Gaylingual: Archives
The gall of the religious right never ceases to amaze. Time and again, they demonstrate that hypocrisy is an essential element of their ideology. While many of these zealots frequently demonstrate their willingness to preach one thing and do another, their latest endeavor seems determined to take it to a whole new level.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal advocate for the right wing, is calling on churches to voice their positions on political candidates en masse on September 28th in order to create the grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the current tax code. As it now stands, the IRS guidelines prohibit churches from directly endorsing or rejecting political candidates in order to maintain their tax exempt status. The ADF wants to overturn the provision on the grounds that it circumvents their First Amendment rights and is therefore unconstitutional.
From The Washington Post:
The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., will ask the clergy to deliver a sermon about specific candidates Sept. 28. If the action triggers an IRS investigation, the legal group will sue to overturn the federal rules, which were enacted in 1954.
Under the IRS code, churches can distribute voter guides, run voter registration drives, hold forums on public policy and invite politicians to speak at their congregations.
However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly.
The Alliance Defense Fund said Friday that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional limit on free speech and government intrusion into religion.
From WorldNetDaily:
"Churches have for too long feared the loss of tax exempt status arising from speech in the pulpit addressing candidates for office," the ADF's white paper on the campaign confirmed. "Rather than risk confrontation, pastors have self-censored their speech, ignoring blatant immorality in government and foregoing the opportunities to praise moral government leaders.
"ADF believes that IRS restrictions on religious expression from the pulpit, whenever the IRS characterizes it as 'political,' is unconstitutional. After 50 years of threats and intimidation, churches should confront the IRS directly and reclaim the expressive rights guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution," the group said.
"The intimidation of churches by leftist groups using the IRS has grown to a point that ADF has no choice but to respond," said Erik Stanley, senior counsel for the ADF. "The number of threats being reported to ADF is growing because of the aggressive campaign to unlawfully silence the church.
Where to begin. First, I doubt the courts would rule in favor of the ADF since churches have always had the option to forego their tax exempt status. The bottom line - they elect their tax status knowing the conditions. I personally believe they shouldn't be tax exempt and it wouldn't surprise me if this misguided effort opens the door to discussing that possibility.
Beyond that, the dividing line between church and state is a complex matter that has been addressed numerous times by the courts. I suspect that the ADF believes that the shift to the right in the Supreme Court under the Bush administration may be to their benefit. Regardless, there is ample precedent that would need to be ignored in order for ADF to prevail.
Setting aside the legal argument, I want to focus on some of the inconsistent positions that emanate from the religious right...positions that lead me and many others to decry their penchant for hypocrisy. Two issues jump off the page.
The first is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush and his supporters have argued that the government shouldn't provide funding for such research. The rationale for their objections is predicated upon ethical concerns that have their origin in religious doctrine. At the same time, he and those who support the ban on federal funding loudly note that they aren't preventing state and private funding for this research.
Hence the inconsistency is revealed. On the one hand, the religious right believes that it is appropriate for the president to deny funding for research that could assist numerous Americans that have no religious objections to the use of embryonic stem cells. They argue that those in favor of doing so can still conduct the research...just without the endorsement (funding) of the federal government. In other words, no one's rights are being denied so long as the research is allowed to proceed. If you favor it, fund it privately...but your federal government isn't going to use your money to do so.
On the other hand, those who endorse the logic in the above argument believe the federal government shouldn't be allowed to prohibit churches from engaging in partisan politicking in exchange for granting them an exemption from taxation. Where does that leave us? Well, it says that these individuals want the government to forego funding research that conflicts with their religious beliefs while also allowing them to use the pulpits of the churches they support to influence the outcome of elections...without those churches ever being required to pay taxation. If that isn't wanting to have it both ways, what is?
Contrast that with the secular citizen who pays taxes and wants the government to fund research that might save lives and one begins to see the absurdity of the system these religious demagogues favor. Truth be told, many of these religious organizations have already established "arms length" political entities that circumvent the IRS codes. Anyone who doubts their aspirations for the establishment of a theocracy ought to think again. The ADF directive is simply the next step in a well-crafted agenda.
The second item that illuminates the inconsistency in the rationale of the religious right is gay marriage. Proponents of measures to ban same-sex marriages contend that same-sex couples can achieve many of the same benefits that are afforded to married couples by utilizing the appropriate legal documentation. Of course they fail to mention that the lion's share of benefits cannot be achieved through any means...especially those that relate to taxation.
At the same time, they argue that the preservation of the institution of marriage and it's religious connotations is reasonable so long as the government isn't preventing gays from forming the relationships they choose. In other words, it's reasonable to restrict marriage to one man and one woman so long as the government allows gays to form the relationships they choose. The bottom line message to gays - you elect your tax status knowing the conditions.
When gays assert that this is an unfair system, the religious right is the first to cite those objections as evidence of the militant homosexual agenda and the desire of gays to force society to accept and embrace their alternative lifestyle.
Again, we begin to see the inconsistency. On the one hand, the religious right argues that the government has no obligation to recognize same-sex unions...and those who enter into them do so knowing the precedent conditions. You want a gay spouse, you don't benefit from the advantageous tax status afforded to recognized marriages. On the other hand, they want the government to recognize religious doctrine when determining whose marriages will receive beneficial treatment while also wanting their churches to receive preferential tax status absent conditions...conditions that are simply intended to uphold the separation of church and state.
Similar arguments can be made with regards to the religious right's positions on a number of issues. This includes a woman's right to have an abortion and the rights of an individual or their family members to make end of life decisions. Time and again, the religious right seeks to insert and impose their beliefs on those who do not share them while simultaneously asking the government to adopt a laissez-faire mentality with regards to monitoring the separation of church and state.
I find it amusing that those who routinely point out that the spiritual realm supersedes all else spend so much of their time in the pursuit of all things political and material. Then again, the newly emerging prosperity theology suggests that the attainment of success (wealth and worldly measures) is undoubtedly evidence that one is appropriately aligned with the Lord.
Silly me...why on earth would I conclude that any of the above positions are hypocritical. I just pray that God will help me abandon rational and reasoned thought in favor of the fabrications that come with faith. I need to accept that the teachings of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with today's Christianity. Come to think of it, maybe that's the reason the religious right insists that everyone has to be born again.
