Dustin Lance Black: It is Time to Disarm Hate

A week and a half after the traumatic massacre in Orlando, many of us are still finding ourselves ill at ease and perhaps more conscious of the hateful lies that our enemies among the religious extremist ranks disseminate.  Yes, the hate and lies and desperate clinging to writings of ignorant, uneducated herders of 2500+ years ago.  It's amazing that no one - or very few - would seek to have their healthcare governed by such archaic levels of knowledge and lack of education, yet millions of people allow their social beliefs to be governed by such ignorance (or in the case of Muslims, 7th century levels of knowledge).  In a thoughtful essay, Lance Black writes about the need to disarm religious based hate and, similarly, disarm would be terrorists.  Here are highlights from Lance Black's essay:

For the last six months I’ve been in Vancouver filming When We Rise, an ABC miniseries on the history of the LGBT rights movement. That’s what I was doing when I learned that 49 LGBT souls — the majority Latino — had been murdered in Orlando in a gay club, traditionally a place of refuge. That day, we were filming a scene re-creating the 2009 National Equality March on Washington. And so, between takes of Guy Pearce unfurling a massive banner that read “Equality Across America,” we tuned in to learn the names of the sons, daughters, allies, and parents who were ripped from our arms by gunfire and hate.

In so many ways, When We Rise is a testament to how far we’ve come, a tribute to those who have dedicated their lives to bringing us this close to safety and equality. Orlando served as a terrible reminder of just how much more we have left to do. The shock, the hurt, the anger, and the heartbreak left me winded, as were so many other Americans who love our country. It also made it clear to me that if we are ever to overcome homophobia, we must create better understanding of who LGBT people truly are by confronting the three worst culprits of LGBT misinformation: science, the state, and religion.

For too long, science mislabeled homosexuality a disorder, but in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association stopped classifying homosexuality as such. Now, with the support of nearly every medical association, many states are moving to ban the harmful and disproven treatment called “conversion therapy,” which attempts to turn young people straight or cisgender. But there are many other places in our country where kids are still subjected to this practice, which sends a dangerous message that there is something wrong with them, and often causes tremendous harm to those it claims to help.

As for the state, for a generation now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gay and lesbian people, overturning laws that criminalized our lives or relegated our love and families to second-class status. President Obama too has taken action to better protect LGBT people. But Congress has failed to pass the Equality Act, which would bring equality to LGBT people in their homes and workplaces nationwide. This failure sends a message that we are not worthy of equal respect or protection in the United States. Combined with the similar failure of local and state officials, it sends a false message of inferiority that gives license to treat LGBT the way the law still does — as subhuman. That is not leadership — that is blood on our elected leaders’ hands.

But it’s religion that continues to be the most active promoter and dangerous purveyor of homophobia, and by this I don’t mean just Muslims, but good old-fashioned American Christians as well. By clinging to the mantra of “Love the sinner but not the sin,” religion sends a message that LGBT people are not only lesser than, but morally corrupt. This judgment is not about love at all. It is hateful and deadly. Mere tolerance can no longer be the aim of religion. The time has come for true understanding and acceptance. It is time for organized religion to discard the outdated and misguided interpretations of God’s will that too often motivate violence and murder. To do otherwise makes our nation’s unaccepting religious leaders complicit in Orlando as well.

We must also act in more immediate ways that will protect not only LGBT people, but all citizens. My LGBT community has experienced the same kind of senseless violence that schoolchildren and their families have experienced, and that communities of color have suffered for generations. If there is one shining light in the darkness of our mourning, it is that we are not alone in this fight, and the time has come for LGBT people to join hands with others who have also suffered and demand gun control now.

Last year, when a religious extremist attacked people at Jerusalem’s Gay Pride parade, it was a tragic event, but because of Israel’s strict gun-control laws, the attacker used a knife instead of an assault rifle. He injured five people and killed one 16-year-old girl. It’s not that he had any less hatred than the Orlando shooter. It’s not that he didn’t try to murder many more. It’s that he couldn’t. He didn’t have the tools to do so. But in America, we give people with bloodlust and hate in their hearts the means to end dozens of lives per minute — and we allow the purchase of such heinous military-grade weapons to remain legal.

It is time for the LGBT community to join into such a coalition again [as Harvey Milk did] and wield our newfound political power in conjunction with groups already engaged in the fight against guns — groups such as the Brady Campaign, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Americans for Responsible Solutions — with parents from Sandy Hook, families from San Bernardino, and communities of color who have suffered similar tragedies for far too long.

It will, unfortunately, be a long road to eradicate the lies and hatred that inspire people to target our brothers and sisters, our children, parents, and our loved ones, but it must be traveled together. As Harvey Milk taught us long ago, in a “coalition of the us’s” we have the political power to disarm hatred. We owe it to the victims of Orlando, of Charleston, of Newtown — and far too many more — to do just that. It is time to disarm hate. 

