Concerned Women Attack Chelsea Clinton for Marrying - the Horrors - A Jew

Never at a loss for words in their perverted quest to make the USA a Bible beating, Kool-Aid drinking theocracy, the bitches at Concerned Women for America have reached a new low - or at least another low, since they are in general such lying sleaze bags that they achieve many lows. Now, these godly, self-anointed bitches are attacking Chelsea Clinton for - oh the absolute horror - marrying a man of Jewish descent. Heaven forbid that people be judged based on their character or personal attributes. For the good bitches at CWFA, the only thing that matters is whether or not one is a far right Christian who hates gays, Jews, Muslims - indeed practically everyone else in the world. I know many individuals of the Jewish faith that on a daily basis act in a more Christ like manner towards others compared to the hate filled Christofascists at CWFA. (In my view, CWFA offers yet another reason not to call one's self a Christian nowadays). Here are some highlights from CWFA's screed authored by uber-bitch, Janice Crouse Shaw, taking Chelsea to task for marry someone Shaw obviously views as just a descendant of Christ killing Jews (NOTE: Shaw cites far right nutcase Al Mohler as one of her "experts"):
*
When asked about the significance of her daughter, Chelsea, marrying Marc Mezvinsky, who is Jewish, and thus being married in an interfaith union, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded, “Over the years, so many of the barriers that prevented people from getting married, crossing lines of faith or color or ethnicity have just disappeared.” True, the barriers have disappeared, but serious difficulties remain.
*
Observers have noted that both Clinton and Mezvinsky were raised in homes where religious faith was central to family life and questioned whether one or the other would convert and how they would reconcile the practice of their different faiths.
*
While intermarriage indicates a “high degree of assimilation and tolerance,” it also means “the declining role of faith and religious identity in the minds of many young Americans,” according to Allan Schwartz, in the “Emotional Challenges of Interfaith Marriage.” In her classic book, The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts, Judith Wallerstein reports that couples set the stage for conflict, bitterness, and misunderstanding as they make the emotional and psychological separation from their families’ religious heritage. Problems begin as early as the planning of the wedding ceremony, where different traditions are in conflict, especially when certain symbols of faith “evoke powerful emotional responses.”
*
“When the level of doctrinal commitment is low, the barriers to interfaith marriage are correspondingly far less significant.” What this comes down to is that typically traditional “practices” and “activities” are simply adjusted and adapted — this is a gentle way of saying they get “watered down” to the point of irrelevance; central beliefs of committed adherents pose a larger, more difficult challenge, since they are far less amenable to compromise. As noted by Dr. Mohler, theological differences matter, and decisions that are made by a couple over the course of a lifetime — especially in raising children — affect the marriage.
*
For the true Christian believer, this means a life lived in light of Christ’s singular claim that He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Taking His claim seriously, that He is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), means that all decisions are made in light of His teaching and commands. This includes His teaching that marriage is intended by God to be a life-long covenant — not just between the couple, but sealed by God and witnessed by fellow believers in the couples’ church community. That said, real Christian marriage includes a commitment to follow Christ, both in lifestyle and in childrearing.
*
Religion that is not practiced is little more than a set of myths and of no more significance than the fairy tales told to toddlers at bedtime. Faith that does not make demands on behavior is not faith at all. Inevitably, a lack of unity in faith entails multiple problems on both the little and the large issues that couples continuously encounter as they face the task of building a strong, meaningful, harmonious marriage. How could it possibly be otherwise?
*
Shaw does unwittingly get one thing right but ascribes it to Chelsea rather than to CWFA as is more appropriate - as practiced by the Christianists, their version of Christianity is a distorted set of fear and hate based myths that ought to be given no more significance than the fairy tales.

Saturday Male Beauty

Catholic Cardinal: Homosexuality is a Disorder, Like Missing Limbs

Not far behind Scott Lively when it comes to being delusional and in need of serious mental health intervention are senior clerics in the Catholic Church hierarchy. The bitter old queens in dresses just seem unable to stop making injurious anti-gay comments - even as it becomes more and more evident that the ranks of the priesthood are filled with closeted (or in Rome, not so closeted) gays. The same bitter queens meanwhile are unable to direct similarly scathing comments to those in their own ranks who enable and/or cover up the rape of children and youths. The latest diarrhea of the mouth episode comes from Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, who led the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 1996 to 2002. The good cardinal is pictured at right wearing vestments that many a drag queen would be only too happy to wear. Here are highlights from Catholic Culture on this latest denigration of gay individuals:
*
The gay community in Chile is reacting with indignation to recent comments by 83-year-old Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez . . . Reacting to Argentina’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, the cardinal said that “the Church distinguishes the homosexual tendency and homosexual practice. If a person has a homosexual tendency it is a defect, as if one lacked an eye, a hand, a foot.” On the other hand, homosexual activity, he noted, is immoral.
*
Some, like alcoholics, have overcome this tendency by “discipline, education, or reeducation,” he said, while others have heroically resisted this tendency for their entire lives.
*
Same-sex marriage, he added, “is something in opposition to the law of God, and no human law can go against the law of God. If a human law goes against the law of God, that human law does not exist.”
*
But covering up the rape of children apparently is fine and moral in the eyes of the cardinal. He's got one f*cked up set of morals himself. It's folks like the good cardinal who have helped me to cease saying that I am a Christian. I surely do NOT want to be counted among such company.

