.....in favor of gay rights? Really?
This is just plain odd to me. Here is the woman that is married to the former President that was hell bent on amending the Constitution in order to deny American's their civil rights simply because they "aren't like most people". Why couldn't she have mentioned this back in 2004? Likely that she was muzzled by her husband and her handlers. If she had "come out" with her beliefs back then it would likely have spelled trouble for Bush's re-election bid. I'm not going to say he wouldn't have been, but this would have really angered the religious zealots that helped get him a second term in office.
So what angle is she playing with this now?
Showing posts with label Gay Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Rights. Show all posts
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
What Is A Gay Conservative?
Hot Air does a little damage control after Bryan Fischer's and Ryan Sorba's anti-gay rant at CPAC10:
Someone using the internet handle of "Doctor Zero" over at Hot Air took to the challenge of not only defending the websites new corporate masters as well as standing up for people he/she refers to in the title as "gay conservatives".
While the author's seemingly endless preamble dives headlong into the issue without really addressing who this mysterious group of people are - aside from mentioning GOPROUD a few times - he/she really didn't "defend" anyone, instead favoring ideological babbling and attacking the actions of the Obama administration that focus on what was apparently his/her intended thesis. This, at least to me, is not surprising in any way.
This has lead me to ask the following question - how can one honestly be a gay conservative?
Certainly, there are people within the gay community that hold conservative ideals ( low taxes, personal responsibility, limited government intrusion, et al ) but when you see how the modern conservative movement reacts to everything ( and has limited ideas on how to better the country ) you begin to wonder exactly why anyone within the gay community would want to be seen as a part of that movement.
Someone using the internet handle of "Doctor Zero" over at Hot Air took to the challenge of not only defending the websites new corporate masters as well as standing up for people he/she refers to in the title as "gay conservatives".
While the author's seemingly endless preamble dives headlong into the issue without really addressing who this mysterious group of people are - aside from mentioning GOPROUD a few times - he/she really didn't "defend" anyone, instead favoring ideological babbling and attacking the actions of the Obama administration that focus on what was apparently his/her intended thesis. This, at least to me, is not surprising in any way.
This has lead me to ask the following question - how can one honestly be a gay conservative?
Certainly, there are people within the gay community that hold conservative ideals ( low taxes, personal responsibility, limited government intrusion, et al ) but when you see how the modern conservative movement reacts to everything ( and has limited ideas on how to better the country ) you begin to wonder exactly why anyone within the gay community would want to be seen as a part of that movement.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Listening To The Commanders
I'm reminded of the fact that this is the second high ranking member of the armed forces to say that DADT isn't necessary and John McCain still refuses to comply with his own statements regarding how he would vote should these circumstances present themselves.
As I've stated before, this is about professionalism, and the Republicans in the House and Senate are actively questioning that professionalism within our armed forces simply because they think "teh ghey is icky". Sounds like they could use a lesson in professionalism themselves.
Think Progress has more.
As I've stated before, this is about professionalism, and the Republicans in the House and Senate are actively questioning that professionalism within our armed forces simply because they think "teh ghey is icky". Sounds like they could use a lesson in professionalism themselves.
Think Progress has more.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Gays Would Allow A Terrorist Victory
That essentially the argument that Missouri State Representative Gary Nodler offered while debating the repeal of DADT.
This isn't that suprising, as Republicans are all to eager to politicize terrorism and the continuing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Nodler's ignorance on the matter shines just as brightly since gays are already serving in the armed forced - a point that echoes Schissel's statements regarding the reality of women currently serving as well.
While Nodler is denying he ever made such a statement, this situation provides further context to John Brennan's claims that the GOP uses the spectre of terrorism as a political weapon.
Nodler at one point suggested that being openly gay in the military "in and of itself" could be grounds for a sexual harassment complaint by another serviceman, and characterized Don't Ask Don't Tell as a way to accommodate gays' service "in a way that doesn't create a hostile workplace."
He later said allowing gays to serve openly could represent a "cultural affront" to societies in which the U.S. military is active, "so you would create specific geopolitical strategic dilemmas for the U.S. military -- specifically in the war in Afghanistan."
To which Schissel replied, "Your argument holds no water in the fact that we currently have women serving in the military. The Taliban are no great fans of women doing anything other than staying at home."
This isn't that suprising, as Republicans are all to eager to politicize terrorism and the continuing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Nodler's ignorance on the matter shines just as brightly since gays are already serving in the armed forced - a point that echoes Schissel's statements regarding the reality of women currently serving as well.