Image courtesy of TBogg
Tagged as: Abortion, Alliance Defense Fund, Amendment, Christ, Christianity, Church & State, Constitution, Embryonic Stem Cell, Gay, George W. Bush, IRS, Jesus, LGBT, Marriage, Religion, Religious Right, Same_Sex Marriage, Secularism, Supreme Court, Tax Exemption
Daniel DiRito | May 11, 2008 | 9:45 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
Don't be fooled by the religious right's assertion that they simply want to protect marriage and the family. Implicit in their efforts to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage is an intention to slam the door on any measure that would grant rights or recognition to gays.
Should there be any doubt, take a look at today's Michigan Supreme Court ruling. In a case designed to determine the scope of an amendment passed in the state in 2004, the court upheld an appeals court ruling that prohibits Michigan's universities, colleges, and municipalities from providing health coverage to the partners of same-sex couples.
From The Associated Press:
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Local governments and state universities in Michigan can't offer health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The court ruled 5-2 that Michigan's 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks domestic-partner policies affecting gay employees at the University of Michigan and other public-sector employers.
The decision affirms a February 2007 appeals court ruling.
Up to 20 public universities, community colleges, school districts and local governments in Michigan have benefit policies covering at least 375 gay couples. After the appeals court ruled, universities and local governments rewrote their policies to try to comply with the gay marriage ban -- so the effect of Wednesday's decision is unclear.
The voter-approved law, which passed 59 percent to 41 percent, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."
The language utilized by proponents of amendments to limit marriage to one man and one woman has been left intentionally vague in order to allow the restrictions to be expanded following passage. Ironically, the same people who accuse Democrats and liberals of favoring "activist judges" seek to use the courts to further their agenda to remove any recognition of rights for gays subsequent to the passage of these amendments.
The lack of clarity leaves the door open to arguing that these amendments actually intend to limit more than just recognition of same-sex marriages. In fact, the goal of those sponsoring such amendments is to nullify all prior state or municipal legislation that remotely seeks to recognize or codify the rights of gays. Specifically, these amendments are often targeted to overrule recognitions passed by large urban municipalities that have typically had a greater concentration of liberals or Democrats.
Time and again, the proponents of these amendments attempt to first pass the broadest possible language, and should that be struck down, they grudgingly expand the language...but only enough to pass judicial muster. The first such amendment to garner nationwide attention was passed in Colorado in 1992. Amendment 2 would have voided laws passed in cities like Denver and Boulder that were intended to grant protections to gays in housing and employment. Fortunately, the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ruling that found the amendment to violate the equal protections discussed in Colorado's constitution.
Amendment 2 was a miscalculation on the part of its proponents. They predicated their efforts upon an assumption that the courts were by and large unsympathetic to measures passed by city councils and their removal was simply a matter of forcing those items to be reviewed by the higher courts. The strategy failed miserably. Since the Colorado amendment drew so much attention, sponsors of subsequent amendments have used that case as a guide in crafting the language of future amendments. No longer could they count on the inherent bias against the passage of rights for gays that had previously dominated the court system.
The new strategy focuses on protecting the institution of marriage in order to win the approval of more voters. Knowing that a majority of Americans likely object to gays being able to enter into traditional marriages, these measures are designed to capitalize on that sentiment while secretly being crafted to allow them to go much further.
The Michigan case is a classic example of this bait and switch strategy. Most observers do not believe that the state's voters intended to revoke the provision of health care coverage for same-sex couples...or to restrict or rollback any other measures intended to protect gays from inequitable discrimination. Unfortunately, the supporters of the amendment wrote the measure with such objectives in mind and they regularly consult with legal scholars to determine the eventual outcomes that can be achieved with the chosen language.
Look, I realize that politics is a contact sport. Nonetheless, I am troubled when these individuals, who seek to be portrayed as bastions of Christian values, become the primary purveyors of disingenuous measures designed to promote their discriminatory ideologies. And yes, I realize they believe they are simply seeking to enforce the precepts of their faith...as they choose to interpret it from the Bible. Regardless, I don't recall that the good book endorses deception and deceit as an acceptable means to expand dogma.
Tagged as: Amendment 2, Bible, Bigotry, Christian, Colorado, Discrimination, Evangelical, Gay, God, LGBT, Marriage Amendment, Michigan, Morals, Religious Right, Same-Sex Marriage, Supreme Court, Values
Daniel DiRito | May 7, 2008 | 11:19 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
This is priceless. The following video is apparently a legitimate advertisement for men seeking to overcome their homosexuality. The fact that it is filled with homoeroticism only reinforces my belief that many of these men are tortured Christians with a limitless ability to disguise their sexual orientation by engaging in acts of denial that are intended to demonstrate their heterosexuality...as well as their devotion to the religious dogma they seem hopelessly driven to embrace.
Honestly, when I first saw the video clip, I thought the program had to be a joke. However, after tracking down the site where it is advertised, it appears to be a "legitimate" attempt to offer services intended to "repair" homosexuality. Of course I know nothing about the credentials of the gentleman offering the program. For all I know, he could simply be an opportunist attempting to play upon the insecurities of men who feel compelled to reject their homosexuality. Even if he is sincere in offering this program, it doesn't negate the absurdity in suggesting that homosexuality can be washed away.
Yes, I believe there are individuals that will go through the motions needed to assert that they have abandoned their homosexuality...but I have to say that I simply don't believe they have actually changed their sexual orientation. Keep in mind that Ted Haggard (the minister from Colorado Springs who hired a male prostitute on numerous occasions) proclaimed his heterosexuality after completing a program that lasted just a few weeks.
Call me a skeptic, but are we to believe that a reversal of sexuality is the equivalent of joining Jenny Craig for two months? I'm sorry, but believing that would be an unrivaled act of faith. On the contrary, I see it as evidence of the sham that is being sold as "reparative therapy".
On that note, there isn't much more that can be said about these ridiculous programs. Instead, it is far more productive to exploit the humor that is so abundantly attached to this particular program and the video by which it is being marketed.
With that said, the following is a list of everything you need to know about the WorkOUT program:
Number Ten:
WorkOUT will help you find your manhood...though this process will require you to frequently drop your pants.
Number Nine:
While it may take several rounds of being in and out (of the program), men who participate in WorkOUT have proven they have the ability and the stamina to go much deeper.