Jon Stewart and The Daily Show Destroy Delusional Scott Lively

I have written about Scott Lively many times before and we've had a few e-mail debates where lively has shown himself to be truly irrational. He's not only vociferous in his homophobia, but in my view literally insane. Unlike opportunistic parasites like Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins and others of the professional Christian set who enjoy living well off of monies suckered from the ignorant and gullible, Lively is freaking insane. His totally discredited book, The Pink Swastika underscores the man's delusional world where there's a gay plot under every bush and rock. Well, this past week, The Daily Show exposed Lively's utter lunacy to a whole new generation in the way only they way that show can do it. Mediate has some details and here are highlights followed by a video clip:
*
More than half a century later, the journalists of The Daily Show have uncovered the real reason for the inhuman cruelty of the Third Reich: every last one of those Nazis was gay. Or at least that’s what Scott Lively, the president of the organization Defend the Family, contends. In search of the truth, Jason Jones went deep into the heart of New York’s gay community to find evidence for Lively’s argument.
*
Lively argues, with full certainty, that all the soldiers in the Nazi army, and especially Adolf Hitler and the people in his inner circle, were gay. The reason for the high concentration of homosexuality in the Naxi party, according to Lively? “Adolf Hitler,” he explained, “used homosexual soldiers because they were more savage than natural men… They didn’t have the restraint that a normal man has, and so it was easier for them to do some of the terrible things the Nazis did.” And not only were the Nazis gay, “they met in a gay bar.” As for that whole “persecution of the Nazis” thing, Lively contends that the Nazis persecuted gays to”distract public attention away from their own homosexuality.”
*

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gay Reichs
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

*
Lively is the true face of the Kool-Aid drinkers that most follow the anti-gay mantra. One can only hope that the more exposure people have to exposes and spoofs like this one, the less credence the homophobes will receive.

What the WikiLeaks Disclosures Should Trigger But Won't

I have been against the adventurism launched by Chimperator Bush and Emperor Palpatine Cheney in Iraq and Afghanistan from the outset. I clearly recall watching the television news as the Chimperator announced the U.S. military was going into those countries and thought to myself that Bush's hubris and Cheney's insanity would bring nothing good for the USA. Here we are years later and those fears have been confirmed. Thousands of U.S. servicemembers dead, countless thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians dead, in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars just as effectively wasted as if it had been put in a pile and lighted on fire. The recent WikiLeaks disclosures have only served to underscore the fool's errand the USA has been on from the get go. Yet what is the reaction - especially from the military which has been caught with its pants down and Barack Obama who disingenuously promised change in failed foreign policy and to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights? Condemnation. But of the leaker(s) and WikiLeaks, not the misdeeds disclosed - some of which merit serious of criminal prosecution - and the utterly false premises behind so much of the deadly and costly misadventures. Not all in the media are buying into the ploy of shifting attention from what ought to properly be the focus of attention following the disclosures, but too much of the MSM is - as is the norm - merely parroting the White House and military disinformation. Sometimes being a true patriot means going against leaders who are taking the nation down a disastrous road. Pfc. Bradley Manning, who served as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, has been charged with eight violations of the U.S. Criminal Code. If the leaks result in change in a failed policy, he more probably should be given a medal for exposing the lies of the military and some of the truth about what is really happening in Afghanistan. Here are highlights from some who are on target as to what ought to be happening. First from Glenn Greenwald at Salon:
*
[A]s was painfully predictable and predicted, the bulk of political discussion in the wake of the WikiLeaks disclosures focuses not on our failing, sagging, pointless, civilian-massacring, soon-to-be-decade-old war, but rather on the Treasonous Evil of WikiLeaks for informing the American people about what their war entails. While it's true that WikiLeaks should have been much more careful in redacting the names of Afghan sources, watching Endless War Supporters prance around with righteous concern for Afghan lives being endangered by the leak is really too absurd to bear. You know what endangers innocent Afghan lives? Ten years of bombings, checkpoint shootings, due-process-free hit squads, air attacks, drones, night raids on homes, etc. etc.
*
Numerous government officials are predictably threatening not only WikiLeaks' sources with criminal prosecution, but WikiLeaks itself. That, of course, would be a major escalation of the Obama administration's war on whistle blowing leaks, which already easily surpasses the war waged by the Bush administration. . . . . allowing prosecutions not for those who leak classified information, but also for those who receive and publish it, would obviously allow criminal sanctions to be aimed at journalists who publish or report on classifed information.
*
[T]he Obama administration is now advocating changes to the law that would empower federal law enforcement agents to compel companies to turn over citizens' Internet records without a warrant or any other form of judicial oversight.
*
The latter move sounds like something out of the former Soviet Union or present day China. The sad truth is that if one had reason to fear for their privacy and civil rights under the Bush/Cheney regime, things are now even worse under Obama. Yes, Obama is bringing change - but not the change he was elected to bring about. Why does the word "LIAR" keep springing to mind? Here via CNN is what the founder of WikiLeaks has to say back to Obama and the DOD:
*
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Friday that he was disappointed by criticism from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates over the release of about 76,000 pages of U.S. documents related to the war in Afghanistan.
*
Gates said Thursday that the massive leak will have significant impact on troops and allies, revealing techniques and procedures. Assange rejected that assessment Friday, saying in a release that Gates "has overseen the killings of thousands of children and adults" in Afghanistan and Iraq.
*
Assange's statement Friday was harshly critical of Gates, particularly over deaths in Afghanistan. "Secretary Gates could have used his time, as other nations have done, to announce a broad inquiry into these killings," the statement said. "He could have announced specific criminal investigations into the deaths we have exposed. He could have announced a panel to hear the heartfelt dissent of U.S. soldiers, who know this war from the ground. He could have apologized to the Afghani people.
*
"But he did none of these things. He decided to treat these issues and the countries affected by them with contempt. Instead of explaining how he would address these issues, he decided to announce how he would suppress them. "This behavior is unacceptable. We will not be suppressed. We will continue to expose abuses by this administration and others."

*

Frankly, I don't believe anything Gates has to say - and my inability to believe Obama isn't far behind. Things have changed in Washington, alright. And for the worse.

Christopher Rice's Reaction to Mom's Announcement

Last night I wrote about author Anne Rice's decision to "Quit Christianity" because of the increasingly un-Christ like behavior and agenda of the most vociferous self-congratulatory Christians. Most people that I've spoken with agree with Rice's analysis of not wanting to be a "Christian" because they don't want guilt by association. Now, Karen Ocamb at LGBT Pov has caught the reaction of author Christopher Rice's reaction to his mother's decision. Yes, not all Christians are bad, but more and more they good Christians if you will are allowing the Christian brand to be turned into something vile and hateful. Here are the younger Rice's comments:

*

"For ten years I watched my mother bravely attempt to engage the hostile fundamentalist forces that dominate the leadership of almost every popular Christian denomination. She was met, in most instances with an iron wall of derision and scorn. Her departure from organized religion is a testament to the moral rot that exists at the politcized core of most church leadership. Throughout it all, her love and support of me as a gay man has never wavered and I love her just as much today as I did when she considered herself a member of the Catholic church.”