While Nodler is denying he ever made such a statement, this situation provides further context to John Brennan's claims that the GOP uses the spectre of terrorism as a political weapon.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Questioning Professinalism
And that's exactly what conservatives that are opposed to repealing DADT are doing - telling everyone that those that serve in the military aren't professional enough to handle serving with someone that is openly gay.
From Sprigg to Perkins to Retired Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis - these men are making it crystal clear that they believe the members of the military lack professionalism.
Even John McCain is taking this route.
The ignorance and fearmongering surrounding this issue isn't surprising, and that is a sad fact to have to realize.
Then again, we are talking about the party that has let it's fringe take over since last year.
From Sprigg to Perkins to Retired Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis - these men are making it crystal clear that they believe the members of the military lack professionalism.
Even John McCain is taking this route.
The ignorance and fearmongering surrounding this issue isn't surprising, and that is a sad fact to have to realize.
Then again, we are talking about the party that has let it's fringe take over since last year.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Behavioral Theology
I'll let Petere Sprigg speak for himself before I bring up a point that he really should consider, seeing as how he is so uber-religious.
One of the great religious talking-points, when it comes to abortion that is, is that "God knows you before you are in your mother's womb". Also, "God has a plan for all of us", is something that religious leaders use as a way to insist that our lives are pre-ordained and that God already has our lives mapped out for us in advance.
The preposterous nature of that aside, let's look at this from Sprigg's statement and then apply that to what his God has created.
Sprigg thinks all homosexual behavior should be outlawed. Therefor, every gay and lesbian person in America would be treated as a common criminal. Since God "created everyone in his own image" and that he "knows" and has a "plan" for us, it stands to reason that God knows who will and who won't be born gay or lesbian.
So here's my question to Sprigg - who are you to doubt God's plan and punish his creations for how God intended them to be?
One of the great religious talking-points, when it comes to abortion that is, is that "God knows you before you are in your mother's womb". Also, "God has a plan for all of us", is something that religious leaders use as a way to insist that our lives are pre-ordained and that God already has our lives mapped out for us in advance.
The preposterous nature of that aside, let's look at this from Sprigg's statement and then apply that to what his God has created.
Sprigg thinks all homosexual behavior should be outlawed. Therefor, every gay and lesbian person in America would be treated as a common criminal. Since God "created everyone in his own image" and that he "knows" and has a "plan" for us, it stands to reason that God knows who will and who won't be born gay or lesbian.
So here's my question to Sprigg - who are you to doubt God's plan and punish his creations for how God intended them to be?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Fringe Is The New Center?
This says a great deal about the modern Republican party.
39% of Republicans want President Obama to be impeached
This isn't surprising, as there will always be talks of "impending articles of impeachment" for Democratic Presidents. But the reasoning used for impeachment is what is beyond comprehension. She my post from earlier in the week regarding the current "Impeach Obama" movement.
63% think Obama is a socialist
And these people also think that he's a Marxist, Totalitarian, Communist, Maoist. It's fair and safe to say without fear of contradiction that these people don't know what any of these titles really mean.
42% believe Obama was born in the United States
While this particular belief set is based both in racial divisive and nativist mindsets, no amount of proof will convince the 58% of Republicans that apparently align themselves with the "birther" movement.
21% think ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55% "not sure"
You can thank Fox"News" and conservative activists for this one, as there was never one instance of voter fraud in the 2008 election. At best, you had several instances of "registration fraud" perpetrated by minimum-wage temps ACORN used during the election season.
53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be president
For the life of me, I'll never be able to comprehend how and why people believe this.
23% want to secede from the United States
Again, you can thank conservative activists for this little gem. I remember Kieth Olbermann doing a piece on what it would be like if Texas seceded - and it didn't play out well for Texans.
73% think gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools
This whole idea that "gay" is something you can catch is not only preposterous but laughably ignorant.
But it's the last one that makes absolutely no sense......
31% want contraception to be outlawed
Really? So the use of condoms would result in jail time? You would be fined thousands if you were on the pill? Talk about taking abstinence-only education too far.
39% of Republicans want President Obama to be impeached
This isn't surprising, as there will always be talks of "impending articles of impeachment" for Democratic Presidents. But the reasoning used for impeachment is what is beyond comprehension. She my post from earlier in the week regarding the current "Impeach Obama" movement.
63% think Obama is a socialist
And these people also think that he's a Marxist, Totalitarian, Communist, Maoist. It's fair and safe to say without fear of contradiction that these people don't know what any of these titles really mean.