Number Eight:
Every life coach is under 25, sufficiently buff, on standby for urgent emergencies, and very reasonably priced. "Happy endings" are always guaranteed.
Number Seven:
If your manhood doesn't increase during the first phone conversation, you'll have access to videophone encounters designed to jump start the process. Face-to-face meetings are available though the fees for these "meetings" are dependent upon the length of time it takes to maximize your manhood.
Number Six:
911 calls cost $1.99 per minute and the charges will appear on your credit card statement under the name - Meet Christian Singles.
Number Five:
Absolutely no women are involved in administering the WorkOUT program...every man is assured that treatment will be provided by a man who previously entered the treatment regimen and remained engaged until completion.
Number Four:
WorkOUT gear is available on the website. Access to this page requires confirmation that you are over the age of 18. All models have been verified to be at least 18 years old (though definitely not much older).
Number Three:
David Pickup is the founder of WorkOUT. This is his real name and it does not imply that David attends gay bars or frequents online gay chat rooms in order to solicit men for sex. Should you encounter Mr. Pickup in either setting, he is simply seeking men (attractive, fit, and well-groomed) who would be interested in joining WorkOUT and discovering the "benefits" of Christian manhood.
Number Two:
A full understanding of homosexual sex is a prerequisite for admission into the WorkOUT program. Men simply curious about gay sex will not be accepted.
Number One:
Participants in WorkOUT are discouraged from dating women during the time they are enrolled in the program as it may serve to deflate their emerging manhood.
Tagged as: Christian, David Pickup, Gay, Homoeroticism, Homosexuality, Humor, LGBT, Religion, Reparative Therapy, Values, WorkOUT
Daniel DiRito | May 6, 2008 | 3:10 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
The religious right likes to be seen as the moral compass of the country...though they rarely want the country to fully understand that their focus on denying any rights to gays is their primary objective. Yes, they talk incessantly about same-sex marriage and frame it as the pivotal issue facing the American family. At the same time, they seek to keep the bulk of their mean spirited efforts working quietly in the background. The latest to surface is an attempt to force Wells Fargo to remove all protections for their gay employees.
From 365Gay.com:
(San Francisco, California) A motion by a Wells Fargo shareholder to remove protections for LGBT workers from the company's non-discrimination policy was defeated this week at its annual meeting.
The motion called for the company to "to formulate an equal employment policy ...that does not make reference to any matters related to sexual interests, activities or orientation."
It said that homosexuality has been "condemned by the major traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for a thousand years or more".
The motion was crafted by Pro Vita Advisors, a group that helps promote conservative values.
The motion said that "While the legal institution of marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern."
The proposal was easily defeated.
Conservative groups have attacked Wells Fargo for the past three years over its "pro-gay policies".
In 2005 Focus on the Family withdrew its funds from Wells Fargo.
"Focus on the Family has elected to end its banking relationship with Wells Fargo, motivated primarily by the bank's ongoing efforts to advance the radical homosexual agenda. These efforts are in direct opposition to the underlying principles and purpose of Focus, and thus a decision of conscience had to be made, and a stand taken," said a statement from FOF at the time.
Little did I know that protection from being fired for one's sexuality or providing health care for one's partner is a radical concept. Little did I know that protection from being harassed at work for one's sexuality is a radical departure from basic civil rights.
What I do know is that these fanatics have always had the punishment of gays as their goal though they like to couch it as simply being against special rights for gays. Frankly, their argument is ludicrous. The reason the rights of gays need to be recognized and documented is primarily because these fanatics see nothing wrong with denying them.
In their perfect world, gays would be ostracized and pressured to remain in the closet. Beyond that, I suspect they believe that those gays who expose their sexual identity should be chastised and condemned by those in their midst. After all, the mindset of these bigots justifies the punishment of 'sinners' and don't think for a minute that they wouldn't happily administer it.
Take a look at an excerpt from the resolution that was voted down.
From Christian News Wire:
The resolution reads in part:
Whereas, our company seeks to hire the most qualified person and has never had a policy discriminating against any person, or groups of persons, for any reason.
Whereas, it would be inappropriate and possibly illegal to ask a job applicant or employee about their sexual interests, inclinations and activities.
Whereas, it is similarly inappropriate and legally problematic for employees to discuss personal sexual matters while on the job.
Whereas, unlike the issues of race, age, gender and certain physical disabilities, it would be impossible to discern a person's sexual orientation from their appearance.
Whereas, unless an employee chooses to talk about their sexual interests or activities while working, the issue of sexual orientation is, essentially, moot.
Whereas, domestic partner benefit policies pay employee benefits based on the employee engaging in unmarried, homosexual relations. These relations have been condemned by the major traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for a thousand years or more.
Whereas, the Armed Forces of the United States is one of the largest and most diverse organizations in the world. They protect the security of us all while adhering to a "don't ask, don't tell policy" regarding sexual interests.
Whereas, marriage between heterosexuals has been protected and encouraged by a wide range of societies, cultures and faiths for ages.
Statement: While the legal institution of marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern.
How ironic that they disguise their hatred of gays with statements intended to sound unbiased. Do these idiots think gays don't know that it's inappropriate to be asked about their sexual orientation? It isn't the actions of gays prying into the sexual lives of their co-workers that have facilitated the need to protect gays in the workplace. All too often busy body Christians seek to expose their gay co-workers and begin the process of making them the object of derision and discrimination...all in the name of upholding their Christian values.
Truth be told, this effort is akin to the application of a scarlet letter. Many of those opposed to gays want to be able to identify them for the purpose of shaming and ridicule while simultaneously demanding that gays be forced to remain silent with regards to their plight. In essence, actions of this nature seek to establish that the sin of homosexuality is accompanied by a preordained guilt that allows society to judge while also requiring gays to accept that judgment in silence.
The notion suggests that the sin of being gay is so great as to nullify the possibility that those who aren't gay could ever commit a sin large enough to exceed the punishment that God wants them to impose on gays. After all, they believe the Bible justifies far worse than scorn. As such, gays should be happy that society is willing to allow them to exist.
In the end, one of the prevailing problems with religion is that its doctrines often seek to make measures of sin nothing more than a numerical holiness hierarchy. As such, practitioners often feel embolden to attach labels premised upon cursory information about the individual...while frequently ignoring any cumulative measure of the many transgressions they themselves have committed.