Thinly Veiled Hate Speech: "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin"

Besides being a total hypocrite when it comes to supporting Israel, Huckabee and his fellow Christofascists love to claim that they don't hate gays.  Indeed, they claim to "love gays" - they disingenuously claim that they "love the sinner, but hate the sinner."  They make these claims, of course even as they strive to make the lives of LGBT individuals a living hell and demand the right to mistreat us and discriminate against under the guise of religious freedom.  The take away?  That these people are vile hypocrites and few people lie more often than the self-anointed "godly folk."  A piece in Huffington Post calls out these modern day Pharisees.  Here are highlights:

“I love her, but she’s got to learn right from wrong,” he said … after beating her half to death. And there she lies, one foot in this world and another in the next--but fully “loved.”

I imagine that’s what LGBTQ folks hear when yet another Christian says, “I love the sinner, but I hate the sin.”

Now, I can imagine that immediately upon reading the connection between those last two thoughts, cries of righteous indignation will rise as a chorus unto heaven. “We’re not abusers, simply because we hate what homosexuals do with their private parts. We’ve never actually, physically struck a gay person because of their gayness.”

Nevertheless, I don’t think that gets you off the hook for the violence that is done in the name of your religious commitments for two important reasons.

First, when you fight against anti-bullying laws written to keep LGBTQ kids safe from being abused, you are propping up a system of violence that steals the dignity, and often the lives of those children you say you love. If a gay or trans kid commits suicide because you want to retain the right to loudly and repeatedly announce to the world your moral disapprobation, giving energy to a system dedicated to never letting LGBTQ kids forget that they are sinful aberrations for which the fires of hell are regularly stoked hotter, you bear some responsibility for their death.  

When LGBTQ kids get beaten, when they’re kicked out of their homes and forced to live on the streets and struggle to do some of the despicable things they have to do to stay alive, you may not be raising a hand against them, but you’re certainly massaging the muscles that do the damage. When you support a vision of the world in which LGBTQ people daily have to live in fear for their livelihoods, their homes, their right to a peaceful and flourishing existence just so you can proudly announce your doctrinal purity and your commitment to a world where only your religious beliefs matter, you may not be drawing anyone’s actual blood--but don’t kid yourself that there’s not blood on your hands.

Second, physical violence isn’t the only kind of violence. The abuse that takes place in families, for instance, is often not physical abuse. You can lay claim to having never physically harmed a person, while at the same time being guilty of killing that person’s soul.

[Y]our attempts at “loving” the object of your disapproval always seem to come off as a self-righteous assertion of your moral superiority (at best), or downright antipathy (at worst). 

 Saying you love someone as you punch them in the mouth, or standing by (while cheering or remaining silent) while somebody else punches them in the mouth or loudly fighting for laws that will continue making punching them in the mouth legal in the name of “religious freedom” isn’t love. 

A cursory reading of the Gospels suggests that, for those of us who follow Jesus, love isn’t the perpetual need to make everyone else conform to our understanding of righteousness; it’s the merciful realization that Jesus has freed us from the responsibility of thinking that’s even our job. 

I will be honest.  I do not like or respect Christofascists.  They are horrible, self-centered people, many of whom can't stand the thought of having to think for themselves.   They would rather harm others and childishly follow the dictates of often parasitical clerics rather than use their minds and think for themselves.  They deserve no place in decent society.

Ben Carson Jokes About Poisoning Wedding Cakes for Gays

The prior post looked at the problem of the inability of some, especially on the American right to see the common humanity of others who are different.   For an example of this sickness, as I see it, look no father than would be GOP presidential nominee Ben Carson who, after speaking at the misnamed "Freedom Summit" in Iowa, joked about poisoning the wedding cakes for same sex couples.  Never mind that many others besides the gay couples would be harmed, including children and family members.  While it may seemed far fetched that someone might actually follow through on such a suggestion, one must remember that from many pulpits individuals hear that gays are worthy of death and similar messages against abortion providers have indeed resulted in murder.  The Hill looks at Carson's foul "joke."  Here are highlights:

DES MOINES, Iowa — Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson (R) delivered a rousing speech to the conservative faithful, earning the first standing ovation of the day at the Iowa Freedom Summit and showing why he's generating buzz with conservative activists.

But the former doctor and Fox News commentator may need to sharpen his policy chops if he wants to become a top-tier player. Carson struggled at times through a post-speech press availability, offering vague answers on a number of topics and refusing to answer how he thinks abortion should be criminalized.

Carson also criticized political correctness as he answered a question about gay marriage — and followed up by flaunting decorum with the type of comment that endears him with the base but could hurt his cross-party appeal.

"What I have a problem with is when people try to force people to act against their beliefs because they say 'they're discriminating against me.' So they can go right down the street and buy a cake, but no, let's bring a suit against this person because I want them to make my cake even though they don't believe in it. Which is really not all that smart because they might put poison in that cake," he said to chuckles from some of his staff and dead silence from the journalists in the room.

Vatican Uses Videos of Discredited Mark Regnerus at Marriage Confab

I pondered whether or not Pope Francis can be trusted on LGBT issues in a post this morning.   If I was leaning towards answering "No" to that question this morning, tonight the answer is a resounding "No"!  Why?  It turns out that the videos shown at the Vatican during Pope Francis' meeting with a gathering of American anti-gay hate group leaders were the handiwork of Mark Regnerus, the discredited "researcher" who was found testimony was found to be borderline fraudulent by a federal judge in Michigan.  My blogger friend Jeremy Hooper connected the dots and blew the Vatican's cover.  Here are highlights from Good As You:

A few months back, I played a clip where Mark Regnerus of the infamously shoddy study that hoped to discredit gay parents mentioned he was filming videos around the world. Today, Baptist writer and activist Denny Burk answers the question of what videos he was filming.