42% believe Obama was born in the United States
While this particular belief set is based both in racial divisive and nativist mindsets, no amount of proof will convince the 58% of Republicans that apparently align themselves with the "birther" movement.
21% think ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55% "not sure"
You can thank Fox"News" and conservative activists for this one, as there was never one instance of voter fraud in the 2008 election. At best, you had several instances of "registration fraud" perpetrated by minimum-wage temps ACORN used during the election season.
53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be president
For the life of me, I'll never be able to comprehend how and why people believe this.
23% want to secede from the United States
Again, you can thank conservative activists for this little gem. I remember Kieth Olbermann doing a piece on what it would be like if Texas seceded - and it didn't play out well for Texans.
73% think gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools
This whole idea that "gay" is something you can catch is not only preposterous but laughably ignorant.
But it's the last one that makes absolutely no sense......
31% want contraception to be outlawed
Really? So the use of condoms would result in jail time? You would be fined thousands if you were on the pill? Talk about taking abstinence-only education too far.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Of Zealots And The Patriots They Hate
It certainly didn’t take right-wing religious zealot Tony Perkins to complain about gays in the military after Obama’s SOTU last night.
This statement, more than just about anything that Perkins says, show just how ridiculously ignorant he is of members of the gay community. It’s as if he is claiming that if gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military that suddenly everyone will be wearing butt-less, leather, chaps, having orgies, and singing show tunes.
But the one thing that Perkins doesn’t seem to understand is this – gays and lesbians are already serving in the military and there hasn’t been this dramatic “sexualization” of the United States armed forces.
It’s truly a sign of his pathetic character traits of Tony Perkins when he is more concerned with silencing patriotic Americans that are willing to lay down their life for this country simply because they don’t fit his canted view of the world.
The military is a warrior culture for a reason: Our service members wear the uniform to fight and win wars, not serve as liberal social policy guinea pigs. The sexual environment the President is seeking to impose upon the young men and women who serve this country is the antithesis of the successful warfighting culture and as such should be rejected.
This statement, more than just about anything that Perkins says, show just how ridiculously ignorant he is of members of the gay community. It’s as if he is claiming that if gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military that suddenly everyone will be wearing butt-less, leather, chaps, having orgies, and singing show tunes.
But the one thing that Perkins doesn’t seem to understand is this – gays and lesbians are already serving in the military and there hasn’t been this dramatic “sexualization” of the United States armed forces.
It’s truly a sign of his pathetic character traits of Tony Perkins when he is more concerned with silencing patriotic Americans that are willing to lay down their life for this country simply because they don’t fit his canted view of the world.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Open Arms And Difficult Roads
While it is a long time coming that DADT be repealed, I am somewhat concerned that Obama has quite the challenge in front of him with DOMA. But none-the-less, his speech to Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner shows that he is ready to ride the momentum of recent days in the right direction.
Here's something that most people don't realize - both DADT and DOMA were pilars of the first Clinton term. These are also cornerstones of the conservative movement. And while Bill Clinton held onto his moderate/conservative Democratic ( and likely left-leaning Republicans ) in accepting these two pieces of legislation, does Obama really need to keep those same people within his camp? Or, have these two ideals become nothing more than so much fodder for the fringe conservative movement?
Doing away with DADT will merely require an executive order from the President, while repealing DOMA will require more work with both houses of Congress and a plurality vote. The later is going to be quite the struggle, but it is entirely possible if Obama takes this on right now, without pause.
As Think Progress points out, there are those within the conservative movement that are wanted to throw as much cold water and ignorance onto Obama's vision as fast and as often as they can.
What exactly is this mysterious "gay/homosexual agenda"? Are gays and lesbians going to indoctrinate our children to where they will only shop at American Apparel, listen to Beyonce, and color coordinate their living-room decor? Or, is it the people like Congressman Steve King and the fine "Christian" at WorldNetDaily are afraid that gays and lesbians will be seen as equals?
If there is anything that can even remotely described as an agenda by the gay/lesbian community, it's that they want to be able to marry, to get a job without descrimination, to operate in society just like those that aren't gay/lesbian. They want to be equals, period.
Here's something that most people don't realize - both DADT and DOMA were pilars of the first Clinton term. These are also cornerstones of the conservative movement. And while Bill Clinton held onto his moderate/conservative Democratic ( and likely left-leaning Republicans ) in accepting these two pieces of legislation, does Obama really need to keep those same people within his camp? Or, have these two ideals become nothing more than so much fodder for the fringe conservative movement?