*

Oh, and I did modify my own Facebook page since I have given up Christianity as practiced by most alleged Christians.

Friday Male Beauty

Episcopal Committee Is Working on Gay Rite

In a move that will send the Neanderthal elements of the Anglican Communion into full apoplexy, a committee of the Episcopal Church USA is working to develop a rite for same sex couples seeking Church blessing of their relationships. Frankly, I can already envision the spittle flying in Nigeria, Uganda and other nutcase corners of the Anglican Communion where all kinds of things are overlooked - e.g., polygamy, Archbishops who are suspected of ordering massacres, etc - and only gays get condemned on a daily basis. Hypocrisy is very much alive and well in this pockets of hatred with which break away elements of the Episcopal Church (and local GOP politicians like Scott Rigell) are aligning themselves. Here are some highlights from the New York Times:
*
Armed with a new $400,000 grant and the support of the Episcopal Church, a Berkeley seminary is convening priests from across the country to craft the liturgical rite for same-sex couples to receive religious blessings.
*
The new rite, which will take years to complete, will most likely consist of a series of original prayers, Bible readings and two essays: one on the theological meaning of same-sex blessings, and one advising priests who administer the new rite. If approved, the new blessing would be just the third addition to Episcopal liturgy since 1979.
*
“This is very significant,” said the Rev. Ruth Meyers, chairwoman of the church’s Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, who is heading the effort. “It does acknowledge a fuller participation of gays and lesbians in the life of the church.”
*
Most of the grant money will finance travel and accommodations for a series of meetings to garner contributions from all 110 Episcopal dioceses, most in the United States. An official blessing would formalize what has long been an unofficial practice at some dioceses across the country. Unofficial blessings have taken place in Bay Area churches since at least the 1980s.
*
But not all Episcopalians support adding the blessing. “Doing this will cause great fracturing and great pain,” said the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon of the Diocese of South Carolina. “It represents a willful American embrace of something that the Anglican Communion has said is out of bounds.”
*
“We’re taking this as an opportunity to offer these resources to the whole church,” Mr. Johnson said, “not just for the sake of gay and lesbian couples but as an opportunity for everybody to reflect theologically on what it means to be in a committed relationship.”
*
I firmly believe that history is on the side of the pro-gay leadership of the Episcopal Church and that in time folks like Canon Harmon will be looked back upon with the same disdain as racists and segregationists.

Nervous Nellie Democrats Want Your Money - Say No To Party and Yes to Targeted Candidates

I am a constant critic of the Democratic Party which is long on talk and promises to the LGBT community but piss poor when it comes to actually delivering on anything of substance that applies to LGBT citizens across the country, particularly those of us living in states where a quasi-theocracy exists and Christianist anti-gay religious bigotry continues to be enshrined in the local and state laws. Kevin Naff of the Washington Blade has an on point column in that publication that echos my thoughts: when the Democratic Party comes calling for money, respond with a resounding "No." With respect to individual candidates who have put their votes where their mouth is, go ahead and support them since they - unlike the White House and the Congressional leadership - deserve support. And when the Party fundraisers call you, be sure to tell them why no money will be forthcoming. Perhaps - although I'm not holding my breath - if the money flow dwindles the message will get across that having a spine with less stiffness than Jello is a loser financially. Here are highlights from Kevin's column:
*
As Congress heads into its August recess and the November elections draw near, the Democrats are plunged into full panic mode, with some prognosticators convinced the Republicans will retake the House.
*
Playing defense is, of course, familiar turf for Democrats, who never seem comfortable in power. They live in perpetual fear of Fox News, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and a handful of other shrill blowhards, even though the far right has all but lost the culture wars, particularly when it comes to gay issues. Witness last week’s pathetic turnout for a rally against marriage equality in Maryland staged by the dinosaurs at National Organization for Marriage.
*
“Congress still hasn’t enacted significant protections for LGBT Americans,” Wolfe wrote. “Why? Fear, mostly. Fear that despite their distinct minority status, anti-LGBT extremists wield inordinate power when directly challenged. Swat that nest, the thinking goes, and the hornets will swarm. Incumbents, especially this year, aren’t eager to add perceived obstacles to reelection.”
*
This isn’t a new problem for the party. Many in the Democratic Party base were anxious for bold change after eight years of the Bush-Cheney debacle. And some have been mollified, following passage of financial regulation and health care reform. But the change around signature LGBT issues remains elusive, as Democrats have backed down from promises and cowered in fear of what Glenn Beck might say about them. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is arguably the most important piece of that change.
*
Despite the justified LGBT disappointment and frustration with nervous Democrats, the party has no qualms about extending its trembling hand for another round of donations. Like a broken record, we’re already hearing how important it is to give money to the DNC.
*
That there exists no plan in the Senate to move on ENDA anytime soon confirms the worst suspicions about the party tossing breadcrumbs to keep gay donors on the financial hook for another election cycle. Gay money this year is better directed to individual incumbents and challengers who support our issues, not just in private, off-the-record meetings, but in public statements and votes.
*
Democratic politicians will never shake their nervous Nellie ways and stand up for LGBT constituents if they know gay donors will write checks election after election regardless of legislative advances.