Yes, that's right: He was filming those anti-gay videos that I have been showing you all week. You know, the ones from the pointedly discriminatory Vatican conference that has been going on for the past three days? Those anti-gay, propagandistic clips come courtesy of the very same man who tried to sway the public with an anti-gay, propagandistic study. 

What a truly bizarre choice. Like almost too bizarre to be believed, frankly. It seems that the Vatican isn't only courting "culture war"—it's begging for one.

 I can only hope that Andrew Sullivan and those like him who are having near orgasms over Francis' supposed movement to change the Catholic Church will stop gasping and open their eyes.  As I have said, NOTHING has changed under Francis and my bet is that nothing will other than much slicker PR.   Meanwhile, I continue to wonder when

Bigoted Benham Brothers Lie and Play the Victim Card

True to form, the Benham brothers and their Christofascists sympathizers are whining and shrieking that the two flaming bigots are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.  Even more stunning is the fact that they are claiming that HGTV cancelled their planned show because of lies and misinformation.  Funny how being shown in a video making heinous remarks about others somehow constitutes "misinformation" of what one said.  These anti-gay, anti-Muslims, anti-women extremists were done in by their own verbatim statements and ugly beliefs.  Right Wing Watch comments on their unbelievable effort to play the victim card:

When HGTV pulled the plug on a reality TV show starring North Carolina real estate dealers and brothers David and Jason Benham following a Right Wing Watch report on David’s anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-Muslim activism, David Benham insisted that the network withdrew support due to misinformation and “lying,” asserting that neither he nor his brother “hate homosexuals.”

Although Religious Right activists have been rushing to defend Benham, none has yet been able to explain how Right Wing Watch’s list of verbatim quotes from Benham constituted misinformation.

In fact, the interviews we featured in our post are just examples of Benham’s large portfolio of right-wing activism. Since writing our original post, we have found several other examples of Benham’s extremism.

Benham’s group refers to abortion rights as a “holocaust” and said that “the devil” was behind Roe v. Wade.

In a January 2012 interview, Benham explained his “love” for homosexuals when he suggested that gay people are under the control of “demonic forces,” arguing that once he succeeds in recriminalizing abortion, he will next defeat the “homosexual agenda” and Islam.

Benham was speaking with none other than Michael Brown, an anti-gay activist who has gone so far as to defend Uganda’s brutal homosexuality law and who leads a group which includes Benham as a board member.

As I have steadfastly maintained, with Christofascists like the Benhams, if their lips are moving, it is a safe bet that they are lying.  In their self-anointed godiness, they are somehow exempt from the Commandment that bars bearing false witness and lying.  Dan Savage also has some pertinent comments:

In a The Stranger blog post, Savage wrote that the “real story” behind the firing is “that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point that I've been talking and writing about for years.”

“Once upon a time white people used to be able to go on TV and say the most racist shit imaginable (argue against legal interracial marriage, argue in favor of segregation) and keep their jobs and be invited back on TV to say that shit a second time,” Savage said. “Then one day you couldn't say that shit (not on TV, at least) and keep your job and be invited back to say that shit again. Opinions that used to be considered 'respectable' were suddenly toxic career enders. We are rapidly reaching the same tipping point on LGBT issues. You can believe whatever you want, but you have to be careful when and how you express your anti-gay animus. Because it could cost you.”

“And David and Jason Benham just learned,” he added. 

Christofasists are not kind, nice or decent people.  Their beliefs deserve no deference or respect - thankfully more and more Americans are coming to see them for the monsters that they are. 

 

Bill O'Reilly: Telling a Gay Person They're Going to Hell Should Be Illegal

I generally view Billy O'Reilly to be a crazy, mean spirited windbag.  But every now and then he will say something that is dead on target correct.  Such as his statement that telling a gay person "you're going to Hell" should be illegal.   One can just imagine the swoons and flying spittle amongst the Christofascist set at O'Reilly apostasy.   Nothing gives these modern day Pharisees more joy than telling us gays that we are going to Hell, although I suspect that, if there is a Hell, it is mostly peopled by truly horrible people - e.g., Hitler and Stalin - and the modern day Pharisee crowd and conservative religious leaders such as John Paul II.  Towleroad looks at O'Reilly's statement:

[O]n his show last night, the Fox News host expressed a belief that telling a gay person "you're going to Hell" should be illegal--at least, in some instances.

O'Reilly's guest last night was John Stossel--who hosts a weekly show on Fox Business--and the comment came amidst a discussion of American evangelist Tony Miano, who was arrested in London last week after preaching against homosexuality in front of a shopping center in Wimbledon.  According to the Telegraph, Miano was arrested "under the controversial clause of the Public Order Act which bans 'insulting' words or behaviour."

"I think that should be against the law," O'Reilly said of any hypothetical anti-gay preacher who "went up to a homosexual, got in his face and said, 'you're going to hell, you're going to hell.' He’s invading the person’s space. He’s bringing intentional, personal anguish to the person. I think that person should be protected.”

