Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Dan predicted this once the gays started taking to the streets and blaming everyone else except themselves for the loss of Proposition 8.  And here it is: The Backlash.
A group of well-known religious leaders and advocates, including the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, have united in their opposition to the attacks on the Mormon Church by the gay community across the USA.
Declaring “no mob veto,” a full-page ad in the New York Times on Friday denounced the “violence and intimidation” directed at members of the LDS Church who supported California’s ban on gay marriage.
“When thugs … terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous,” reads the advertisement paid for by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, based in Washington, D.C.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has come under fire from gay rights activists across the country since coming out in support of California’s Proposition 8, an amendment to the state’s constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
In a statement Friday, church officials expressed gratitude to the dozen civil rights and religious leaders, ranging from Catholic to evangelical Christian to Orthodox Jew, who attached their names to the advertisement.
Scott Walter, executive director of the Becket Fund, insists his nonpartisan, interfaith group is not taking a stand on same-sex marriage.
“We’re only about religious liberty,” he said. “When houses of worship are being attacked, we’re concerned. We’re against violence against anyone.”
The group’s website can be found at NoMobVeto.com.
The always on-top-of-things-leader of the Gay Left — Joe Solmonese — takes umbrage and actually seems to be defending the gays who are turning the Prop 8 loss into a war against religion.
We all know these claims are, at the very least, exaggerations, and at worst, spun from whole cloth.
We’re going to see it as we work toward marriage equality and during our fight to enact federal hate crimes legislation: the other side can only win by telling lies about us. So far, they’ve only defeated us by spreading mistruths, and it’s what they are going to keep doing. And I think we’ve all had enough of it.
It’s time for us to stand up for the truth. I urge you all to visit www.hrc.org/demandthetruth and join members of the HRC Religion Council in forcefully responding to this despicable ad.
Will Joe ever learn? How about DENOUNCING the clear hate speech coming from Prop 8 protesters against those of faith? How about taking accountability for the Gay Left’s complete and utter failure at America’s ballot boxes for the past 20 years?
Personally, I find the actions of anti-Mormon and anti-Christian bigotry by many Prop 8 losers in California disgusting and outrageously hateful. It is equally astounding that the Gay Leaders of the USA are turning a blind eye to this simmering gay war on religion.
It is certainly not the way to move forward to bring more Americans into the political equation of supporting gay rights.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
what would have been the reaction from the anti-gay folk if 8 didn’t pass?
will be looking at the Iowa decision tomorrow.
Well we’ve seen the acts of the anti-religious nuts, and we know don’t include every person who voted against 8 in that group. Though I’ll be happy to include you, rusty.
And as to Iowa, that’s a false comparison. After all using your logic, we’d just have to look at all the ‘anti-gay’ riots and protests, assaults by Mormons and other people of faith that happened when the CA Court thwarted the will of the people…
Oh wait, that didn’t happen. I forgot, most of us deal in reality, some of you don’t. Carry on rusty.
I suppose that one could say that religion is a matter of choice. First you choose to believe in God and then you choose to how much of the God stuff you are willing to bite off. You could start with Gaia and work your way through restrictive dogma until you become a fundamentalist.
If you hold that view, then all one need do is to throw it in reverse and back off the sin and restrictive stuff until one finds a more comfortable zone. Why give up shellfish?
The social liberal person without God who holds this opinion of God as choice would certainly see the Mormons as violators of the holy writ of “hate speech.” That is because the social liberal has made government his god and is a participant in the basic 12,000 flexible and ever changing commandments of his religion of moral relativity.
Peacable. They would *not* be out attacking gays. If any among them did, they would denounce it. Now why can’t more of us do the same?
As for Joe Solmonese – It comes down to this:
– Have mobs of angry gays, in fact, tried to silence, attack or intimidate people of faith?
– Have Internet mobs of angry gays, in fact, tried to destroy the careers of people who disagree with them about changing society in favor of gay marriage?
Questions of fact. If the answers are “yes” and “yes” – and on present information, I think they are – then he must denounce the gays who do it, before he’ll have any shred of moral authority or credibility in denouncing the views of the Mormons.