More Thursday Male Beauty

Few Troops Respond to Pentagon's DADT Survey

To listen to Senator Jim Webb and Elaine Donnelly, Tony Perkins and other professional Christians whose main purpose in life seems to denigrate and malign LGBT citizens, the repeal of DADT is supposedly a huge issue with straight service members. Indeed, it is claimed that they might flee in droves if gays are allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military. The funny thing is, however, that only 10% of recipients of the Pentagon's homophobic survey have even bothered to respond to the survey. For something that the demagogues describe as a big deal, that behavior would seem bizarre. Unless, in truth, most members of the military are indifferent to the proposal to end DADT. After all, most already know gay servicemembers and even 56% of Republicans favor repealing DADT. It all shows - in my view - that only (1) the parasites of the Christian Right shilling for money and (2) the spineless Congressional Democrats and the White House seem to be paying attention to the doom and gloom predictions of mass non-re enlistments and other slanderous lies being spread against gay servicemembers. Here are some highlights from Stars and Stripes:
*
Only about 10 percent of the 400,000 "don't ask, don't tell" surveys sent out three weeks ago have been returned, and Pentagon officials are lobbying troops to fill out the rest before the Aug. 15 deadline set for the research.
*
[G]ay rights groups have questioned the value of the survey, and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network warned closeted gay troops against participating in the exercise. Even though the survey will be conducted by e-mail through an outside contractor, SLDN officials said that promise of anonymity didn’t offer enough security for troops who still could be kicked out under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.
*
Defense officials could not say whether that negative reaction has hurt response rates, but are urging everyone who received the survey to fill it out. A similar survey will be sent out to 150,000 military family members next month.
*
In May, both the House and a Senate panel voted for a delayed repeal of the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" law, allowing gay troops to serve openly after the president and Pentagon leaders certify a yearlong study into the effects on the force. The full Senate still has not passed the measure, but is expected to take up debate on the issue in September.

Why One Would Quit Being A Christian

I will admit without reservation that I love Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles - I guess I identify with the otherness of the vampires and the homoerotic undertones as well. I have enjoyed her son Christopher Rice's books as well, especially A Density of Souls. I have not read Anne Rice's more recent books, but suspect that like the Vampire Chronicles a theme of spirituality is present in them as well. Now, as a number of blogs have reported, Rice has announced that she has quit being a Christian. Why, because more and more the name Christian applies to those who act like the Pharisees in the Gospels and act in an overall manner that is diametrically opposed to the theme of love of neighbor. Today's professional Christians are more easily defined by who they hate - which is almost everyone be they gay, black, Hispanic, of foreign birth, non-Christian, etc. I very much feel as Rice does. If the Christian Right and the Catholic Church hierarchy exemplify those who are Christian, then count me out too. I guess the big question is what do those like Rice, myself and others who want to relationship with "Christians" call ourselves? Here are some highlights from Box Turtle Bulletin that look at Rice's statements:
*
But her embrace of Catholicism was of a personal and spiritual nature, and as is not unusual among Catholics, didn’t extend to social issues: Her views will not please all of the devout. Rice favors gay marriage. She believes the church position regarding birth control is a grievous error that is not supported by Scripture. She repudiates what she sees as intolerant, “sex-obsessed” church leaders, and says she does not find support in the message of Jesus for their focus on sexual orientation or abortion. She argues for a more inclusive church.
*
“Think of how the church bells would ring and the pews would fill if women could become priests and priests could marry. It would be the great resurgence of the Catholic Church in this country.”

But Rice was ultimately unable to reconcile her belief in Christ on the one hand, with the actions of fellow Christians and how those actions have stained the Christian “brand” on the other. She appears to have hinted at this with this post on her facebook page which appeared on Tuesday: Gandhi famously said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” When does a word (Christian)become unusable? When does it become so burdened with history and horror that it cannot be evoked without destructive controversy?
*
She answered her question yesterday morning, when she posted this to her facebook page: For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten …years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
*
As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.
*
Rice is 100% on the money in my view. So again, what do we call ourselves so as to not be confused with those who have made Christianity something vile and evil?

Thursday Male Beauty

Same-Sex Relationships Increase Gay Teen Self-Esteem

Another study is out which, like the UVA study on gay parenting, confirms what intuitively is merely common sense - gay teens who have affirming same sex relationships have increased self esteem and suffer from less internalized homophobia. The study also found that gay teens trying to have opposite sex relationships were not positively benefited by the process. The teen years are bad enough without the burden some of us suffered and/or continue to suffer being in the closet and feeling isolated and unable to be truly open and intimate with anyone. And struggling to pull off a relationship with someone of the opposite gender, at least for me, intensified the feelings of being a freak and increased the self-loathing inculcated into me by the Catholic Church growing up. The message of the study is that schools and society need to be more accepting of gay teen relationships. Here are highlights on the study from Health Canal:
*
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Involvement in a same-sex relationship boosted self-esteem in teen males and lowered internalized homophobia in teen females who identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, a new University of Michigan study shows. Surprisingly for the same teens, having an opposite-sex relationship had no affect on self-esteem, depression or anxiety.
*
Dating in adolescence is critical to developing sexual and social identities, says Jose Bauermeister, assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. It's even more salient for gay, lesbian and bisexual youth because there is such a stigma attached to their sexual orientation.
*
Studies have shown that these teens may suffer more psychological distress, victimization, physical threats and violence than heterosexual youth. Gay, lesbian and bisexual teens who conceal their sexuality, often have a lower self-image or internalized sense of homophobia—which can lead to depression and anxiety.
*
The protective effects of same-sex relationships are different for young men and women, says Bauermeister, who oversees the SPH Sexuality and Health Lab. A same-sex relationship is protective in that it reduces internalized homophobia for girls even after only one relationship. For men, a same-sex relationship is protective in that it raises self-esteem, but the relationship must be prolonged. . . . Opposite-sex relationships did increase internalized homophobia in boys
*
"Providers and caregivers of (gay, lesbian and bisexual) youth need to create supportive environments where kids can talk about and support their sexual identity, which may include their dating experiences with same-sex and opposite-sex partners," Bauermeister said. The paper, "Relationship trajectories and psychological well-being among sexual minority youth," will appear in the journal Youth and Adolescence in August.