Doing away with DADT will merely require an executive order from the President, while repealing DOMA will require more work with both houses of Congress and a plurality vote. The later is going to be quite the struggle, but it is entirely possible if Obama takes this on right now, without pause.
As Think Progress points out, there are those within the conservative movement that are wanted to throw as much cold water and ignorance onto Obama's vision as fast and as often as they can.
Obama also addressed right-wing criticisms being hurled at his LGBT nominees and staffers, such as EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum and Department of Education official Kevin Jennings. Both have been the subjects of extremely homophobic slurs. WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farrah said that Obama must find “people” like Feldblum on “Perverts.gov,” and the Traditional Values Coalition wrote that she wanted “the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has claimed that Jennings wants to push a “homosexual agenda” in U.S. schools.
What exactly is this mysterious "gay/homosexual agenda"? Are gays and lesbians going to indoctrinate our children to where they will only shop at American Apparel, listen to Beyonce, and color coordinate their living-room decor? Or, is it the people like Congressman Steve King and the fine "Christian" at WorldNetDaily are afraid that gays and lesbians will be seen as equals?
If there is anything that can even remotely described as an agenda by the gay/lesbian community, it's that they want to be able to marry, to get a job without descrimination, to operate in society just like those that aren't gay/lesbian. They want to be equals, period.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Hannah Montana? Really?
( h/t to 2-Political-Junkies )
It's always a great way to end your week by claiming that you know more about the bible than somebody else. And, when your the fanatical, religious-right, you are always going to shriek the loudest and claim that you hold some sort of moral high-ground.
Although I find Miss California's ascention as the new Republican toy-of-the-moment quite telling of not only her opportunistic ways, but of the party that can't seem to have a coherent message. They loved Sarah Palin for her beauty-pageant, glittering generalities a answers, so why not Carrie Prejean?
The issue of gay rights and gay marriage is always going to be something that the Right rails againsts not just because they think they understand the bible more than everyone - though that is what they will tell you - but simply because of the "yuck" factor. In essence, their mentality is that of a gradeschool child who thinks that they'll get cooties if a boy or girl touches them. They speak of love, God, and faithfulness as if they know exactly what all those really mean.
Now that the religious-right has latched onto Ms. Prejean and gone after Perez Hilton, it couldn't get much more pathetic, could it?
Oh, you completely underestimate them. It seems that Miley "Hannah Montana" Cyrus has been "tweeting" with Perez Hilton. Oh, no!
It appears that Ms. Miley doesn't seem to understand that not all "Christians" are as loving as her.
That's right, they're going after Hannah Montana. I'm guessing the Jonas Brothers' agents are arranging a new talking-points memo as we speak.
It's always a great way to end your week by claiming that you know more about the bible than somebody else. And, when your the fanatical, religious-right, you are always going to shriek the loudest and claim that you hold some sort of moral high-ground.
Although I find Miss California's ascention as the new Republican toy-of-the-moment quite telling of not only her opportunistic ways, but of the party that can't seem to have a coherent message. They loved Sarah Palin for her beauty-pageant, glittering generalities a answers, so why not Carrie Prejean?
The issue of gay rights and gay marriage is always going to be something that the Right rails againsts not just because they think they understand the bible more than everyone - though that is what they will tell you - but simply because of the "yuck" factor. In essence, their mentality is that of a gradeschool child who thinks that they'll get cooties if a boy or girl touches them. They speak of love, God, and faithfulness as if they know exactly what all those really mean.
Now that the religious-right has latched onto Ms. Prejean and gone after Perez Hilton, it couldn't get much more pathetic, could it?
Oh, you completely underestimate them. It seems that Miley "Hannah Montana" Cyrus has been "tweeting" with Perez Hilton. Oh, no!
I am a Christian and I love you - gay or not - because you are no different than anyone else! We are all God's children.
It appears that Ms. Miley doesn't seem to understand that not all "Christians" are as loving as her.
Such statements will send the wrong message to our children who are influenced by this teenage megastar. Parents need to realize that Cyrus is not the positive role model she was once thought to be.
Take Action
Send Miley Cyrus a letter stating that you do not approve of her comments.
Clearly she is confused and does not understand the Bible. Please pray for the Lord to open her eyes to the truth.