Stossel expressed some agreement with O'Reilly but said that the standard should be based on "fighting words" that were meant to incite violence.

As I said, the Christofascists - think Tony Perkins, Maggie Gallagher, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, et al -  must be livid with O'Reilly since they believe that they can do whatever they want to whoever they want as long as they hide behind the smoke screen of professed "deeply held religious belief."  Here's the video:

Supreme Court of Canada Upholds Restrictions on Religious Based Hate Speech

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

I can already hear the shrieks and bleating  of the American Christofascists - actually, you can read it at the misnamed Christian News Net - following the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that a man could be prosecuted under Canada's hate speech statutes for disseminating anti-gay fliers that went far beyond mere expressions of religious belief.  Not that Christian News Net bothers to tell the truth about the contents of the fliers and instead describes the fliers as merely stating "the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality."  The fliers (which are attached as exhibits to the Court's opinion) in fact went far beyond merely reciting Bible verses and claimed among other things that sodomy would be taught to school children, claimed that gay males would be soliciting sex with children, claimed that gays were 430 times more likely to have AIDS, and that gays were three times more likely to sexually abuse children.  

In short, the fliers contained the deliberate factual lies and inflammatory language one sees coming out of SPLC designated hate groups like American Family Association, Conservative Values Coalition, Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage virtually daily.   In upholding the conviction of "Christian" activist William Whatcott and the $7,500,00 in fines, the Supreme Court of Canada said in part:

The courts pose the question of whether “when considered objectively by a reasonable person aware of the relevant context and circumstances, the speech in question would be understood as exposing or tending to expose members of the target group to hatred”: Owens, at para. 60. In the course of this assessment, a judge or adjudicator is expected to put his or her personal views aside and to base the determination on what he or she perceives to be the rational views of an informed member of society, viewing the matter realistically and practically.

.   .   .   .  “detestation” and “vilification” aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate.  Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience.  Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.

 

Hate speech is, at its core, an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group.  Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. When people are vilified as blameworthy or undeserving, it is easier to justify discriminatory treatment.

In the context of this case, Mr. Whatcott can express disapproval of homosexual conduct and advocate that it should not be discussed in public schools or at university conferences. Section 14(1)(b) only prohibits his use of hate-inspiring representations against homosexuals in the course of expressing those views. 

If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour. It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group.  Therefore, a prohibition is not overbroad for capturing expression of this nature.

[T]he fact that a person circulates a hate publication in the furtherance of a sincere religious belief goes to the question of the subjective view of the publisher, which is irrelevant to the objective application of the definition of hatred. Allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would, in effect, provide an absolute defense and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness.

Passages of Flyers D and E combine many of the “hallmarks” of hatred identified in the case law.  The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources (in this case the Bible) to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred: see Warman v. Kouba, at paras. 24-81.  It delegitimizes homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles, a traditionally reviled group in society.

 

Whether or not Mr. Whatcott intended his expression to incite hatred against homosexuals, in my view it was reasonable for the Tribunal to hold that, by equating homosexuals with carriers of disease, sex addicts, pedophiles and predators who would proselytize vulnerable children and cause their premature death, Flyers D and E would objectively be seen as exposing homosexuals to detestation and vilification.

Kudos to the Supreme Court of Canada for calling the dissemination of lies and untruths to inspire hate for what it is and refusing to allow the supposed cloak of "sincerely held religious belief" as an excuse for inflaming hatred without consequences.  It is far past time that the Untied States enact similar legislation.   It is one thing to cite Bible passages and to disapprove of others.  It is something far different when one seeks to instill hate and thereby encourage discrimination and violence.  The victims of anti-gay attacks in New York City pictured below shows what hate speech brings about:

 

The "godly Christian" folk are not nice people. The sooner society at large recognizes this truth and ends the special rights and undeserved deference afforded to Christofascists the better off we will be as a nation. 

Obama Steps in It Again in Inaugural Benediction Presenter Choice

One has to think that someone on the Obama staff needs to be seriously fired for not vetoing the selection of Rev. Louie Giglio  - a documented anti-gay bigot - to deliver the benediction prayer at the January 21, 2013 inaugural ceremony.  Especially since by some calculation it was the LGBT vote that clinched Obama's re-election.  Are these folks simply incompetent or have they only pretended to be pro-gay in order to garner votes and, of course money.   Either way, they have flipped the middle finger to LGBT Americans.   Let's be clear: Obama needs to tell Giglio to take a hike and select someone else to deliver the benediction.  BuzzFeed looks at the hornets nest that Obama's incompetent staff has stirred up:

The White House on Wednesday was refusing to address comments critical of gay and lesbian people made by Rev. Louie Giglio, who was tapped by President Barack Obama to deliver the benediction prayer at the Jan. 21 inaugural ceremony. 

Think Progress reported that Giglio, an Atlanta pastor, made comments in a mid-1990s sermon criticizing "the aggressive agenda of not all, but of many in the homosexual community."

The inaugural invitation is not Giglio's first interaction with Obama. He also was one of the president's guests at the White House's 2012 Easter prayer breakfast, according to the White House pool report from the April 4, 2012 event.