The Vatican's Subculture of Gay Priests

Newsweek - that magazine one finds in countless doctors' office waiting rooms and other places - has jumped on the band wagon and is covering what is apparently an open secret in Rome, Italy - gay Catholic priests are literally everywhere and many date other gay priests in public view. The Vatican's latest reaction is to remain untethered from objective reality and demand that all such priests come out of the closet and leave the priesthood. Does this apply to Benedict XVI too who has long been rumored to have a "special friend"? And has anyone stopped to factor in that such a demand could lead to the Church's inability to function, much like what would happen to the U.S. Navy if all of the gays left? Of course not. Hypocrisy is the principal hallmark of institutional Catholicism today. Andrew Sullivan described the situation as such:
*
It is an institution so embedded with homosexuality it makes Broadway look straight. The stories I've heard! The network of gay priests is vast in Rome, and is, in my mind, as unhealthy for those who get away with it - the hypocrisy must hollow out the soul in the end - as for those who impose it. Instead of grappling with this fact, owning it, and seeking to diversify the priesthood by ending the celibacy requirement and men-only anachronism, the Vatican clings on to denial and repression.
*
Increasingly, on these issues of modernity, the Vatican of the new millennium seems like the Soviet Politburo of the 1980s. They pretend to believe what they preach while we pretend to obey them. One day, this surreality will pop like a bubble.
*

The Politburo comparison is especially appropriate since "do as we say not as we do" is so pronounced that the only way those trying to cling to the Church can remain is to become increasingly so-called cafeteria Catholics who ignore more and more of Rome's disingenuousness and also attend mass less and less frequently. What to y mind is so sad and downright criminal is that the Church hierarchy continues to ruin and warp young gay lives with its anti-gay jihad even as in cities such as Rome its priests enjoy an almost circuit party like atmosphere. Here are highlights from Newsweek:
*
In the basement dining room of Le Mani In Pasta, a trattoria in central Rome, a young, glossy-eyed couple stare at each other across a table for two. They smile and blush over a private joke. There is no handholding or kissing, but they are clearly more than friends, even though they are both wearing dark shirts and the telltale white clerical collar.
*
For residents of Rome, the sight of courting priests is hardly an anomaly. The phenomenon is a well-known secret here, and one that was largely ignored until last weekend, when the Italian weekly magazine Panorama published a shocking exposé called “Le Notti Brave Dei Preti Gay,” or “Good Nights Out for Gay Priests.”
*
The exposé has touched a nerve within the Catholic community in Rome, but Abbate doesn’t believe that it will have any effect, especially given the Vatican’s other sex scandal. Yet unlike the pedophile-priest crisis, which has so far reached scores of dioceses in the United States and Europe, the gay-priest problem is—so far—an issue just for the Rome diocese on the Vatican’s home turf. Most priests in Rome have some affiliation with the Vatican, and Abbate says one of the priests caught on tape also gave mass in St. Peter’s Basilica.
*
Victims’ rights advocates, however, have noticed that the Vatican seems more focused on sexual orientation than sexual deviance, and they are furious. While clergymen spent years covering up rumors of child-sex abuse and protecting each other, they’re calling instantly for the ouster of gay priests. “Priests who are committing sex crimes against children and bishops who enable and conceal the crimes are the ones leading double lives,” says Barbara Blaine, head of Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests. “They are the ones who should resign.”
*
But requirements like those are impossible to enforce, and they are plainly ignored. In Rome’s medieval quarter of Trastevere not far from Le Mani In Pasta, the International Ecclesiastic Seminary attracts men from all over the world who want to study for the priesthood in the heart of Rome. A professor there, speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect his job, says the vast majority of the young men who come to study are sexually active gay men who quickly become part of the lively gay culture in Rome.
*
Abbate also discovered through his covert research that male escorts and transsexual prostitutes in Rome rely on priests as regular customers. Last March, a member of the Vatican choir admitted to police that he arranged male escorts for papal assistants, including Angelo Balducci, a high-ranking member of Gentlemen of his Holiness, a fraternal order whose members assist the pope.
*
Bryan Cones, who writes for the popular U.S. Catholic blog. “On this matter, the church’s real problem is the closet,” he says. “I must agree with the Vicar of Rome that it would be helpful if gay priests would come out—so we could thank them for their faithful service, especially as they have been unjustly tarred with ‘causing’ sex abuse. Unfortunately, our church leadership at this time is not creating the kind of open and safe space that would allow for such honesty.”

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Senator Jim Webb - A Neo-Confederate and Closet Racist?