Last time I checked, God's alleged words still posit that only he can judge what's in the hearts of those he created. I'm happy to leave it at that. Of course, given the certitude of many of my Christian friends, maybe their ability to judge others leads them to think they can slap a scarlet letter on the one who supposedly created all these gay people. Then again, I've always had my doubts about who created whom.
Tagged as: Bible, Civil Rights, Discrimination, ENDA, Equality, God, LGBT, Pro Vita Advisors, Religion, Religious Right, Wells Fargo
Daniel DiRito | May 1, 2008 | 8:46 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
Have a seat, take a deep breath, and then watch the following video of Christian leaders assailing militant homosexuals and portraying themselves as victims of those who are seeking to undo all measures of morality. All that's missing from this piece of persecution propaganda is a wooden cross and the hammer needed to nail themselves to it. No doubt this is an attempt to demonstrate the degree to which they are being decimated by diabolical drag queens hell bent on effecting a holocaust on the holier than thou. Man your battle stations folks...the gays are coming.
I find screeds of this nature quite amusing in light of the concurrent efforts to stereotype gays as effeminate fairies who are gender challenged. Then again, why would one expect a gaggle of 'good old boys' to cease their efforts to maintain their long standing misogynistic masquerade. Apparently gays provide them with a multitude of targets. On the one hand, they can portray gays as militaristic monsters, and on the other, they can castigate them as nefarious Nelly's. Yes, these and other aspersions are an effective means of attaching antagonistic archetypes to their ardent enemy.
One things for sure, these folks are rather adept at crafting catch phrases and interjecting derogatory imagery meant to mobilize their minions. Note some of the one's they utilize in this short video - sexual politics, militant homosexual agenda, right of conscience, suppress, silenced, religious liberty, God's standard, dominance, second class citizen, clash, totalitarian regime, Nazi Germany, concentration camp, intimidation, beat into submission, discrimination on steroids, radical, hammer of the state, Taliban, authoritarian, and fascist.
Who would have thought that men of God would be so skilled at inciting anger and animosity. Then again, these megalomaniacs probably think a crusade is just what they need to advance their Christian charade...as well as making certain the cash cow doesn't dry up. Fomenting their flocks with fear reminds me of another evangelical instigator...the one ensconced in the White House.
Honestly, these people are exasperating. Their willingness to use selective comprehension to cherry pick Christ's message is not only disingenuous; it is an abrogation of his authenticity.
These rabble rousers might find themselves on the outside looking in when their magical moment of Rapture arrives. After all, whose to say God won't prefer to populate heaven with a group of gays that demonstrated the power and persistence to bring the 'good old boys' to their knees. Besides, God must already know that most of these men are a six pack of beer away from crossing over to the other side...if you know what I mean.
Tagged as: Bigotry, ENDA, Evangelicals, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Hate Crimes Legislation, Homophobia, Humor, LGBT, Militant Homosexuals, Rapture, Religious Right, Same-Sex Marriage, Tony Perkins
Daniel DiRito | April 24, 2008 | 6:00 PM |
link
| Comments (2)
It's not difficult to argue that the alliance of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini was akin to two rival gangs uniting to bully the folks in the neighborhood. The long-standing constructs of thuggery remain intact today and the ransacking of Rome's LGBT Center is proof positive that rational thought is often the victim of formative fascist ideations. The degree to which these perpetrators draw some of their justifications from faith-based dogma merits exploration.
From 365Gay.com:
(Rome) Rome police are searching for members of a mob of youths who burst into the city's LGBT center, ransacking the building.
The attack on Mario Mieli Homosexual Cultural Circle occurred Thursday night while members were in the building.
As they attempted to confront the gang the youths yelled anti-gay and anti-Semitic slogans. As they ran off the gang yelled praises for Benito Mussolini, Italy's wartime dictator.
"We fear that this situation is linked to the electoral climate," the association said in a statement.
Rome is in the midst of a mayoral runoff between rightist and leftist candidates.
Earlier this week Silvio Berlusconi became Prime Minister when his rightwing coalition swept national elections.
Fascist and Nazi youth have stepped up their visibility since the election.
In the north of Italy this week police broke up what is described as a neo-Nazi gang arresting 16 people on charges of inciting discrimination, hatred and violence based on race, ethnicity and nationality.
Police said the gang had ties to skinhead and Neo-Nazi groups in Austria, Switzerland and Germany.
All too often the Catholic Church has given tacit legitimacy to such acts through encyclicals that condemn homosexuality and exhort its followers (especially politicians) to defend the family. The recent effort on the part of the Church to influence the elections in Spain highlight the willingness of the Vatican to scapegoat gays in an effort to reassert its relevance.
From The Times Online:
Spanish bishops waded into the election campaign [...] when they effectively directed Spaniards to vote against the Government and in favour of the conservative Popular Party.
In a paper setting out the Church's "moral guidance" for voters, the Episcopal Conference attacked the Government's moves to legalise gay marriage, make divorce easier and remove religious education from the compulsory school curriculum.
Relations between the Church and the Left have been poisoned since the Civil War in the 1930s, when Communist and Anarchist irregulars burnt churches and killed thousands of priests. The Spanish Church strongly supported Franco's Fascist dictatorship and some bishops were even pictured in stiff-armed salutes.
To understand the reticence of the Church to acknowledge its duplicity in promoting discrimination and persecution, one need only recall that it wasn't until the year 2,000 that Pope John Paul II held his "Day of Pardon" mass. That historic mass, designed to atone for the misguided acts and omissions of the Church, followed its tardy and tepid apology in 1998 for remaining silent during the extermination of millions by the Nazis.
From The Guardian:
From the altar of St Peter's Basilica in Rome he led Catholicism into unchartered territory by seeking forgiveness for sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples.
Fighting through trembles and slurrings caused by Parkinson's disease, the Pope electrified ranks of cardinals and bishops by pleading for a future that would not repeat the mistakes. "Never again," he said.
Centuries of hate and rivalry could not recur in the third millennium. "We forgive and we ask forgiveness. We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions."
Defying warnings from some theologians that the unprecedented apology would undermine the church's authority, the 79-year-old pontiff asked God to forgive the persecution of the Jews. "We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood."