This past November, Giglio served as the convocation speaker at the Jerry Falwell-founded Liberty University. Although he did not address homosexuality in the speech, he did strongly urge visiting high-school students to attend the college known for its strict policies against homosexual behavior and spoke about the positive influence Falwell has had on his life.

The questions about Giglio come as the administration is still fending off criticism about comments former Sen. Chuck Hagel — now Obama's nominee for defense secretary — made that Clinton administration nominee James Hormel was too "aggressively gay" to serve as ambassador to Luxembourg. 

Both the White House and committee organized to run Obama's inauguration ceremonies later this month refused to comment Wednesday on the remarks reported by Think Progress, in which Giglio said: "That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to family."

This is not the first time questions have been raised about those giving public prayers at Obama's big events. Before Obama even took office, his choice of Rick Warren to give his inaugural invocation created what Huffington Post's Sam Stein called Obama's "first real rift with progressives" at the time.

As I said, Obama needs to get his head out of his ass and tell Giglio that he is dis-invited and find someone non-offensive to give the inaugural benediction.  Better yet, he could scrap the  benediction all together.

Christianist Election Apocalypse

The Christofascists are becoming increasingly hysterical over the prospect that Barack Obama might just eke out a reelection win and thereby  throw a major wrench in their agenda of infusing more of their hate and fear based religious dogma into the nation's laws.  These extremist recognize that Mitt Romney would be a willing tool in implementing their theocratic agenda simply because he would want to avoid a Christianist primary challenge in 2016 were he to be elected next week.  Some of their hysteria might almost be funny were it not for the fact that these religious fanatics are completely serious in their desire to subvert the U. S. Constitution and end all abortion, re-criminalize gays and uphold white Christianist privilege.  A piece in Religion Dispatches looks at the hysteria and tactics the enemies of freedom for all citizens are emplying.  Here are some excerpts:

The final stretch of the presidential campaign is bringing out the last-minute scramble for a miracle, whether it be undecided voters in a swing state breaking your candidate’s way or prodding the apathetic to the voting booth on November 6th.

Or, to put a different spin on the phenomenon: we’re now seeing the dumbest of religious appeals, the most craven partisan tactics, a dramatic spike in proof-texting the Bible to score political points, and dire prophecies.

Focus on the Family’s political arm is sending Iowa voters a flyer claiming that President Obama thinks “we’re no longer a Christian nation” (read: we were once a Christian nation but bwwaaahahahahahaha, my evil Islamo-socialist plan has worked!).

Obama is an oppressor of Christianity, in the view of the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, who tweeted that “#Obamacare seems aimed squarely at dismantling and/or silencing the family and the Church.”

Billy Graham—or, as many suspect, someone speaking on the 94-year-old evangelist’s behalf—put his name on an advertisement that reads, “I strongly urge you to vote for candidates who support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and woman, protect the sanctity of life, and defend our religious freedoms.”

The Christian Post, the subject of an intense investigation by Christianity Today (which was founded by the elder Graham), was also the venue for a Romney endorsement by Richard Land, who serves as the magazine’s executive editor.

Land, disgraced from his position as the Southern Baptist Convention’s “ethics” guru after admitting to plagiarizing racist rants about the Trayvon Martin case, broke his pledge not to endorse a candidate because “America is at a fork in the road and must choose between a President Barack Obama who wants to remake America in the model of a European welfare state and a Governor Mitt Romney who wants to restore a more economically vibrant and traditionally moral America.”

Anti-marriage equality crusader Bishop Harry Jackson, who is African American, urges readers to vote for Romney “as a statement of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream.” While King was sitting in the Birmingham jail, Romney was tormenting boys with long hair at Cranbrook, and his Church was still 15 years away from lifting its ban on black men serving in the priesthood.

Pastor Robert Jeffress, who just a year ago endorsed Rick Perry over Romney in the Republican Primary, and called Mormonism a cult, is now telling pastors in Florida—even though he still thinks Mormonism is a cult—that “It’s time to stand up and push back against all the evil in our country.” He suggested that failing to go out to vote for Romney would be like being a pastor in Germany in the 1930s and failing to try to stop the Holocaust.

Here’s the reality: white evangelicals are an ever-shrinking proportion of the electorate; according to a recent Public Religion Research Institute poll, they make up 30% of those 65 and older, but just 9% of 18- to 29-year-olds. A recent Pew poll found that now the “nones” make up the same segment of the population (19%) as white evangelicals. And the younger the cohort studied, the more likely that a “none” is an atheist or agnostic. There’s no convincing the evangelical partisans, though.

That the GOP and Romney/Ryan are so beholden to such religious extremists and outright nutcases ought to terrify rational, thinking Americans.   If these people are the ones supporting Mitt Romney and the GOP, there isn't a much stronger argument to be found for voting Democrat and for Obama.