My post the other day on this blog and later on The Bilerico Project resulted in several interesting e-mails and comments. It's unfortunate that some of the information I received did not get wider press coverage during Webb's campaign against George Allen. It seems in many ways that Webb and Allen are both cut out of the same cloth. Indeed, but for Allen's "Macaca moment" and other distractions, voters might have released that Allen was not the only racist running for office. One e-mail cited Webb's comments at a Confederate Memorial. Another provided a link to a book entitled Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction. A third referred me to a 2008 Politico article. The picture revealed of Webb is not exactly positive- especially if one believes in equal rights for all citizens, not just whites and heterosexuals. It seems that Webb can properly be described as a Neo-Confederate with all the negative connotations that attach. As a result, it is not a surprise that the Virginia NAACP has demanded a meeting with Webb in the wake of his anti-affirmative action op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. First, there are these highlights from Politico:
*
Edward H. Sebesta, co-author of the forthcoming “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction” (University of Texas Press), said Webb’s views express an unhealthy regard for a political system that propped up and defended slavery. His book, in fact, will cite Webb as an example of the mainstreaming of neo-Confederacy ideas into politics, said Sebesta, a widely cited independent historical researcher and author of the Anti-Neo-Confederate blog. “I don’t think people have thought through the implications of how his ideas have racial overtones, even if they are inadvertent,” Sebesta said.
*
In a different context, Webb’s record might very well have made a bigger splash. But it was largely overshadowed by other developments. At the time, it was widely perceived that Webb had more damaging exposure from his 1979 Washingtonian magazine article titled “Women Can’t Fight,” in which Webb, an ex-Marine, described one of the Naval Academy’s coed dorms as “a horny woman’s dream” and argued against allowing women to take combat roles.
*
Webb generally remained silent during Allen’s Confederacy controversy, focusing instead on the Republican’s support for the Iraq war and other issues. Three months later, Allen’s caught-on-video reference to a Webb campaign volunteer as “macaca” took center stage and set in place a campaign narrative that dominated media coverage until his narrow defeat. Webb won overwhelming support from black voters — 85 percent — who accounted for 16 percent of all voters, according to exit polls.
*
Obviously, had blacks known more about Webb's true beliefs and his near worship of the Confederacy, they might well have stayed home and Webb might not have been elected. Now, here are some highlights from the introduction to the above referenced book by Sebesta that explain Neo-Confederate beliefs:
*
The New Dixie Manifesto was a clarion call to arms in which Hill and Fleming described themselves as representing "a new group of Southerners . . . calling for nothing more revolutionary than home rule for the states established by the U.S. Constitution." Comparing "American Southerners" to, amongst others, Scots and Ukrainians, the manifesto charged that the United States had treated "American Southerners" with "exploitation and contempt," and that a "renewed South" was both necessary and achievable. Among its specific points, the manifesto espoused the following: (i) home rule for "Southerners", (ii) states' rights and devolved political power, (iii) local control over schooling, in opposition to federal desegregation decrees, (iv) removal of federal funding and initiatives from Southern states, (v) a Christian tradition in opposition to modernity, and (vi) support for Confederate symbols.
*
National Public Radio's Weekend Edition broadcast an interview with Southern League president and manifesto co-author Michael Hill. In response to Diane Roberts's questions about democracy, Hill said: You know, the South has never bought into the Jacobin notion of equality. The South has always preferred a natural hierarchy. You're always going to have some violations of people's rights, for whatever reason, but we just believe that a natural social order left to evolve organically on its own would be better for everyone.
*
Hill's position, as we review in Chapter 4, is consistent with not only neo-Confederacy, but a nineteenth-century notion of social Darwinism. Explaining the neo-Confederate movement in London's Guardian newspaper, Roberts later wrote: The Southern League [is] a burgeoning organisation of mostly middle-class, often academic, certainly angry, white men. . . . Their mission is to alert like-minded "neo-Confederates" to "heritage violations." . . . The Southern League's agenda is, as their board members describe it, "paleo-conservative." They want the South to return to the "order" it once had before the "disruption" of the Civil Rights Movement.
*
Richard Shumate, writing in Southern Voice in 1994, warned that "some of the people who are leading the charge to preserve Confederate heritage, known collectively as the neo-Confederate movement, are often openly, and passionately, homophobic." Citing the overlapping interests of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), Georgia's state representatives, and outspoken conservative leaders such as Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan, Shumate explained that "while neo-Confederates leaders labor long and hard to veil any racist sentiments among their members (though in many cases, the veil wears pretty thin), disdain for gays and lesbians is, in contrast, often expressed openly and boldly."
*
Our research was first published in 2000, when Sebesta's essay in Scottish Affairs argued:

Neo-Confederacy is a reactionary movement with an ideology against modernity conceiving its ideas and politics within a historical framework of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) and the history of the American South. This includes more than a states' rights ideology in opposition to civil rights for African-Americans, other ethnic minorities, women and gays, though it certainly includes all these things. Opposition to civil rights is just a part of a world view desiring a hierarchical society, opposed to egalitarianism and modern democracy. Later that year the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization well known for its monitoring of, and legal contests with, militia, patriot, and other racial supremacy groups, identified the League of the South as a "hate group."
*
In this volume, contributors draw on documents published by neo-Confederate activists to explore how neo-Confederate ideology constructs a worldview that we contend is patriarchal, ethnocentric, intolerant, and racist, but a worldview that operates utilizing a complex discourse, a language that at face value appears to laud cultural rights and freedoms, heritage preservation and celebration, local control over institutions, and Christianity.
*
In light of Webb's homophobia which he has boldly evidenced by his failure to support DADT repeal and now his announced aversion to affirmative action programs, many are beginning to question exactly who we have representing Virginia in the U. S. Senate. As noted, the Virginia NAACP is up in arms and rightfully so. Here are highlights from Richmond's Channel 12:
*
The Executive Director of the Virginia State Conference of the NAACP explained today his rationale for lashing out at Senator Jim Webb. King Salim Khalfani wrote a letter to Webb expressing his anger over an op-ed the Senator wrote for the Wall Street Journal on diversity programs like Affirmative Action.
*
Khalfani chose not to back down from the inflammatory language. In fact he embraced it. “If they think this doesn’t affect people, well it affects our everyday lives,” said Khalfani. “Yeah, I’m angry.” And he doesn’t plan to back down. “We don’t hope to meet with him,” he said. “We demand it. He works for us, we don’t work for him We elected him.”
*
In a year when Democrats need all elements of the Party's base motivated, Webb has deliberately alienated the LGBT vote and now he's basically flipped the bird to blacks. Is he deliberately trying to see Democrats defeated this November? It's a question Democratic Party officials - and Jello-spined Barack Obama - need be forcefully asking Webb. I have my own Confederate ancestors tracing back to New Orleans. That, however, doesn't cause me to secretly long for the return of segregation and white supremacy in the manner that seems to be attractive to Mr. Webb.

Federal Judge Upholds Dismissal of Counseling Student Who Refused to Counsel Gay Clients