Wearing the purple vestments of lenten mourning, the Pope sought pardon for seven categories of sin: general sins; sins in the service of truth; sins against Christian unity; against the Jews; against respect for love, peace and cultures; against the dignity of women and minorities; and against human rights.
There was no reference to homosexuals, who had asked to be included for suffering theocratic violence.
Ironically, even those of the Jewish faith...who have been highly critical of the Catholic Church's behavior during the Holocaust...have participated in the vilification of gays. The controversy over World Pride Day being held in Jerusalem drew outrage and condemnation from within Israel as well as from the Vatican.
The fact that Pope Benedict XVI is just beginning to acknowledge and address the child molestation that has existed in the Church for decades simply places an exclamation mark on the hypocrisy that has typified its deference to silence in the face of adversity. Ever mindful of its need for power, the Catholic Church has all too often placated history's hoodlums and participating in vilifying those most in need of protection.
How the Church can justify years of stonewalling victims of pedophile priests while simultaneously assailing the acts of consenting and loving adults is beyond comprehension. While summarily destroying the lives of thousands of children and protecting their own from prosecution, they have the audacity to hold homosexuals accountable for the decay of the family.
Given the Church's stance, there is no doubt it will be a future Pope who will be forced to issue an apology for the victimization of gays. What remains to be seen is the degree to which the Church was a player in fomenting the fascist feelings that are beginning to emerge.
Perhaps I'm biased, but when I witness Pope Benedict XVI being idolized by throngs of followers at the new National's stadium and I envision the same soon happening at Yankee Stadium, I can't help but think about my visit to the Coliseum in Rome. Granted, there aren't any lions or tigers being released from cages to devour the deviants at these Papal masses...but the alarming number of attacks on the LGBT community coupled with the track record of pedophile priests diddling while Rome turned its head have all the makings of another "Day of Pardon".
As a matter of practicality, I struggle to see the merits of a monolithic ministry that makes the same mistakes over and over again. For all the assertions that the Pope is infallible, there are far more historical records indicating that he and his cohorts are run of the mill bullies who foster the fallacies of each new flavor of faith-based fascism.
Tagged as: Catholic Church, Day of Pardon, Faith-Based, Fascism, Francisco Franco, Gay, Gay Marriage, Holocaust, LGBT, Mario Mieli Homosexual Cultural Circle, Neo-Nazi, Pedophile Priests, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Rome, Same-Sex Marriage, Spanish Elections, Yankee Stadium
Daniel DiRito | April 19, 2008 | 9:01 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
During election years, it's easy to get lost in the pettiness of the political battles that we think are important. Unfortunately, that partisan focus often leads us to lose sight of the issues that really matter. While we are asked to evaluate who is best prepared to answer the phone at 3:00 AM, millions of our fellow citizens are pondering how to feed their children breakfast in the morning.
When I watch programs like the following, I can't help but think about the huge amounts of money we are spending on the war in Iraq. Time and again, our president tells us the war is necessary to protect America. Somehow, I don't imagine the folks who are struggling to make ends meet are all that worried about a terrorist attack.
In fact, I suspect that many of the people referenced in this video live with the terror of being unable to find their next meal or surviving until the next handout is available. Our politicians talk about the need for health insurance while millions aren't even eating the food they need to insure their health.
Frankly, I can't imagine what the next president will have to do to right the ship. It's easy for voters to lock onto an issue, believing that it's a non-negotiable necessity. Some of us won't vote for a candidate that supports abortion...some of us won't vote for a candidate that won't support an amendment to ban same-sex marriage...some of us won't vote for a candidate because she is a woman or a black man.
In the midst of our absolutism, we ignore the neighbor who simply needs a decent meal or the elderly woman with high blood pressure who can't afford the medication she needs. For all the talk of this being a Christian nation, I am astounded at the lack of Christian compassion.
I simply can't imagine why we need to spend millions of dollars on initiatives to ban gay marriage in the midst of such great need. Why on earth would anyone care about what happens in the bedrooms of their neighbors when they don't give a damn about the neighbor's empty refrigerator? No, we've become a hateful nation filled with animosity and resentment for all things different. Those who rail against gay marriage argue they're simply protecting the family. I'm still trying to decide which families they're trying to protect. It sure as hell isn't the family next door.
Tagged as: Abortion, Bill Moyer, Compassionate Conservatism, Food, Food Banks, Food Pantries, Gay Marriage, Hunger, Inflation, LGBT, PBS, Poverty, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage
Daniel DiRito | April 15, 2008 | 9:25 AM |
link
| Comments (1)
Hanes used to tell us they would make us feel good all over. With the following ad campaign, one might question whether the underwear company has had a change of heart. The tagline states, "Because the world gives you enough tags" and it's intended to highlight Hanes' new line of tagless products. While the ads were produced in India and aren't scheduled to run in the U.S., they are certainly drawing the attention the ire...of a number of Americans. I certainly understand the reactions, though I'm not sure I fully concur with all of the criticisms.
Let me attempt an explanation by first asking a question. If acceptance emanates from understanding, can the former be achieved if the latter is ignored? Here's the point. Labels are a form of understanding...or in the case of prejudice...misunderstanding. Changing those misunderstandings...and therefore the beliefs (prejudices) that underlie the labels we apply...requires two things. First, there must be an open discussion of all that is incorporated into the conceptions (both good and bad) of those we seek to enlighten. Second, there must be an honest disclosure of the identity (both good and bad) we seek to substitute for the faulty, or more likely, incomplete perceptions.
In looking at the "Faggot" image, my first inclination was to apply my own version of a truth test. Hence, I wanted to know if the image represented any, all, or none of my understandings of being gay. Yes, the first thing I noticed was the word "Faggot"...and it would have been easy to allow this word...frequently used as a pejorative...to halt my thought process.
I didn't do that because I'm convinced that the word itself has no power or meaning. That can only be determined contextually. With that said, an understanding of the ads intent soon emerged as did an appreciation for the journey others (on the outside) must travel in order to comprehend the true essence of those who "wear" this label. The transformative process cannot otherwise begin.
The journey, by those who don't wear these labels, to achieve an acute awareness of those who do, requires an effort that must exceed the obtuse understandings of those who have made known their negative intentions when applying the label. While many complete this journey in spite of the dissonance, real community can only be achieved when the words and the intentions of all the parties becomes harmonious. Reaching that point of stasis can only be achieved when full understanding is realized. Unfortunately, that can only happen when and if it is sought.