Much of the religious opposition to gay marriage (and gays in general) stemmed from the belief that gay political initiatives were some sort of premeditated attack on religion.
It used to be that such an opinion was, well, silly.
Not so silly now, is it? How exactly do gay rights leaders propose to undo that damage? They’ve firmly entrenched an entire GENERATION of the opposition.
I am not religious and I don’t live in CA (I did for 30 years), but I consider myself part of the backlash also. I’ve become simply appalled at the gay actvists’ tactics and find myself aligned ideologically with groups that, when I lived in SoCal, I really disliked. Politics and bedfellows…
Funny how that happens.
You almost have to laugh at the HRC’s wording in the Hoe Solmonese link. The Mormon Church is “continuing to spend an excess of dollars”? What level of dollars would the HRC would find appropriate?
I support gay marriage and voted against Prop 8, but I don’t think I’ve ever been so ashamed by my own side of an issue as I have been these last few weeks. They’re not just shooting themselves in the foot, they’re blowing their whole leg off.
For goodness sake, Prop 8 supporters were peaceful when a 5-4 California Supreme Court “invented” the right to gay marriage, doing an end-run around democratic process.
What did they do? They turned their attention toward getting a proposition on the ballot and passed. They brilliantly aligned those fundamentally opposed to gay marriage, and those against judicial activism and extremism.
There’s no question they would have been peaceful had the proposition failed.
Gay rights supporters shouting “justice!” and attacking churches and believers? Why not start to work on a proposition for the next election cycle, and starting the hard work of winning hearts and minds. Alas, since 1974 and Roe v. Wade, that’s not how Liberals roll in this country.
here is something positive from a christian perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBQyJTXiOYs
When these gays will attack mosques (which are more antigay than anything else), I’ll start to consider them seriously. Till then, they are simply anti-christian leftist cowards for me, and someone I’d hate to cooperate in anything.
Gays would get more of what they want if they were more gay and less obnoxious.
I live in California and have a Mormon church near my home. I was appalled that there were police and protestors creating quite a scene in front of the church a few weeks ago.
The gays have created their own monster. They equate Prop 8 to the civil rights movement when they in fact have full civil rights. What they are trying to do is to shove approval of their lifestyle down the maw of those whose religious beliefs explicity condemn such conduct. The gays position on Prop 8 is aggressive and it is offensive to those of faith.
We’re all Mormons now.
I long for the day when people start realizing they’re being used.
Thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan put together a coalition of social and fiscal conservatives under the umbrella of the Republican Party. Ever since, Democrats have been trying to drive wedges between those two factions, with indifferent success. A good-sized chunk of that effort has been to misrepresent the goals of The Opposition, then recruit special interest groups to fight the strawmen. The results of that strategy are starting to get noxious.
As here. You could have had some form of civil unions — a genuine civil rights case — with insufficient opposition from genuine gay-bashers to derail it, up until the Massachusetts and San Francisco nonsense. But no, that’s not good enough. It has to be “marriage”, and the backlash from that decision and the determined effort to carry it out has been very good for the Democratic Party, but looks fair to be disastrous for you. Case in point: If it were not for the political acumen of George W. Bush, the execrable FMA would be the law of the land. My soreheaded godshouting neighbors have figured that out, and withheld support from McCain on that basis. Why is it so difficult for you?
Look, guys, you aren’t “gay”. Most of you aren’t even very cheerful. You’re homosexuals, and deserve civil rights protection on the same basis as any other American; sexuality shouldn’t come into it. But the tactic some “gays” have adopted, that they are not merely privileged but in some sense obligated to hijack any linguistic or cultural concept in support of their (stated) goals, is generating ill feeling in waves, and bids fair to not only block further achievement, but to turn back the clock on “gay rights”.
Regards,
Ric
Bruce, you have been a courageous fighter for your rights.
I am not Gay, yet I have fought for your cause. You should expect nothing less than total equality under the laws and principles of this great nation.
Republicans or Democrats; that is tactics, not strategy. Doesn’t take a genious to figure out that you as an individual have freinds and enemies on both sides.
This is not the time for partisan loyalty for the Gay community IMO. Hold their feets to the fire and make them live up to their thus far empty promises.
