look it up and EDUCATE YOURSELF!

  • Rick Diculous 5 years ago

    There's NO gay gene (WIKI Dean Hamer of Harvard & xq28).

    There r NO (empirical) gay phermones, if u discover them notify Sweden as u r sure to win a Nobel !

    Which THUS makes 'gay' a (very sublime) choice.

  • Southern Freethinker 5 years ago

    I have been an atheist for most of my life. I have also attended many atheist/secular humanist/freethinker meetings and have been a member also of many of the secular organizations. I no longer wish to attend any of their meetings as I have found that these organizations overwhelmingly are NOT about freethought in the general sense but rather a haven for radical ultra liberal leftwing whack jobs who are trying to ram their liberal left wing political agendas down everyones throats. If you are a moderate/conservative freethinker you are in bad company. All I ever hear at these meetings is the gay/lesbian agenda being promoted while attacking the tradional family, radical feminists ranting about misogyny while promoting misandry, socialists attacking capitalism/free enterprise, pandering to the Democratic party and left wing politics and agendas, etc etc , ad nauseum. Its sickening. What you have is bigots calling other people bigots. Its no wonder their membership is so low.

  • somedude 4 years ago

    bottom line: regardless of his opinions on things like the origins of homosexuality and whether it is 'right' or 'wrong', one way or the other, there is a such thing as discussing something like a civil human being. From what I gather, he seems like he has no tact and he behaves and speaks like an over-the-top ignorant bigot. I've even known atheists with objections to homosexuality that didn't act like such an ass about it.

  • somedude 4 years ago

    plus, anyone who says it's a 'choice' (like some below) is a moron. without the 'choice' to choose who 'turns you on', you cannot 'choose' to be straight. only gay and abstinent. that's REGARDLESS of the whole nature/nurture origins argument because 'choice' is not even part of the nurture argument. it's only credible with people who believe in talking snakes. now, if you wanted to try and claim that you thought it was a 'defect', regardless of origins, like infertile women or birth transgenders, you'd have more of an argument, albeit politically incorrect. However, this is still more complex than a conscious decision. It's not about sex, but attraction. Either way, comparing it to bestiality makes you sound like a moron. I could care less if if were just a fetish, to be honest, as I see it as harmless, so would still say live and let live. Charlie's problem once again, was being an ignorant moron. Running out of typeroom due to the LAME character limitation here.

  • Dev 4 years ago

    Atheist's against homosexuality? Now that is going to be a very hard thing to back up, as Charlie proved on the board.

    And the rules stated CLEARLY in the post are that homophibic statemtents are not allowed. It wasn't that he disagree'd with homosexuality, it was that he posted FALSE and CHRISTIAN studies/opinions to back up his claims. He would not listen to anyone, repeated himself, and acted as if he was right and they were wrong. Atheists tend to be more educated than most, and the LARGE majority of them will never support homophobia. It makes no sense unless it is coming from a religious mindset, as reproduction is the only natural-argument and there are too many couples in this world without kids to attempt to use that.

    He called it a mental disorder, which is completely false. He is a public figure they were going to endorse, and he was going to stay with a LESBIAN COUPLE while they out money together and funded his tour. Talk about an idiot.