Hence, the power or meaning behind these labels cannot be stripped away unless and until the motivations and misconceptions that bolster them can be removed or repaired. Therefore, efforts to forbid the labels circumvent the process necessary to alter the intentions and misunderstandings that corrupt or color them. Their absence from the vernacular has little, if any, correlation with extinguishing the hatred that remains virulent, though hidden and harbored...but perhaps no longer vocalized (at least in public).
We may think silence is solace but that is akin to believing the lamb can safely lie down with the lion without ever having reached the understandings that are required to enable it. Such an act must be predicated upon a mutual respect for the worth of the other...and therefore an acceptance of the right of the other...to exist. Absent that, peril will always persist and quiet must not be misconstrued to mean that cunning has suddenly been quelled.
Faggot, nigger, and paki are labels that appropriately perpetuate corresponding tags like homophobe, racist, bigot, and many more. The incendiary fuel that hides behind all of these words...ready to erupt...will only abate when both sides entertain and pursue transcendent understandings. While logic may tell the lamb it would be foolish to even imagine a direct discussion with the lion...it nonetheless instructs both parties that the primordial change is otherwise precluded.
In the end, the change we seek must be an action, not an admonition. The former moves us forward; the latter moves us apart. The faggot will lie down with the homophobe when the humanity that undoubtedly joins them is allowed to undo the doubts that divide them. In allowing that miraculous moment of awareness, one man can and will choose to lie with another...not as faggot and homophobe...but as nothing more than all we are...human beings. Only then will we all feel good all over.
The three images follow. If you click on the two smaller images, they will be opened as full size images comparable to the larger one that precedes them.
If you would like to see even larger images (far more readable detail is revealed), visit the following link and click on the images:
Ads Of The World
Tagged as: Bigotry, Gay, Hanes Underwear. LGBT, Homophobia, India, Labels, Prejudice, Racism
Daniel DiRito | April 12, 2008 | 3:17 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
If the American Family Association had their way, I suspect they would require a Bible in the glove box of every car and nonstop airing of The 700 Club in all hotels. Yes, the loons that boycotted Ford for being gay friendly have now decided to tackle the scourge of hotel porn. The AFA wants Marriott International to stop offering adult content movies to their guests and they are seeking a meeting with company officials to make their case (and view a few examples).
Several conservative groups, including the American Family Association, are asking Marriott International Inc. to stop giving hotel guests the option of ordering pay-per-view movies with strong sexual content.
AFA, based in Tupelo, said 47 "pro-family leaders" have signed a letter asking chain's chief executive, J.W. Marriott Jr., for a meeting to discuss their concerns.
Marriott was told that stopping "porn movies" would be in keeping with the corporation's position of "promoting the well-being of children and families," AFA said in a news release.
AFA announced last month that it was ending a two-year boycott of Ford Motor Co., saying the company had met most of its demands, which included ending donations to groups that support same-sex marriage.
Ford said in a statement that its principles haven't changed, but that it has reduced overall advertising and charitable spending in recent years because of losses in North America. Ford lost $2.7 billion in 2007.
Among those participating in the letter to Marriott, according to AFA, are James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council; Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of High Impact Leadership Council; and Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media.
Now I'm no religious expert but isn't it the individual's responsibility to resist temptation? Since these movies aren't mandatory and they can only be viewed if one elects to see them and agrees to pay the fee, I'm at a loss to understand how this impacts the well-being of families? If daddy or mommy have a predisposition to watch porn or to engage in adulterous affairs, I doubt they need to run to a hotel to achieve either. Further, there's no reason to believe that the effort to force Marriott to cease offering porn will strengthen or save a single marriage.
I've long argued that these religious fanatics are constantly looking for rules and regulations because they simply haven't the will to resist their own wanton desires. Rather than look within for answers, they run around demanding the world erect barriers to save them from themselves...and that's a tall order. Truth be told, the newspapers are filled with examples of the lengths to which people will go to fulfill their misguided motivations.
It will take a lot more than a Bible in every Ford, a ban on hotel porn, or a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex unions to save the institution of marriage. Last time I checked, divorce rates have been increasing for years. Pardon my snark, but those numbers primarily reflect the failure of holier than thou hetero marriages. Homos have long been on the outside looking in...and from my perspective...the grass isn't all that green on the other side of the fence.
As usual, stories of this nature always seem to inspire my sarcastic side. With that in mind, I've created a new top ten list. The following are the top ten reasons hotel chains must not stop offering movies with adult content to their guests.
Number Ten:
How would we ever catch governors in the act of destroying their political careers?
Number Nine:
The innuendo behind "Feel the Hyatt touch" would be totally inappropriate.
Number Eight:
Sexual intrigue sells...Watergate scandals are so passé.
Number Seven:
It could potentially encourage a closeted minister to arrange clandestine hotel meetings with a male prostitute.
Number Six:
Corporate America couldn't afford to hire traveling salesman if the perks were suddenly eliminated.
Number Five:
Motel Six would have to change its slogan to, "You must leave the light on".
Number Four:
Hotel chains can't afford to alter all of their door hangers to include wholesome explanations like "Do Not Disturb - Prayer In Progress".
Number Three:
What would evangelical adulterers use to ready themselves for their extra-marital trysts?
Number Two:
It could spell the end for that popular Las Vegas ad campaign...the one that states, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".
Number One:
It's better than allowing polygamous religious lunatics to build marriage beds in their temples.
Tagged as: 700 Club, Adultery, American Family Association, Bible, Divorce, Ford Motor Company, Gay Marriage, James Dobson, LGBT, Marriott, Pornography, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage, Tony Perkins
Daniel DiRito | April 11, 2008 | 11:58 AM |
link
| Comments (1)
Well the folks at Westboro Baptist Church have really taken a liking to singing their message of hate. Two of the following videos are examples of their handiwork. The first, "There Are No Heroes" is a remake of Bonnie Tyler's Holding Out For A Hero. The second is a new take on the song Signs from the Five Man Electrical Band.
I've added a third video that the Church created in the aftermath of a 10.9 million dollar jury verdict being entered against them late last year. In the video, members of the Church thank God for the 10.9 million dollar verdict.