Tony Perkins' Spittle Flecked Comments on Anniversary of DADT Repeal

Remember how the Christofascist whined and convulsed over the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell a year ago yesterday?  Remember all the dire predictions about the collapse of the U. S. military and how it was predicted that straight males would either leave the military or refuse to enlist in the first place?  Naturally, none of the predicted horrors have occurred so hate merchants like Tony Perkins and Elaine Donnelly who used DADT repeal to shake down the ignorant and simply minded are posturing to try to save face.  Now Perkins - a pathological liar and friend to white supremacists - is saying it will take 20+ years for the damage to make itself evident.  I guess he still needs some kind of shtick to keep the money flowing in.  Here's a sample of his batshitery and lies via Joe My God:

"Has America's military completely collapsed in the first year after repeal? Of course not--our service members are too professional to let that to happen. But these challenges are only a non-story because the media won't tell the story. We need only look at no-fault divorce in the 1970s to recognize that radical shifts in public policy take decades to fully manifest.

Let's hope the same isn't true for our brave men and women in uniform."  

A year ago, Perkins indeed was predicting an immediate collapse.   I guess those straight Southern boys enlisting in the military haven't found "teh Gay" to be so terrifying after all.  As Right Wing Watch reports some of the other usual gay-haters were more circumspect in their statements since the experience in the military has not matched their hysterical dire predictions of a little more than a year ago.  Here's a sampling:

On this day last year, the military certified the repeal of the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy after Congress overturned the policy. Religious Right activists warned that the military will suffer as a result, however, their ominous predictions failed to materialize as studies show that the new policy is working and benefiting the military.

Consequently, it wasn’t a surprise that anti-gay groups were largely quiet today on the anniversary as their warnings about an exodus of soldiers, a drop in enlistments and a return of the draft were clearly wrong.

Ron Crews of the Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty released a statement that the “radical sexual agenda in our military” is leading to significant “negative consequences,” citing one example of possible sexual harassment, same-sex ceremonies on bases and the supposed “silencing” of chaplains and DADT supporters

Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink also said in a post quoting Crews and calling for Congress to pass a GOP-backed bill banning same-sex ceremonies on military property, which they said would preserve religious freedom by barring all chaplains from performing such ceremonies.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, who predicted an increase in rape if the policy was repealed, pivoted away from his group’s hysterical claims to instead focus on possible same-sex marriages in the military, a result of the “radical sexual and social agenda” pushed by “homosexual activists.” Sprigg also cited a survey from the Military Times, but didn’t mention that the same poll found negative views of the repeal among service members are declining.

He also dismissed claims that the military would have “completely collapsed in the first year after repeal” since “our service members are too professional to allow that to happen,” but FRC president Tony Perkins did in fact predict the reinstitution of the draft and that congressmen who voted for the repeal will have “blood on their hands

The truth is that these individuals and organizations are premeditated liars who have but one agenda: impose their religious beliefs on all Americans like some would be Christian Taliban.

Mother Sues School Division for Bullied Son's Suicide

I've written about gay teen suicides all too often and sadly, far too many school divisions ignore the problem while giving a wink and a nod to the forces that support bullying as an "expression of religious belief."  Frankly, I am convinced that the only way in which we will see significant change on this front is through more lawsuits against school systems and school administrators who either negligently or deliberately fail to protect bullied LGBT students.  Monetary judgments and the loss of jobs in the wake of lawsuits seem to be the only means to get the message across that all students have the right to be safe in their school.  No matter what disingenuous bullshit organizations like Focus on the Family disseminate.  A mother in Indiana is suing the school division that failed to protect her son who ultimately took his own life.  Here are highlights from Eagle Country 99.3:

Greensburg Community Schools are being sued by the mother of a 15-year-old boy who was allegedly bullied into committing suicide.  

Indianapolis-based attorney Tom Blessing said the school system is partly to blame for the 2010 death of Billy Lucas, who hung himself.  The lawsuit was filed September 4.

“The peers ridiculing him and harassing him was bad enough, but when the teachers stood there and let it happen when it occurred physically in their presence, they would say things or make comments as well,” Blessing said.

The wrongful death lawsuit claims Lucas was a target because of his learning disability, ethnicity and because some classmates thought he was gay.

Ann Lucas says her son Billy talked to her just days before his suicide about being bullied.

“He told me ‘Mom, you don’t know what it’s like to walk down the halls of school and be afraid of who’s going to hit you, who’s going to kick you,” said Lucas.

The attorney said there is a long history of bullying and harassment in Greensburg schools because students know no one ever steps in to stop the behavior.

In addition to the school corporation, the lawsuit also names as defendants former Greensburg Junior High School principal Rodney King, assistant principal David Strouse, teacher Iris Ramp and teacher’s aide Darci Kovacich.

In the complaint Blessing claims “Ramp and Kovacich witnessed students harassing and bullying W.L. (Lucas) on multiple occasions yet did nothing to prevent or stop it. In fact, Ramp and Kovacich not only ignored the harassment of W.L. by other students at the School, but in some cases encouraged and even actively participated in the harassment of W.L. themselves.”

I continue to sickened by the vileness of those who likely go to church on Sundays, pat themselves on the back for their "goodness" and then treat or condone the treatment of others as less than human.  I don't understand the sick mindset.

Why is Hate Group Endorsed Scott Rigell Lying to Hampton Roads Voters?