Y’all have changed things. Keep up the good work. It wont be easy.
Spindok
Could the whole thing be a clever attempt to increase Mr Romney’s appeal? Just thinking…
I am at war with many religions just by existing as a Jew and a gay man, but especially Islam. I will gladly protest any homophobic place of worship, especially a mosque.
We do not have full civil rights. We can not serve openly in the military. We can not marry our same-sex lovers. We can be fired for being gay (a gay employer could just as well fire a “straight” employee).
Yawn.
Lots of active imaginations commenting here.
Prop 8 passing was a temporary setback.
Deal.
Attmay, your examples of not having full civil rights aren’t very good. Autistics, mentally handicapped and people with other characteristics that would require exceptions in treatment can not serve in the military AT ALL.
And while you can not marry a same-sex lover, you may marry an opposite sex one. And all of us can only marry one person. Many jobs are “at will”. You can be fired simply because your boss doesn’t like the way you smell or talk, etc.
I think you need to bring up a better argument, like inheritance. And the desire for gay couples/families to have the same rights of inheritance.
Protesting a place of worship will not get the 2% of the population you need to switch sides and vote for gay marriage. The gay population needs to concentrate their efforts on swaying the most likely targets and they are not going to be at Mormon temples or islamic Mosques.
All this energy in the gay community needs to be redirected in a positive manner. Gay families need to continue to move into the suburbs and be active, productive members of their communities. The more people realize that allowing gay marriage will not be a threat to them, the more likely they are to vote for it.
Obnoxious protests and verbal assaults on minority groups, like the Mormons, will only reinforce the fear of threat and will not get you more votes.
And yes, I voted against Prop 8.
It believe the applicable term here is “Jumping the shark.” It looks like the gay rights movement has passed its peak due to the juvenile reaction to Prop. 8.
Telling people they are bad, and that you hate them forever, is not a winning electoral tactic.
And there ya go, Attmay, the distillation of why I’m going to support anything that comes down the pike if Prop 8 is overturned. Of course the pro-8 people will be back, and if it smells of sharia, what the hell, works for me now. Why? Cause you’re “at war with may religions”…and will “…protest any homophobic place of worship”…(fear of self…damn I hate bad neologisms). So f’em, you and your fellow KKGay member are gonna force your way down the throats of those who do not believe as you do, and that’s the way it shall be.
So you think your way is the only way? If 8 is overturned, I bet you just can’t wait to sue your local synagogue or, what the hell, go for broke, local church, if they refuse to marry you and your same sex partner? And your attitude is why I will vote against you time after time after time.
You want a real solution? Strip hetero “marriage” of its state sanction, then we’re all on the same plain, sort to speak. But because of the religious baggage “marriage” carries, gay “marriage” with state sanction aint gonna happen (0 and 30 so far, not a good omen for further futile actions). However, I see gay and straight marriage (no state sanction other than a contractual civil union certification), subject to the voluntary cooperation of whatever religious organization is willing to perform the purely ceremonial and religious action, as a quite viable option and an most likely winning proposition (at least in California). CHANGE TACTICS, CHANGE GOALS, and get what you want (gay “marriage”, no state sanction/support) or keep stuffing you head in the wood chipper.
I don’t suppose this would be displaced anger at the religion that believes in stoning gays to death, as well as rape victims, alduterers, apostates, etc, taken out on a religion that is less threatening and an easier target?
If you only support rights for yourself, you not supporting rights at all. I oppose all hate crime legislation. Hate crime laws amount to an attempt at thought control and mind reading. We have laws against assault, threatening, etc. They just need to be fairly enforced.
And, yes, someone needs to remind the Gay Left that freedom of religion is a right guaranteed in the Constitution and one of the main reasons many came to America. The Gay Left is hurting their cause.
Hoe Solmonese
LOL
Hello! Hello! The span filter is getting stuffy.
Much of the gay opposition to the religious in general stemmed from the belief that religious political initiatives were some sort of premeditated attack on gays.
Is that true?
Seems to me like a serious case of what goes around comes around. Human nature being what it is and all. The untermenchen have become the ubermenchen.
It will take another generation to sort all this out.