Over the last two days I have commented on the (in my view, frivolous) lawsuit brought in Georgia by Jennifer Keeton, an apparent Christianist Kool-Aid drinker who believes her rights trump all else and who seems Hell bent to become a self-made Christian martyr. Who knows, maybe she's angling for speaking fees before various Uber-Christian group where she can decry the supposed persecution of Christians. Thus, it is ironic that today a federal court in Michigan basically drop kicked Julea Ward, a would be Christian martyr at Eastern Michigan University, who had played the same persecuted victim card now being played by Ms. Keeton. The U.S. District Court in Detroit upheld the university's expulsion of Julea Ward, a student in a high school counseling program, who refused to participate in a course practicum in a university operated clinic where she had to among other things counsel a gay client. What is truly amazing - and indicative of the self-centeredness of such supposed Christians like Ward and Keeton - is that the student who Ward refused to counsel was suicidal. Yet Ward - whose goal, again, was to counsel high school students where she might have done untold damage - refused to do anything to affirm the gay client or address his depression.
*
Apparently, a gay suicide was preferable to Ward than treating the gay student like a human being. As I stated in prior posts, if individuals like Ward and Keeton want to pursue education careers yet refuse to abide by applicable professional ethical rules, they deserve to be expelled. Ward was represented in the lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund, a parasitic organization, that uses cases like Ward's and Keeton's to wring money from the ignorant and gullible. Here are highlights from The Chronicle of Higher Education:
*
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Eastern Michigan University by a student who was kicked out of its graduate program in school counseling last year for refusing, on religious grounds, to affirm homosexual behavior in serving clients.
*
In an order granting summary judgment to the university on Monday, Judge George Caram Steeh of the U.S. District Court in Detroit held that the university's requirement that the student be willing to serve people who are homosexual was reasonable, and did not amount to an infringement of the Christian student's constitutional rights to free speech and free expression of religion.
*
The university "had a right and duty to enforce compliance" with professional ethics rules barring counselors from being intolerant or engaging in discrimination, and no reasonable person could conclude that a counseling program's requirement that students comply with such rules "conveys a message endorsing or disapproving of religion," Judge Steeh wrote.
*
To maintain accreditation through the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, the program that Ms. Ward was in is required to familiarize its students with the ethics codes set forth by the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association. In refusing to affirm the homosexual behavior of clients, Ms. Ward was accused of violating various provisions of the groups' ethics codes, including prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation and an American Counseling Association rule holding that its members should not demonstrate "an inability to tolerate different points of view."
*
Judge Steeh's ruling held that the policy at issue was not a speech code but "an integral part of the curriculum," and that Ms. Ward's dismissal from the program "was entirely due" to her "refusal to change her behavior," rather than her beliefs.
*
The ruling said that "instead of exploring options that might allow her to counsel homosexuals about their relationships," Ms. Ward "stated that she would not engage in gay-affirming counseling, which she viewed as helping a homosexual client engage in an immoral lifestyle." The ruling said, "Her refusal to attempt learning to counsel all clients within their own value systems is a failure to complete an academic requirement of the program."

*

I hope the Court hearing Keeton's case in Georgia will be equally logical and make it clear that certain careers require adherence to professional codes and that self-centered students who refuse to comply deserve to be expelled. The Christianists' demand for special rights needs to be defeated.

Wednesday Male Beauty

Washington Post Picks Up UVA Study Upholding Gay Parenting

UPDATED: The New York Times has also run a story on this study and its findings that should, but probably won't end the Christianist attacks on gay adoption.
*

I previously looked at a study conducted by the University of Virginia that found that children of gay parents thrive and succeed just as well as those raised in heterosexual headed families. The story I quoted was from a newspaper in Staunton, Virginia, a mere 30 miles from Charlottesville. I welcome the study results because it will be one more piece of objective proof that the Christianist lament that children need a mother and a father to develop is, well is bullshit - like just about all of the other Christianist religious based bigotry directed at gays. The Washington Post story has more details on the study and here are some highlights:
*
A groundbreaking study by researchers at the University of Virginia and George Washington University finds that children adopted by lesbian and gay male couples develop just as well as those adopted by heterosexual parents.
*
Same-sex couples are barred from adopting children in Florida, Mississippi and Utah. A similar case is in the Arkansas courts. All this is rooted in "the deeply entrenched belief that children need one male and one female parent for optimal development," the authors write. Numerous studies have affirmed the parenting skills of lesbian parents -- less is known about the capabilities of gay male parents -- but the studies have been criticized for using self-reported data or for lacking comparison groups of heterosexual couples.
*
There are no such deficiencies in the current study, titled "Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?" It was penned by U-Va. researchers Rachel Farr and Charlotte Patterson and GWU scholar Stephen Forssell.
*
The researchers gathered data on child development from parents, teachers and care-givers. Their hypothesis: The development of both child and adult would hinge more on each couple's parenting abilities -- stress, cooperation, laundry skills -- than on their sexual orientation.
*
And that is what they found. Same-sex parents, and their adoptive children, fared just as well as heterosexual families. It's worth noting that this study apparently represents the first time that independent reports from teachers on children's development and behavior have been considered alongside the self-reported data from the parents themselves.
*
Even the gender development of children adopted by same-sex couples -- perhaps the greatest concern of some critics -- mirrored that of children adopted by heterosexual couples. "Regardless of whether their parents were lesbian, gay or heterosexual, most boys exhibited behavior typical of other same-aged boys, and most girls exhibited behavior typical of other same-aged girls," the authors write.
*
The implication: From a public policy stance, the study suggests there is "no justification for denying lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents the opportunity to adopt children," Patterson, the lead researcher, said.
*
I'm sure this study will not be welcomed by Christianists who increasingly have no credible experts to back up their claims against gay parenting and who are now haunted by the specter of George "Rent Boy" Rekers. I am pleased that my Alma mater produced this significant report. Hope is still alive in Virginia - and I hope Ken Kookinelli doesn't decide to investigate Ms. Patterson since she has burst one of his anti-gay bubbles.

Montenegro Pulls Ahead of USA and Virginia in Civil Rights Protections

In my view it is increasingly embarrassing that the United States - falsely claimed to be the land of freedom and liberty - is falling increasingly behind other parts of the world in terms of non-discrimination laws that protect all citizens. Countries once viewed as banana republics in South America and former satellites of the Soviet Union now have more comprehensive non-discrimination protections. Indeed, the USA seems to be moving into a noxious group lead by Iran, Saudi Arabia and other quasi-theocracies in terms of the manner in which religious discrimination is upheld by American laws. Virginia ought to be severely embarrassed too. Now Montenegro - and I mean no offense to Montenegro - has broader non-discrimination protections than the home state of the author of the Declaration of Independence. One has to wonder when Virginia will start erecting signs at its borders stating that no gays, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other non-Christianist are unwelcome in the state. Here are highlights from ILGA Europe on this development in Montenegro:
*
On 27 July 2010, the Parliament of Montenegro with a large majority (67 votes for, 6 votes against and 4 abstained) adopted all inclusive anti-discrimination law which bans discrimination in on the grounds of various characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity.
*
ILGA-Europe welcomes this development and congratulates Montenegrin parliamentarians, human rights groups and LGBT activists with this important step towards respecting human rights of all citizens.
*
At the same time, ILGA-Europe expresses its disappointment with the statements by Mr. Ferhat Dinosha, the Minister for Human and Minority Rights, who repeatedly opposed the protection for LGBT people from discrimination on the basis of the ’moral code of the society’.
*
Montenegro is a potential candidate country for joining the European Union and the last in the Western Balkans to adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law.