Click image to enlarge

I'll be right up front on my dislike of Congressman Scott Rigell of the Virginia 2nd Congressional District.  Mr. Rigell has (1) been endorsed by Louis Sheldon, founder of Traditions Values Coalition - perhaps one of the most dishonest and virulently anti-gay of the "family values" hate groups in America - (2) voted in lock step on woman's issues with Missouri's insane Todd Akins, and has voted for the Paul Ryan budget plan which would rape and pillage the middle class, and (3) voted for the Paul Ryan budget seven (7) times.  Now, faced with a credible challenger in the person of Paul Hirschbiel, Rigell is out right lying to local media outlets and obviously seeking to dupe voters.  His endorsers and actions in Washington tell the only story voters need to know.  Here's a sampling of the lies and bullshit being spewed by Rigell via the Daily Press: 

NEWPORT NEWS – U.S. Rep Scott Rigell, R-Virginia Beach, said Monday that while he believes federal spending needs to be cut, the economic crisis facing the nation cannot be overcome without also raising taxes.

"The American people are ready for the truth — they can handle the truth," Rigell told the Daily Press editorial board. "They can handle solutions. They want solutions and they want leadership."

And the truth, Rigell says, is that the "Bush tax cuts" coupled with Grover Norquist's "no new tax pledge" signed by the vast majority of Republicans in Congress have locked federal revenue in at a rate that is unsustainable.

Rigell said he's willing to "compromise" with Democrats and bring revenues up to 20 percent of gross domestic product while cutting spending to the same level.

Rigell pointed out that federal revenues are at an 11-year average of 16.9 percent of GDP, which he said was the lowest level since 1959.

He said federal spending stands between 23 percent and 24 percent of GDP — peaking at 25 percent of GDP at the height of stimulus spending.

Rigell said the budget plan put forward by GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., lowers federal spending to 18.5 percent of GDP in 24 years.

But Rigell said the Ryan budget plan, which he has voted for, is "indefensible mathematically" without "revenue enhancements."  Ryan's austere budget plan makes deep cuts to social-safety-net programs, while protecting defense spending.

This change lead Rigell to disavow Norquist's "no new tax pledge" in February. However, he has voted to extend the Bush tax cuts for all income levels.

Steven Jones, spokesman for Rigell's Democratic opponent in the 2nd Congressional District, Paul Hirschbiel, said this is an example of Rigell "saying one thing in Hampton Roads and doing another thing in Washington."  "You can't say you are serious about a bipartisan approach when you have voted seven times to protect subsidies for big oil companies," Jones said.

In the interest of full disclosure, I used to live in the same neighborhood as Rigell and the man is a real bastard to put it mildly. He and his wife are pompous, arrogant, and just as out of touch with the reality of the circumstances as Ann "Marie Antoinette" Romney and her bumbling Louis XVI equivalent.

Opposition to Gay Marriage From Evangelical Christians is Rooted in Homophobia

The vicious rhetoric that one hears from the "godly Christian" crowd against gas and same sex marriage seems to know few limits.  While we hear constant blather about "through history marriage has always been one man and one woman" the truth is that historically that claim is a bald faced lie be it from the lips of Mitt Romney who conveniently forgets his own family history and ancestors who had a half dozen wives (not to mention Brigham Young's 55 wives) to those who claim a "biblical basis" for monogamous marriage even thought in the Old Testament polygamy was the norm be it King David - when he wasn't lusting for Jonathan - to Solomon.  A column in The Guardian to me sums up well the real anti-gay motivations.  Here are some excerpts:

When Chris Sugden and Philip Giddings of Anglican Mainstream released their letter to the prime minister last week they cannot have understood just how foul-spirited and Pharisaical it makes them appear. They have been taken seriously for so long within the power structures of the Church of England that they have quite lost touch with the sanity of the outside world. They founded their pressure group to oppose the appointment of a celibate gay man as a bishop. Yet they claim in their letter that "those who experience the attraction" – they won't talk about "love" – "have always been fully welcomed".

Condescending and pompous to the end – they finish with the assurance to the prime minister of their continued prayers – this letter discredits all opposition to gay marriage. It's obvious that what they really want is for gay people to feel ashamed and to exist on sufferance. The only thing tending to acquit them of a rather unpleasant prejudice is that their smug condescension isn't only directed at homosexuals. Evangelicals of that sort want everyone who's not like them to feel ashamed of their existence. "We are all sinners", they say, but they think they know they and their friends are saved.

Catholic bishops, too, suffer a terrible disconnect from the ordinary moral sense of the world outside. When Philip Tartaglia's claim that a Scots MP (and former Catholic priest) who died of pancreatitis at the age of 44 did so as a result of being gay surfaced to general outrage last week, few people noticed that he was speaking at a conference on religious freedom."I can say with a concerned and fearful realism that the loss of religious freedom is now arguably the most serious threat that the Catholic church and all people of faith in this country are facing," he had said.

What's crazy about this "concerned and fearful realism" is that he gives every appearance of believing his own propaganda. He confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue. There are actually genuine issues of religious freedom and toleration raised by some recent administrative decisions against opponents of gay marriage. But they have arisen because the argument about equality is already lost.
The argument about civil partnerships and fairness can't convincingly be put by people who have been unfair whenever they thought they could get away with it.