In the mean time it is still OK to hate junkies. So we still have that. Praise the LORD.
Ric Locke writes:
But the tactic some “gays†have adopted, that they are not merely privileged but in some sense obligated to hijack any linguistic or cultural concept in support of their (stated) goals, is generating ill feeling in waves, and bids fair to not only block further achievement, but to turn back the clock on “gay rightsâ€.
Of course. If you sleep with dogs, get up with (epistemological) fleas.
The goal of the Left is to use gays as a weapon against the principle of individual rights, by moving the mainstream towards a concept of rights as privileges granted by majority fiat (or denied, as with Prop 8) instead of originating in the nature of man, as in this nation’s founding ideology.
I long for the day when people start realizing they’re being used.
That day is not today, alas.
So you think your way is the only way? If 8 is overturned, I bet you just can’t wait to sue your local synagogue or, what the hell, go for broke, local church, if they refuse to marry you and your same sex partner? And your attitude is why I will vote against you time after time after time.
Then history will judge you as the hetero-supremacist scum you are. And do you think it’s cute to make up things like “KKGay” (I hate false analogies) and glibly try to argue away homophobia with semantical games? There are no Mormons being dragged from their houses and being lynched by men in pink robes. It seems to me like you’ll gladly vote down people’s rights just to be vindictive. Typical heterosexual.
I have no intention of legally forcing any churches to perform any service they don’t want. Anyone who does will probably have their suits thrown out of court.
We do not have full civil rights. We can not serve openly in the military. We can not marry our same-sex lovers. We can be fired for being gay (a gay employer could just as well fire a “straight†employee).
Please, look at that last. Your own parenthetical proves you clearly do have exactly the same rights and protections as a straight person against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It may be unfair in practice, but it’s legally full equality of rights.
Similarly, no one, regardless of sex, can marry a person of the same sex. That is legal equality. Personal preference doesn’t change equality into non-equality. Smokers of tobacco and of marijuana are legally equally permitted to smoke tobacco, and equally legally prohibited from smoking marijuana. It’s unfair, yes. It’s pointless, yes. But it’s not a denial of civil rights.
So, your remaining claim is that the military doesn’t let you serve openly. Well, when did joining the military become a civil right?
These individuals speak slander in God’s name. They need to be called on it.
New frontiersman – so a law that said “no-one regardless of race can marry anyone with black skin” would be legal equality? I don’t think you’ve considered the implications of what you said.
Prop 8 deals with one man being able to marry one woman. Now there are a tiny, tiny minority of people, only about 300,000 in the USA, who are medically neither male nor female. There’s an even smaller minority who are legally neither male nor female, they were born in jurisdictions that recognise medical reality.
People who are Intersexed have all sorts of medical, social and legal problems. My UK passport says “female”, my UK birth certificate says “boy”. Does that mean that I can marry whoever I like in California just by careful selection of the right identity documents, both of which are valid? Or does it mean I can marry neither?
What about those whose Birth certificates say “X”, not M and not F? They are to be forbidden from marrying anyone. So what about “equal protection”? This rare situation illustrates the essential silliness of the legislation. Defining gender in borderline cases is as silly as trying to define “race”. Obama is half Kenyan, half European-descended American. So what makes him half-black and not half-white?
These individuals speak slander in God’s name.
Such as the fact that gay liberals in California consider it an “educational experience” to dress children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults who are masturbating and having public sex?
“Slander” in the new gay lexicon is pointing out anything that makes gays look bad, especially if it’s true. Erik and his fellow bigot gays are hanging Sarah Palin in effigy from their rooftops and calling black people the n-word, but then screaming and crying about “slander” and “hate speech”.
Whew. Quite a reaction from this post! And a hearty welcome to our new readers!
Bang Bang Bang That DRUM NDT, for we haven’t heard the ‘children at FSF’ story.
Makes one wonder why you keep coming back to that example over and over and over and over and over and over.
Yes some adults made a very POOR decision in taking their children to an adult event. TWO parents don’t truly represent an entire sub group, and even though attendance at FSF is approx 400,000, those attending aren’t a true representation of the GLBT community either.