That's right, they're going after Hannah Montana. I'm guessing the Jonas Brothers' agents are arranging a new talking-points memo as we speak.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Meghan McCain Is Interesting
In a speech before the Log Cabin Republicans, Meghan McCain had this to say:
Nevermind the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans are about supporting gays within the Republican party, Meghan doesn't seem to be able to see past the "I'm not bad because I have gay friends" meme. This isn't to say that she doesn't advocate on their part in private, but if you're going to call yourself a "progressive republican", you need to prove it. By their very nature, Republicans - particularly within the conservative realm - are regressive.
And her placing tattoos, punk rock, and black coture on the same playing field as national defense and the size of governmnent intrusion into the private lives of the citizenry seems smell a bit off. Not because Republicans haven't frowned on counter-culture, because they have. But, if Meghan has a desire to be taken seriously, she needs to show it in what she says.
On that point, I'm guessing "tramp-stamp" for the tattoo and I'm hoping she's speaking more about The Ramones than Good Charlotte.
So tonight, I am proud to join you in challenging the mold and the notions of what being a Republican means. I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people’s lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican.
Nevermind the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans are about supporting gays within the Republican party, Meghan doesn't seem to be able to see past the "I'm not bad because I have gay friends" meme. This isn't to say that she doesn't advocate on their part in private, but if you're going to call yourself a "progressive republican", you need to prove it. By their very nature, Republicans - particularly within the conservative realm - are regressive.
And her placing tattoos, punk rock, and black coture on the same playing field as national defense and the size of governmnent intrusion into the private lives of the citizenry seems smell a bit off. Not because Republicans haven't frowned on counter-culture, because they have. But, if Meghan has a desire to be taken seriously, she needs to show it in what she says.
On that point, I'm guessing "tramp-stamp" for the tattoo and I'm hoping she's speaking more about The Ramones than Good Charlotte.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
NOM: The Alternate Version
Even though this is a parody, it's still frightenly close to the reactionary paranoia of people staunchly against gay marriage and gay rights.
( h/t to driftglass and watertiger )
( h/t to driftglass and watertiger )
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Politics Of Therocratic Rule And The Evolution Of Abomination
Over the past several months - the last one being the primary focus of this piece - there has been quite the discussion surrounding "Christianity" in America and the right for same sex couples to marry. And, as a peripheral component, the "church's" views on the death penalty versus abortion.
By default, the religious Right's primary rationale behind their refusal to allow same sex couples to marry ( and by futher extention, their reluctance to let them enjoy the same basic rights that any other American is afforded ) is groudned in the ill-informed notion that the bible explicity tells them that same sex couples are an "abomination".
Recently, I saw a fantastic documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So.
Here's the trailer:
The crux of the arguement between the religious Right and those seeking equal opportunity and rights for same sex couples ( gays and lesbians in general, wether they be "married" or not ) revolves around this notion of "abomination".
By it's strict definition, the word "abonimation" means the following:
While there are several mentions of "abomination" in the old and new testaments, many of these are no longer seen in the same light or are blatantly ignored as irrelevant.
Recently, there was a wonderful comedic piece done that highlighted this.
To provide biblical context to this piece ( something that the Right, en masse, continually espouse but never provide ) here's some forgotten "abonimations" from the Bible that don't seem to be such a big deal anymore.
So, cross-dressing is bad
So, do you think that Jesus and his pop are Fox"News" fans?
Recently, Sean Hannity - the good Catholic boy who claims to have never watched porn - advances a lie about Obama's defense budget
More from Media Matters
Aside from the religious Right's bigotry towards gays and lesbians, their desire to protect the homeland at any cost is another major issue.
Unfortunately, since Hannity cast himself in the role as "true-believer", a lie is still a lie in the "eyes of the Lord".
When reading the phrase "justifieth the wicked" I am reminded of O'Reilly's refusal to apologize for his comments surrounding Sean Hornbeck.
Guess that takes care of Red Lobster, and all your other favorite seafood joints.
There's a blatant hypocrisy within the religious Right when they attempt to toss out biblical text in order to defend their positions.
Yesterday, I saw an exchange between HRC President Joe Solmonese and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage debate on MSNBC's HARDBALL.
The video being discussed puts forth several lies and loads of misinformation surrounding same-sex marriage and the "problems" that it would cause. Think Progress has also addressed the fact that the people in the ad are actors, not real people.
Even Dr. Laura Schlessinger - a darling of the conservative movement - has recently told Larry King that she thought same sex marriage was a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.
The question to the religious Right has remained the same, and been just as simple to answer, as it ever has been - what are you so afraid of?