The amount specified in the verdict was subsequently reduced to 5 million dollars. Regardless, their rationale for celebrating the verdict in the video suggests that it is consistent with their interpretations of the Bible and they contend it brings them the worldwide attention they need to deliver their message. If I were them, I'd be hoping God has a top notch legal department.
Surprisingly, following the court ruling and their video, the Church set out to fight the verdict and the subsequent actions to force payment. Perhaps they're not as thankful for the verdict as they would have us think? I suspect it will be difficult for them to deliver their message of hate should they be forced to part with their worldly possessions. No doubt they believe whatever they do is guided by God's will. I'm betting we'll soon see how well they take to being left to their own devices.
In response to a motion to stay last November's multimillion dollar jury verdict against the Westboro Baptist Church pending appeal, a federal judge has placed a lien on the properties of the church and its founder, Pastor Fred W. Phelps Sr., and ordered two of Phelps' daughters to put up cash bonds of $125,000 and $100,000 within 30 days.
Shirley L. Phelps-Roper and Rebekah A. Phelps-Davis, members of the Topeka, Kan.-based church, argued to the U.S. District Court in Baltimore that their financial circumstances prevented them from posting the full $5 million bond.
But U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett, who in February quartered the punitive damage component of the jury's $10.9 million award, said the rights of the non-appealing party, Albert Snyder, must also be considered.
Snyder's son, Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, 20, was killed in Iraq in March 2006. Westboro members demonstrated at his funeral, held a week later in Westminster, with placards that said "Semper Fi Fags" and "You're Going to Hell," prompting Albert Snyder's successful suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
They had planned to picket in front of the federal courthouse in Baltimore and at the nearby Marriott hotel where Mark Castillo of Rockville allegedly drowned his three young children last weekend. But church members cancelled their trip to Baltimore when they learned they could participate by phone.
I find it interesting that they can make instantaneous plans to protest funerals all over the country but in this case they chose to participate in the hearing via telephone. Suddenly, they lack the motivation or the wherewithal to purchase plane tickets? Maybe God told them to hunker down until they can find a way to save their assets.
In the meantime, I decided to offer the Westboro Baptist "Hummers" a new song. Mine isn't divinely inspired...but it's a lot more fun.
Tagged as: Albert Snyder, Bible, Bonnie Tyler, Five Man Electrical Band, Fred Phelps, Funerals, God, Holding Out For A Hero, Homophobia, LGBT, Matthew Snyder, Religion, Shirley Phelps-Roper, Signs, The Drifters, Topeka, U.S. Military, Under the Boardwalk, Westboro Baptist Church
Daniel DiRito | April 10, 2008 | 11:22 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
The Onion has some fun with the work of Christian charity groups in foreign countries. In the following faux video, the Onion anchor interviews, Josephine Bates, founder of "God's Hands", a Colorado Springs based charity. They proceed to discuss the merits of providing for the needy...so long as they aren't gay, Muslim, or in favor of abortion.
I love it when Miss Bates assures the Onion that there isn't a litmus test for charity...and then goes on to note who is excluded from the group's acts of charity. That sounds about right for many of these fundy groups. After all, heaven is a segregated community that is only open to the holiest of the holy. Clearly, they can't be expected to embrace these heathens.
Tagged as: Abortion, Africa, Christian Charity, Evangelical, Heaven, Humor, LGBT, Muslim, Pro-Choice, Religion
Daniel DiRito | April 2, 2008 | 9:01 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
Nothing like a little levity on Saturday...especially when it comes at the expense of the holier than thou. The following two videos take some oft heard Christian propaganda and give it a gay spin.
In the first video, it's reported that gay scientists are on the hunt for a Christian gene. In the meantime, gay counselors are helping Christians deal with their troubling lifestyle.
In the second video, prominent anti-gay Australian Archbishop Peter Jensen is confronted with numerous Biblical passages that religious leaders seemingly ignore. The Bishop seems unable to explain or discount the various verses.
Surprisingly, during the confrontation, the Bishop decides to tell the male reporter that he finds him "so good looking"...at which point the reporter reminds the Archbishop of the very Leviticus verse that is used to condemn gays...just in case the Archbishop has his sights on a sinful romp with the reporter.
Thank goodness we have men like the Archbishop to interpret the Bible for us. However, after watching this exchange, it looks like the Archbishop needs a refresher course in Biblical content. Sadly, he's not the only Christian who has a selective knowledge of the Bible.
Tagged as: Archbishop Peter Jensen, Bible, Gay, Humor, Leviticus, LGBT, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage
Daniel DiRito | March 22, 2008 | 1:37 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
I've long believed that religious fanatics have the willingness and the capacity to justify any behavior or action they feel will further their agenda and solidify their authority over their minions. The evidence supporting my belief just grew exponentially.
In the following video, ABC News explores how global warming is viewed by a number of religious leaders and their denominations. The report stems from the declaration signed by current and former leaders of the Southern Baptist Church in which they assert that they have been too timid on addressing global warming. That's the good news.
The bad news is that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council disagrees with this position. Instead, Perkins argues that those who favor a reduction in global warming are actually seeking to promote abortion and same-sex marriage. Perkins contends that limiting population is an element of climate control and is therefore contrary to the promotion of life and procreation. Rather than focus on Perkins' absurd conflation, I think it makes more sense to explore the motivations that in all likelihood underly it.
After assailing abortion and the gays, Perkins pivots to make the argument that people would be better served to put their energy into preparing themselves spiritually for the end of the world (the rapture or the end of days) instead of championing climate control. I guess Perkins sees humanity like an ant colony in a jar - if our willful actions lead us to outgrow and destroy our planet, the masses should simply soldier on like tireless worker ants.
I find his logic problematic (OK, what logic?) because it suggests that God gave us a brain and the ability to build all that exists in this world...but not the good sense to be prudent stewards in order to preserve and protect it. So I'm left to wonder how we're supposed to know when it's time to stop using our brains and drive the humanity bus willy-nilly off the cliff?
However, if God decides when to end the world, why would we suddenly determine that we knew it was coming and therefore elect to throw caution to the wind? Isn't that rather presumptive and arrogant on our part? What if we're wrong? Isn't it possible that God would see our carelessness as a sin? Further, what right do we have to destroy his creation...on our own timeline?