I tend to stay away from Professional Wrestling Events, NASCAR events, tailgate partys, Spring Break events in Florida and Mexico, along with Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras for similar events of public nudity, adults running amok and mostly, due to the overwhelming sensory overload.
Maybe you could take your intense feelings of FSF and redirect them into a community event near the FSF event, complete with blow up bouncy gyms, face painting, and outdoor water fun, charge a fee and let the kids have a fun safe place to play.
As someone who is gay but neither American nor conservative, i think there are two main problems.
1. A country as religionist as the US is unlikely to be as easy to convince about gay issues as those which are more secular
2. The constitution you have will make achieving equality difficult. You don;t have the room for the formula supported in the UK – civil partnerships which have the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage, just a different name. We just don’t have the problem with the ‘equal but different’ formula – different history, i suppose
3. Here, its easy to get change – you just have to get parliament to agree to your argument. In the US, separation of powers will make major change very difficult unless there is a determination to impose this from the centre.
I just remembered something: Livewire– that was the name of the country-rock band that I played with back in the early 80’s in Montana.
Don’t know why that came to mind, must have been a moment. THANKS for brining me back to reality LIVEWIRE.
Merseymike, there are already domestic partnerships in California, and there were before the courts magically discovered the right to gay marriage earlier this year, and there will be after this ammendment is put into law.
I’d be willing to wager you’re deeply misinformed about:
US Constitutional Law
California Law
American religious behavior
Response to 19 (Attmay)
Climb down off your stake, Joan of Arc. You aren’t being denied your “civil rights.” It’s “employment at will” in 49 of the 50 states. You can be fired for being 10 pounds overweight. Or being five minutes late. Or because you rolled your eyes at the boss. Or for no reason whatsoever. So don’t tell me you’re denied your “civil rights” because you can be fired.
As for marriage, you can’t marry your first cousin, your sibling, or a 13-year old (I’m talking to you, Jerry Lee Lewis) regardless of gender. You can’t be a polygamist. So you aren’t being denied your “civil rights” because the universe of people you can marry is restricted.
As for the military thing, I will agree that DADT is an abomination. Civil rights, though? I’m in my 40s, with a bad back, and a tad overweight, but still I’d love to enlist to kill some jihadis, but I’m denied my civil rights to serve in the military. Huh?
You don’t really understand the concept of civil rights, do you? It’s more than a “gimme” list.
As for the lack of attacks on Mormons, read up on the anti-Mormon terrorism at Nauvoo, Illinois, in the 1840s.
rusty rusty rusty,
And again you never ever condemn the actions of that minority for reflecting on the whole. jsut like with the people in the park on the other end. Condemn the fire department for, litterally, shining the light on unlawful activities, but not the activities themselves.
I can condemn those idiots as part of the leather community (and have done so) all I ask is you to do the same. Still waiting.
And, what about the racist epithets…
When 70% of the black community votes Yes on 8, it is difficult to make the argument that being gay is the same as being black.
Just like black people weren’t denied their rights to marry…within their own race, of course.
41 (Attmay)
Ummm, white people weren’t allowed to marry blacks, too. It was a two-way street. And racial differences are artificial. Gender differences are real. Gay folk know that to be true! After all, if there are no real differences between men and women, why aren’t you sleeping with the ladies?
The take home message for me from this debacle is that gay people are often their own worst enemy. By throwing temper tantrums in the form of ridiculous protests at easy targets they are confirming the worst fears about the gay comunity: That they can’t be trusted, that they’ll overreact and be outrageous and confrontational in public.
There was a satirical Onion article published not so long ago entitled “Gay Pride Parades Sets Back Gay Rights 50 Years,” and this is a good example along those lines.
The best thing these activists could do is to commit to be exemplary citizens, worthy of respect in their jobs, family lives, and treatment of others. Folks who would be more than happy to see Bob and John who live next door and live basically just like us get married, will recoil at the placard waving leather boy outside their church making a spectacle of himself.
For the record, I am a SoCal agnostic. I voted for Prop 8 because I don’t want to see the government expand it’s purview into more of our personal lives. I want the gov’t out of my bedroom, I’m not sure why gay activists are so excited about inviting it in, as the issue, at the bottom, is about who we like to have sex with, and nothing more.