While their answer continually flutters between how they interpret an historical document that has been translated thousands of times over, comes in a variety of lingusitic variation dependeing on your particular preference, and has it's roots in a canonization process that was subject to begin with, as some ancient texts were left out from what would become the "Christian" bible that we all know today.
It is that same revisionism that drives the relibgious Right in all that they espouse.
Last night, as an aside to the same sex marriage issue here, I saw Pat Buchanan and Lawrence O'Donnell get into a heated debate where Buchanan appears ready to blow his top.
The discussion revolves around Notre Dames's invitation to Barack Obama to give the commencement address. While Buchanan sees this as a bad move - due to Obama's views on abortion and what the catholic church believes - O'Donnell brings up the valid point that George W. Bush was allowed to address the school multiple times and he used his power as Texas governor to permit the death-penalty more than any other governor had before.
Buchanan, clinging to his willful ingorance in regards to the Pope's view on the death penalty, continually insists that O'Donnell is the one that has no perspective on the Vatican and the Holy Catholic Church.
In all, the relious Right's desire to espouse and execute Theocratic rule, in virtually any situation where they dane it applicable, is indicative of their inabillity to see that this country was conceived under the separation of church and state.
As the Right loves to use the "founding fathers" statements in an order to prove that they somehow believed in a separation of church and state, it is interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson had quite different ideas than those that have sullied his name and his deeds.
There have been wonderful discussions in the past that show that many of our "founding fathers" ascribed to a Diest point of view rather than the "Christianty" that is practiced - whether in earnest of convenience - by members of the religious Right.
It is easy to see that our nation has always been more groudned in progressive ideals rather than the religious-regressivism that is continually espoused by the religious Right and those that identify with them.
Theocratic rule within the United States would bring about such a vast and sweeping change to not only the liberal or progressive constituancies in America, but the conservative movement as well. The idea that we could have any sort of advancement within those boundries is far from the truth.
To hear people conservative commentators and pundits speak of biblical text often conjures many questions in my mind - chief of which is whether they actually understand the passages or ideals that they are attempting to discuss. But, isn't that the point of the religious Right and the bible which they claim to hold so dear? It is a mindset who's primary function is to keep it's following ignorant to the world around them.
Those that use the bible as a tool of divisiveness can't possibly have the desire to truly live by each and every word, to create theocratic rule. Their lives would be effected just as much as those which they seem to despise.
By default, the religious Right's primary rationale behind their refusal to allow same sex couples to marry ( and by futher extention, their reluctance to let them enjoy the same basic rights that any other American is afforded ) is groudned in the ill-informed notion that the bible explicity tells them that same sex couples are an "abomination".
Recently, I saw a fantastic documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So.
Here's the trailer:
The crux of the arguement between the religious Right and those seeking equal opportunity and rights for same sex couples ( gays and lesbians in general, wether they be "married" or not ) revolves around this notion of "abomination".
By it's strict definition, the word "abonimation" means the following:
–noun 1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.
While there are several mentions of "abomination" in the old and new testaments, many of these are no longer seen in the same light or are blatantly ignored as irrelevant.
Recently, there was a wonderful comedic piece done that highlighted this.
To provide biblical context to this piece ( something that the Right, en masse, continually espouse but never provide ) here's some forgotten "abonimations" from the Bible that don't seem to be such a big deal anymore.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Deuteronomy.22:5
So, cross-dressing is bad
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD but they that deal truly are his delight.
Proverbs 12:22
So, do you think that Jesus and his pop are Fox"News" fans?
Recently, Sean Hannity - the good Catholic boy who claims to have never watched porn - advances a lie about Obama's defense budget
More from Media Matters
During the April 8 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity again falsely claimed that President Obama has proposed to "cut not only missile defense, but our defenses dramatically." In fact, the Obama administration has proposed increasing defense spending by billions of dollars over the amount enacted in fiscal year 2009. As CNN.com noted on April 6, "The proposed overall fiscal year 2010 Defense Department budget is almost $534 billion, or nearly $664 billion when including the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Aside from the religious Right's bigotry towards gays and lesbians, their desire to protect the homeland at any cost is another major issue.
Unfortunately, since Hannity cast himself in the role as "true-believer", a lie is still a lie in the "eyes of the Lord".
He that justifieth the wicked,and he that condemneth the just,even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Proverbs.17:15
When reading the phrase "justifieth the wicked" I am reminded of O'Reilly's refusal to apologize for his comments surrounding Sean Hornbeck.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed
Leviticus, chapter 11 and references to seafood
Guess that takes care of Red Lobster, and all your other favorite seafood joints.