People like Perkins like to hear themselves pontificate but they rarely take the time to think through the significance of their proclamations. Is God going to reward those leaders and industries that ignored global warming in the pursuit of profit since their efforts will have helped facilitate the end of days? Will Al Gore and those who sought to save the planet be banished to hell because they opposed unbridled profits at the expense of extinguishing the planet?
If so, wouldn't that mean that those who chose to give, like the woman in the parable of the widow's mite, were being punished...while those who chose to take, like the tax collectors seeking to amass more wealth, were being rewarded? How could that be God's plan?
The answer may be found in what has come to be known as the prosperity doctrine, prosperity theology or the prosperity gospel. Essentially, those who promote this version of faith (and there are many well known ministers) argue that God wants his believers to be successful in all they do...including the accumulation of wealth.
I don't know if Tony Perkins is a disciple of this thinking or not; but the contradictions found in his position on global warming better align him with prosperity theology than with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Taking it a step further, I doubt Perkins plans to suffer in the days that precede the end of the world; otherwise he would have already diminished his focus on the material world in order to allow time to prepare his own soul for the impending rapture.
You see, I contend that men like Perkins have no intention of suffering...though they make their living asking others to do just that...especially if it means pledging to donate a greater share of their income. Men like Perkins worship money and the spoils of capitalism above all else. They view climate control as an impediment to the pursuit of wealth...though they couch their opposition to it as the promotion of life.
Yes, all too often, the lives of Perkins and his ilk are steeped with worldly treasures. My cynicism tells me they are the equivalent of modern day snake oil salesmen. They travel from this conference to that speaking engagement...preaching their version of values...while separating as much coin from the congregation as is humanly possible.
I question the sincerity of leaders who lecture their flocks ad nauseam on the importance of sacrificing for the afterlife in order to receive its many rewards...particularly when they insist upon rewarding themselves handsomely in the here and now...as if there were no tomorrow.
Perhaps I just don't know my commandments...especially the one that states - Thou shalt use the name of the Lord thy God when one taketh without guilt.
The following video clip includes the original ABC report along with several insertions of commentary in the form of text added by the individual that uploaded it to YouTube. It is somewhat distracting but it doesn't prevent the viewer from following the original ABC News report. Perhaps as payment for enduring the editorializing, they include a snippet from the TV show Family Guy at the end of the clip. I thought it was funny so hopefully it will make you chuckle.
Tagged as: Abortion, Al Gore, Climate Change, Climate Control, Commandments, End Of Days, Evangelicals, Family Guy, Family Research Council, Gay Marriage, Global Warming, God, Jesus, LGBT, Population Control, Prosperity Gospel, Prosperity Theology, Rapture, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage, Southern Baptists, Tony Perkins
Daniel DiRito | March 21, 2008 | 3:42 PM |
link
| Comments (2)
I'm always amazed when the religious right seeks to characterize the pursuit of gay equality as a militant homosexual agenda. I'm especially amused when the rhetoric by which they put forth this argument is laced with the words we normally associate with the very militancy they seek to attach to the gay community.
In the following video, Oklahoma Representative Sally Kern waxes on about the threat posed by homosexuals. According to Kern, homosexuality poses a greater danger than terrorism. Just listen to the angry and confrontational imagery laced throughout her speech. When Kern states that she is in jeopardy by just making her comments, what kind of jeopardy is she alluding to? This is fear mongering at its worst. Sadly, these are the words we hear so often from those who claim to be Christians.
As is so often the case with bigotry, Kern's remarks are rife with exaggerations and misinformation. Kern tells us she was a teacher for twenty years and that schools are no longer teaching facts and knowledge. It sickens me to imagine the curriculum Kern and her ilk would favor. Thank goodness she's no longer teaching. We can only hope that her political career comes to an end as well.
Honestly, when I hear the assertion that no society that embraced homosexuality has survived, I want to puke. I could just as easily assert that no society that has embraced a monetary system has survived. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that any society failed due to an acceptance of homosexuality...unless of course one chooses to cherry pick from the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I find it amusing that homosexuality is given the distinction of being the preeminent means by which sexual behavior can destroy a society. Somehow, the Kern's of the world seem to ignore God's supposed admonitions against adultry, premarital sex, or any other heterosexual indiscretion. I wonder what Kern thinks about the growing prevalence of pegging. Of course I'm sure she would blame it on gays.
Rather than rant on about the ramblings of another run of the mill right winger, I decided to grant her inane fears the credence they warrant.
The following is my version of the top ten goals of militant homosexuals.
Number Ten:
Organize local groups of gay men and women to form "Queer Make Over Militias" designed to convert and enlist heterosexuals who are style challenged.
Number Nine:
Align with the growing metrosexual population to form an underground alliance to chase rural right wing Republicans away from major metropolitan areas. (Think pink robes and hoods from a Dave Chappelle skit)
Number Eight:
To take advantage of the outrage at Janet Jackson's Super bowl wardrobe malfunction, gays are quietly seeking legislation to ban all beer commercials that objectify women's breasts and promote a stereotypical heterosexual male persona.
Number Seven:
Distribute campaign door hangers on election day that contain gay inspired victory party planning tips complete with recipes and decorating tips.
Number Six:
Use Bill O'Reilly's confusion about the differences between a loofah and a falafel on a stick as an opportunity to ban the use of soap on a rope from all public shower facilities.
Number Five:
Establish a non-profit to donate tea sets to all preschool aged boys.
Number Four:
Begin marketing a new doll called G.I. JoAnne...one that morphs from a dainty debutante into an androgynous action hero when her American Graffiti poodle skirt is transformed into a paramilitary parachute.
Number Three:
Promote a high school curriculum which requires that all students take a home economics course on using springform pans to bake the perfect cheesecake.
Number Two:
Establish a nationwide ex-gay ministry that is actually a clandestine gay dating service for closeted christians and discredited evangelical ministers.
Number One:
Produce and promote a blockbuster film titled Jesus Camp - The Sequel...a sassy musical portraying the tribulations of Jesus, Mary, & Joseph, a polyamorous trio played by Matthew Broderick, Harvey Fierstein, and Nathan Lane.
Tagged as: Bible, Bigotry, Evangelical, Gay Bashing, Homophobia, Humor, LGBT, Religion, Religious Extremism, Sally Kern
Daniel DiRito | March 10, 2008 | 11:32 AM |
link
| Comments (0)