No Surprise - Family Research Council Using Fraudualent Phamphlet

It has come to the point where just about anything the Family Research Council says about LGBT rights and individuals should be considered fraudulent until objectively proven otherwise. This supposedly Christian organization which has long used gay bashing as its cash cow for fundraising is out dissemination lies yet again. This time it is in the form of a fraudulent ad utilized to oppose anti-discrimination ordinance in Holland, Michigan, that would add protections for LGBT citizens. The ad can be seen here and above. Once again we here the lie that gays want "special rights" and witness a parade of known lies being yet again shamelessly retold Outfits like FRC increasingly make me view religion as an evil that the world would be better served to have extinct. Hate, lies, and discrimination are its principal fruits. The only myths about sexual orientation involved are the lies told by FRC. FRC's Klu Klux Klan loving president, Tony Perkins is pictured above. Here are highlights from Huffington Post on FRC's latest unvarnished campaign of lies and falsehoods:
*
A community group that is trying to make Holland more accepting of gay people planned to meet Wednesday, July 28, to decide how to respond to a full-page advertisement in the local daily newspaper that one of its leaders said included "blatant untruths" about gay people.
*
. . . The ad, which was sponsored by the Family Research Council and Request Foods and published July 23 in The Holland Sentinel, made reference to efforts toward broadening the city's anti-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The Holland City Council has referred the measure to its Human Resources Commission for review.
*
The ad stated that "pro-homosexual activists" were trying to give Holland gays and lesbians "special protections" under employment discrimination laws and called homosexuality a choice that is "harmful to individuals and to society."
*
FRC doesn't provide references for any of their claims in the ad except one. On the far lower right corner of the ad is the image of a pamphlet that the ad invites people to consult. The pamphlet is called The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality.
*
Ten Myths intentionally distorts information to make it seem that negative behaviors, i.e. drug and alcohol abuse, are indicative of the lgbt orientation. The pamphlet accomplishes this by citing data in regards to the lgbt community and such negative behaviors while omitting the fact that much of the data places the blame on homophobia for these negative behaviors.
*
It is apparent that in the fictional world inhabited by the Family Research Council, lgbts being able to live without fear of discrimination is a sin, but lying about the lgbt community is allowed.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Why "Religious Belief" Should Not be Afforded Special Rights

My post this morning about Jennifer Keeton, the self-created Christian martyr who wants special rights based on her religious beliefs, prompted a comment from a new Christo-fascist blogger who is apparently as self-centered as Keeton and who doesn't appreciate how ludicrous her argument is when standard Christian Right arguments about immutable characteristics are applied to religion. Granted, the Constitution in theory affords all citizens (other than gays, apparently in most of the USA) the right to freedom of religion. And given the European religious wars, the establishment of the Church of England in the thirteen colonies while under British rule, and other religious persecution horrors of their day, the Founding Fathers had good reason for writing freedom of religion into the Constitution. However, I suspect they never expected freedom of religion to be used as an excuse to ignore civil laws, flagrantly discriminate against other citizens, advocate physical violence and murder against other citizens (the photo above shows where Christianist "freedom of religion could lead), and seek to impose a theocracy on other citizens. Yet that is precisely what the Christian Right seek to do based on the right to freedom of religion - even though they deprive others of the very rights they themselves claim.

*

In seeking to further their theocratic agenda, the constant mantra of the Christian Right talking heads and charlatans who shill religion in exchange for money (and a plush living) is that gays want "special rights." The truth, of course is that we gays merely want EQUAL rights under the civil laws which need to avoid upholding one particular religious belief or doctrine above all others. No, truth be told, it is the self-centered, self-absorbed and self-congratulatory Christians who want special rights. They want the special right to inflict their supposed devoutly held beliefs on all other citizens, the special right to ignore non-discrimination laws, the right to ignore medical and mental health regulations and protocols, and the right to trample on the rights of those of differing faiths and beliefs.

*

The most disingenuous anti-gay argument that these Christo-fascists make is that only immutable characteristics are worthy of non-discrimination protections. Stated differently, only things like race, age, national origin, gender which an individual cannot change deserve non-discrimination protections. In their next breath, these godly Christians pronounce that sexual orientation is not immutable and, being merely a choice, is not something worthy of constitutional non-discrimination protections. The argument is, of course, a lie. All legitimate medical and mental health associations hold the position that sexual orientation is not a choice or changeable. But what is clearly easily changeable and not immutable? Why, religion, of course. Individuals across the nation (and world) change denominations and leave faith traditions literally daily. Barna studies have shown that the number of individuals doing this is huge. Religious belief is nothing more than a matter of indoctrination - may I say brainwashing - from an early age and/or a function of certain personality/psychological infirmities that require a "to do list" that voids the need for independent thought and moral analysis.

*

Thus, if one buys the Christofacists' immutability argument, religion should be the first category to lose protections. Personally, I'm not advocating anything that extreme. All I ask is that religious extremists be put in their place and that it be made clear that so-called religious belief does not give one carte blanche to pick and choose what civil laws and medical/mental health knowledge one will adhere to when out in professions and the civil arena. In short, there should be no special rights afforded to religion. Believe what you want in your home or house of worship, but do not inflict in on me so as to make me a second class citizen.

*

As for Jennifer Keeton and other self-described Christians who whine that they are being persecuted, they need to stop the lies and bullshit and face the fact that THEY are the ones demanding special rights and that THEY are the persecutors and not the ones being persecuted.