Pompous, condescending, mean spirited, Pharisaical, dishonest, bigoted - these are the words that sadly best define much of Christianity today.  It's little wonder that the so-called millennial generation is leaving Christianity in droves.  What truly moral person would want to be affiliated with such hatefulness and obscene self-congratulation?

The New Yorker Exposes AFA's Bryan Fischer: Extreme, Ridgid, Bigot and From a Broken Home

I'm not a subscriber to The New Yorker, so I can only quote from an article abstract that focuses on AFA's anti-gay bigot in chief, Bryan Fischer, as well as a piece on Right Wing Watch.  But what's interesting is the picture that emerges of Fischer.  Like Maggie Gallagher (who engaged in what the GOP and Christian Right would describe as slut behavior and found herself pregnant and abandoned by her "boyfriend") and it seems all of the prominent "ex-gays for pay," Fischer seems to have come from a f*cked up family background and the man still suffers from psychological issues that he's never properly dealt with.  Instead he projects his anger and venom on others, Native Americans, gays, immigrants of all sorts and Hispanics being among his preferred targets.  In my opinion, the man is a mental case and it is telling that he's typical of the hate merchants of the self-professed Christianists.  Rather that ranting and spewing hate towards others, Fischer ought to be seeking a significant mental health intervention.  Here are highlights from The New Yorker abstract:

[E]vangelical radio talk-show host Bryan Fischer. .   .  .  who hosts “Focal Point,” a popular Christian radio talk show, is one of the country’s most vocal opponents of what he calls “the homosexual-rights movement.” As he puts it, “A rational culture that cares about its people will, in fact, discriminate against adultery, pedophilia, rape, bestiality, and, yes, homosexual behavior.” His goal is to make this view the official stance of the Republican Party. 

[The article] tells about Fischer’s upbringing. He attended Stanford University and the Dallas Theological Seminary. Fischer directed Biblical studies at Cole Community Church in Boise, Idaho for thirteen years. Discusses Fischer’s growing political activism and tells how he came to be affiliated with the A.F.A.

 

Right Wing Watch fills in these details that I cannot access until the current issue of is past current status.  Here are some telling details:

 

Readers who are already familiar with Fischer’s extremism will likely be much more interested in the details about how he came to be what he is today, starting with his upbringing and relationship with his parents:

Fischer’s political activism, however, began years before the advent of same-sex-marriage laws. In fact, his preoccupation with family dysfunction seems to have started with his own. Though Fischer loves to talk, he does not like to talk about his childhood, and spoke about it only grudgingly. He was born in Oklahoma City, in 1951, and his father, John, a descendant of German Mennonites, was a Conservative Baptist minister whose pacifism was so strict that he became a conscientious objector during the Second World War—a choice that makes Fischer uncomfortable. […]

 

Fischer didn’t volunteer anything about his mother, but, when pressed, said, “My parents divorced when I was about twenty. It just rocked my world.” His mother, who worked as an interior decorator at a furniture store, was “chronically late,” and the bus driver on her route to work would always hold the bus for her. Eventually, he said, “my mom fell for the bus driver,” deserting him, his father, and his younger sister. “I don’t want to go into it,” Fischer said. “But I saw the devastating impact it had on other people in my immediate family.” Asked how his father fared, Fischer turned away, then said, “He looked like an Auschwitz survivor. It was akin to that ordeal.”

 

Dennis Mansfield, a Christian conservative who was friends with Fischer for twenty years, said that Fischer also “had a deep-rooted disappointment in his father, for not being strong enough.”

Later, as a student at Stanford, Fischer gravitated to David Roper, a chaplain at the school, and began attending his evangelical church in Palo Alto. Fischer told Mayer that he was attracted by the “manliness” of the church: “It was the first time I’d been around a real muscular Christianity,” he told me. “It had a kind of strength and virility to it that would appeal to men.” Roper told Mayer he found this characterization “odd” and is no longer close to Fischer. In 1993, Fischer was crushed when Roper retired and endorsed a different successor. […]  

But friction had grown between the two men—and between Fischer and the congregation— over various doctrinal issues. “The central issue was gender,” Fischer told me. The church, he said, had “adopted policies that would have allowed women to exercise authority over men.” He opposed this, citing the Apostle Paul.  .  .  .  .  “Somebody’s got to have the tie-breaking vote,” he explained to me. “According to God, that’s the husband and father.”

 

Four years later [in 2005], Fischer was kicked out on the street by his own congregation – again manliness was to blame:

“It was the gender issue again,” Fischer told me. “Because of my Scriptural convictions, I wasn’t able to budge. A female friend of the wife of an elder wanted a leadership role. I felt those roles should be reserved for men… . When I objected, they said, ‘You’re fired.’ It was very abrupt. I didn’t know what I was going to do next. It was very painful.”

 

The picture that is painted is that Fischer is not only and insufferable bigot but a total asshole to boot.  I'd also add that given the findings of the recent University of Rochester study on homophobes and their suppressed homosexuality, Fischer has all the hallmarks of a self-loathing closet case.  Not to mention attributes of someone in need of serious mental health care.  That Fischer stands as a major voice for the Christianists is indicative of how utterly f*cked up most of them are.