@Attmay: I have no intention of legally forcing any churches to perform any service they don’t want. Anyone who does will probably have their suits thrown out of court.
You may not, but others do. We were discussing this issue on my blog about a month ago, and one reader brought up the discussion he’d picked up at work in SF on election day, wherein a gay man and his SO were planning, post-election, to go to one of the local Catholic churches _with lawyer in on speed-dial_, to force the priest to marry them.
Joe Bolognese
Any that don’t go into Joe’s wallet.
I like to think I’m fairly festive in my own way.
You might be on to something there if it had actually happened in the past century or so. Otherwise, it’s just an excuse.
First time I saw it used was in Taranto’s Best of the Web where he highlighted gays shouting “Nigger!“. Is that a false analogy? No.
More like you getting your tampon in a bunch because the truth hurts.
Ahhh. But when that’s all people see, they’re less inclined to have a favorable opinion. Much like the liberal media making DAMN sure never to include any positive news coming out of Iraq. Folks who didn’t know any better ASSumed that nothing positive ever happened there and the liberal left facilitated that image.
I think I had some of that at Carraba’s with a nice Chia…..oh wait! 😉
#14: The gays have created their own monster.
The gays are their own monster.
I disagree for two reasons. First, there’s a county fair where I grew up that also attracts 400,000 people. While it may not show rednecks at their best all the time, it is certainly a fair representation of the culture.
Second, FSF goes on in public, on city streets, and is broadly accepted by the gay community as a gay event, with very few objections to it.
I belong to a church that is wrongly accused of supporting polygamy. So, the church leadership goes out of its way to denounce polygamy and those who practice it. There is no such effort on the part of the gay community to distance itself from FSF.
We’re going to see it as we work toward marriage equality and during our fight to enact federal hate crimes legislation…
Thanks to all of you who gave us a Democrat-controlled WH and Congress! I’ve no doubt that at some future point in time, Reagan will be posthumously prosecuted in some self-righteous tribunal for genocide for personally failing to stop the spread of HIV.
#37 1. True, although I’m not sure I understand your use of the term religionist and if my guess as to what you mean is correct, I, as an agnostic, don’t like it.
2. Not true. We have civil unions and the marriage issue is rightly decided by the states. Proposition 8 was democratically decided, much to the chagrin of gay marriage activists — which points back to your point #1.
3. Partially true, mostly not true. It depends upon the process of constitutional change which differs from state to state. As to imposition, only the courts in the face of majority opposition can do so for any length of time. A legislature (as representatives of the people) may pass laws, but legal challenges may be applied as to constitutionality.
Now you’ve got me humming the song Fairy Across the Mersey.
The vast majority of humanity is heterosexual. The GLBT tent is way too broad. It tries to be home to all the others.
Among the heterosexuals are rapists, pedophiles, rough sex addicts, predators, cross dressers, the sex addicted and people with all manner of fetishes and hang-ups. Among homosexuals, you find the same groups.
Aberrant behavior is the concern of much of our law. Gays are fighting to overcome the stigma of being considered aberrant in their sexual behavior. From my perspective, that is a worthy goal. But being respected on general societal terms and elevating homosexual love and gratification to the status of societal “normalcy” are two entirely different things.
The whole point of not “caring what people do in private” is that the people must keep “what they do in private” private. The concept is like on Schultz in Hogan’s Heros. “I don’t see nothin'”
A cross dresser friend of mine decided to use the women’s room at a recent event. He was hauled off to jail and humiliated for his trouble. He is a university professor of some academic renown. He is also known for his drag fetish. But when he alone decided to sex integrate the public restroom at a crowded public event, he was in fact on his own.
Social conservatives are not the enemy of gays. They are the challenge. Those who want to shift from gays being bashed to San Francisco living over night are fools. I have no quibble with gay bars or hetero meat market bars. I have no reason to go to either. But in small towns and medium cities they need to maintain a certain civility.
There are no “gay civil rights.” Any person (heterosexual or homosexual) who can make his case on the basis of the 14th amendment can rectify his “civil rights” claim.
Gay marriage is predicated on the assumption that “gay” is a separate, but equal category of human being. If that is the road we are to travel then there will have to be some strong scientific fact compiled to establish the basis for the new regimen of laws.