There's a blatant hypocrisy within the religious Right when they attempt to toss out biblical text in order to defend their positions.
Yesterday, I saw an exchange between HRC President Joe Solmonese and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage debate on MSNBC's HARDBALL.
The video being discussed puts forth several lies and loads of misinformation surrounding same-sex marriage and the "problems" that it would cause. Think Progress has also addressed the fact that the people in the ad are actors, not real people.
Even Dr. Laura Schlessinger - a darling of the conservative movement - has recently told Larry King that she thought same sex marriage was a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.
The question to the religious Right has remained the same, and been just as simple to answer, as it ever has been - what are you so afraid of?
While their answer continually flutters between how they interpret an historical document that has been translated thousands of times over, comes in a variety of lingusitic variation dependeing on your particular preference, and has it's roots in a canonization process that was subject to begin with, as some ancient texts were left out from what would become the "Christian" bible that we all know today.
It is that same revisionism that drives the relibgious Right in all that they espouse.
Last night, as an aside to the same sex marriage issue here, I saw Pat Buchanan and Lawrence O'Donnell get into a heated debate where Buchanan appears ready to blow his top.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The discussion revolves around Notre Dames's invitation to Barack Obama to give the commencement address. While Buchanan sees this as a bad move - due to Obama's views on abortion and what the catholic church believes - O'Donnell brings up the valid point that George W. Bush was allowed to address the school multiple times and he used his power as Texas governor to permit the death-penalty more than any other governor had before.
Buchanan, clinging to his willful ingorance in regards to the Pope's view on the death penalty, continually insists that O'Donnell is the one that has no perspective on the Vatican and the Holy Catholic Church.
In all, the relious Right's desire to espouse and execute Theocratic rule, in virtually any situation where they dane it applicable, is indicative of their inabillity to see that this country was conceived under the separation of church and state.
As the Right loves to use the "founding fathers" statements in an order to prove that they somehow believed in a separation of church and state, it is interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson had quite different ideas than those that have sullied his name and his deeds.
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802)
There have been wonderful discussions in the past that show that many of our "founding fathers" ascribed to a Diest point of view rather than the "Christianty" that is practiced - whether in earnest of convenience - by members of the religious Right.
It is easy to see that our nation has always been more groudned in progressive ideals rather than the religious-regressivism that is continually espoused by the religious Right and those that identify with them.
Theocratic rule within the United States would bring about such a vast and sweeping change to not only the liberal or progressive constituancies in America, but the conservative movement as well. The idea that we could have any sort of advancement within those boundries is far from the truth.
To hear people conservative commentators and pundits speak of biblical text often conjures many questions in my mind - chief of which is whether they actually understand the passages or ideals that they are attempting to discuss. But, isn't that the point of the religious Right and the bible which they claim to hold so dear? It is a mindset who's primary function is to keep it's following ignorant to the world around them.
Those that use the bible as a tool of divisiveness can't possibly have the desire to truly live by each and every word, to create theocratic rule. Their lives would be effected just as much as those which they seem to despise.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Huckabee's Prerequisites
Last night, I saw Mike Huckabee on some random, evangelical program on EWTN - at least I think that's the channel. He was giving some nonsensical prayer and holding hands with a televangelist who apparently thinks that bleeching his hair is a good idea.
I found myself sitting in bed a thanking whatever celestial creature that is listening that Mike Huckabee is not President.
Then, I saw this this morning:
So, Huckabee thinks that gays haven't been assaulted enough, that they have to cross some violence threshold in order to be considered the same as him? Perhaps he isn't familiar with people like Matthew Shepard or Harvey Milk. What about the thousands of men and women that are visciously attacked simply because they are "gay".
Above all, Huckabee is a "minister" and is essentially required to use the bible to compartmentalize people into groups. He has to, and will continue to, twist biblical text in order to excuse the ill treatment of those with whom he disagrees.
While some may see a vast difference between gays and blacks fighting for their civil rights - meaning that gays should be required to face their struggle on their own terms and not claim that they are experiencing what blacks did during segregation - they are, in their own way, exscusing this treatment outside of the biblical realm. It's just as wrong.
To say that you have to meet a pre-set level of violence in order to be seen as a relevant member of society is far more pathetic than I have words to describe.
I found myself sitting in bed a thanking whatever celestial creature that is listening that Mike Huckabee is not President.
Then, I saw this this morning:
So, Huckabee thinks that gays haven't been assaulted enough, that they have to cross some violence threshold in order to be considered the same as him? Perhaps he isn't familiar with people like Matthew Shepard or Harvey Milk. What about the thousands of men and women that are visciously attacked simply because they are "gay".
Above all, Huckabee is a "minister" and is essentially required to use the bible to compartmentalize people into groups. He has to, and will continue to, twist biblical text in order to excuse the ill treatment of those with whom he disagrees.
While some may see a vast difference between gays and blacks fighting for their civil rights - meaning that gays should be required to face their struggle on their own terms and not claim that they are experiencing what blacks did during segregation - they are, in their own way, exscusing this treatment outside of the biblical realm. It's just as wrong.
To say that you have to meet a pre-set level of violence in order to be seen as a relevant member of society is far more pathetic than I have words to describe.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Gingrich And O'Reilly Are Afraid Of "The Gay"
O'Reilly's war imagry in his book "Culture Warrior" was so overblown and laughable that he just can't seem to let it go.
Now, his good buddy Newt Gingrich is taking it to another level. It's not just a "gay agenda", it's "fascism".
Do Newt and O'Reilly honestly feel that random gay and lesbian people are going to "impose their will" upon them? Certainly, O'Reilly could use some help picking out his ties, but they are doing nothing but creating an aura of radicalism around gays and lesbians that simply isn't there to begin with.
Then, you've got Newt using the word "fascism".
Like so many before him, he is doing nothing but attempting to redefine what that word - and many others that already have a clear definable meaning - means.
But, this "imposition of will" statement is even more frightening. Certainly, O'Reilly and Gingrich realize that what they are doing is attempting to impose THEIR will upon an entire community. They are wanting to strip away rights from people simply because they don't agree with them.
Of course, if you ask Newt what he thinks that bible says about adultery and divorce, i'm certain that he wouldn't be too eager to answer.
And while we are on the subject of this alleged "fascist gay state", let's take a look at one of these scary protests that O'Reilly and Newt are talking about:
Now, his good buddy Newt Gingrich is taking it to another level. It's not just a "gay agenda", it's "fascism".
Do Newt and O'Reilly honestly feel that random gay and lesbian people are going to "impose their will" upon them? Certainly, O'Reilly could use some help picking out his ties, but they are doing nothing but creating an aura of radicalism around gays and lesbians that simply isn't there to begin with.
Then, you've got Newt using the word "fascism".
Like so many before him, he is doing nothing but attempting to redefine what that word - and many others that already have a clear definable meaning - means.
But, this "imposition of will" statement is even more frightening. Certainly, O'Reilly and Gingrich realize that what they are doing is attempting to impose THEIR will upon an entire community. They are wanting to strip away rights from people simply because they don't agree with them.
Of course, if you ask Newt what he thinks that bible says about adultery and divorce, i'm certain that he wouldn't be too eager to answer.
And while we are on the subject of this alleged "fascist gay state", let's take a look at one of these scary protests that O'Reilly and Newt are talking about:
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
O'Reilly Still Doesn't Get It
Don't even think about saying this is about race, because you'll be a "race-baiter".
One begins to get the feeling, after watching Bill's handling of stories such as this, that he is the one who is baiting people.
Nevermind the fact that groups like the Mormon church and Roman Catholics - O'Reilly is a Roman Catholic - threw millions of dollars into the pot to help make Prop 8 a reality.
As a matter of fact, many blacks did vote for Prop 8.
This was discussed on Racheal Maddow's show on MSNBC:
While Maddow approaches this story to see why such a large amount of blacks voted in favor of Prop 8, O'Reilly approaches the story from the protest angle. Maddow wants to know why so many in the black community would vote in favor to restrict rights while being a huge help in electing America's first black President. O'Reilly wants to know why people aren't standing in front of black churches screaming. And the truth of the matter is that blacks only made up about 10% of the California vote. So, it's not as if this measure passed because of the black vote.
You kind of get a better understanding of what Bill O'Reilly does on a daily basis when you see these two clips side by side.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
What Is A Man To Do To Make You Really Fear "The Gay"?
Why, compare them to Nazis, of course:
Julia Rosen has more.
It troubles me that people don't seem interested in noting that there is no evidence that proves that a gay coupling being married, or adopting children, destroys anything. In fact, the number 1 destructor of "the family" is divorce.
Julia Rosen has more.
It troubles me that people don't seem interested in noting that there is no evidence that proves that a gay coupling being married, or adopting children, destroys anything. In fact, the number 1 destructor of "the family" is divorce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Playlist Of Doom