Since gays are a distinctly small minority, almost all accommodation for gays/the gay “lifestyle” is dependent on the will of the majority.
Everyone is pretty wound up about this issue. The religious right feel that their control of the populace is slipping and they’re fighting hard to protect their turf. Humanity will win in the end, but as we’ve learned from the reduction/elimination of other types of prejudice, it’s a slow process. I’m not gay, but I’m a vocal gay-rights supporter … however, I won’t tolerate violece, even against the idiotic mormons. Gotta love a religion who’s motto is “I don’t care how many you bring, just Bring ’em Young!”
See the blog at http://www.HalfBakedLunatic.com
I guess expecting civility to be a universal value is too much to ask.
You may not, but others do. We were discussing this issue on my blog about a month ago, and one reader brought up the discussion he’d picked up at work in SF on election day, wherein a gay man and his SO were planning, post-election, to go to one of the local Catholic churches _with lawyer in on speed-dial_, to force the priest to marry them.
If I were that lawyer, I would change my number.
The only way they are going to get priests to marry two men is at gunpoint. I will not support this tactic because it is going to backfire like a 1973 Pinto.
However, let’s take religion out of the equation once and for all. This is civil marriage we’re talking about, not religious marriage.
First time I saw it used was in Taranto’s Best of the Web where he highlighted gays shouting “Nigger!“. Is that a false analogy? No.
I am well aware of this, and I have condemned this. Why is it that every stupid action done by one gay person somehow applies to all gay people everywhere?
Since
gaysJews are a distinctly small minority, almost all accommodation forgaysJews/thegayJewish “lifestyle†is dependent on the will of the majority.See how stupid it looks when applied to any other group.
Why is it that every stupid action done by one gay person somehow applies to all gay people everywhere?
Mainly because these stupid actions are universally done in the name of being gay.
Once the liberal leftists who have hijacked sexual orientation as their excuse for all manners of antisocial behavior start getting slapped down, this will no longer be a problem. But that is the whole point of this post — no one is slapping them.
“Telling people they are bad, and that you hate them forever, is not a winning electoral tactic.”
No? It’s worked for many an anti-gay politician.
V, it is no way valid to claim that an event that takes place in SF is representative of the standards of the gay communities in other areas. And in fact it doesn’t matter what any of us “liberals” say, some of you will assume we accept the fair and taking children to it anyway.
The violence of the rallies post Prop 8 are unacceptable. Tell me, are they continuing? Has there been violence in the last week, or two, or three? So, isolated events by some people define the rest of us? The sad thing is that I can see that when it’s in the minds of those who would control us but when it’s “gay” people parroting the hate there is no excuse. The “religious” communities have not resorted to violence – yet. But do not think that they are far more actively at “war” with us than we could dream of being with them. One commentator compared us with those who committed the heinous acts in Mumbai. There’s that love the sinner hate the sin concept being exposed for exactly what it is – a lie. Continue to attack the gay communities if it makes you feel superior but know that you have no immunity, you’re just as queer and will pay the same price.
“no one is slapping them”
in your mind that may be true, in reality plenty have spoken out about it.
cite please adDave.
And are you going to?
Yeah, suing the churches will come next.
I mean, you don’t expect professional gay activists to go out and find real jobs, do you?
Links and citations, please.
A Google search for “gay community defends Folsom Street Fair” is enlightening.
almost as sad as the silence on ‘gay community condems folsom street fair’
No results found for “gay community condemns Folsom Street Fair”.
#61 V, I was speaking about the violence, there has been much in various avenues of gay voices speaking against it. And no, I’m not going to provide links because it doesn’t matter, again if it’s in a liberal source you’ll find some way to warp it.
I’m staying clear of the Folsom Street Fair topic, I’ll leave that for those obsessed with it, the almighty judges of the gay communities, the all-knowing who are able to tell each one of the millions of LGBT people in this country exactly how they feel, believe and think about a particular topic.
Question: I know that there was an uproar about the supposed “Last Supper” parody. Was there even a peep of complaint when “Battlestar Galactica” did the exact same thing? This is not meant to say I approve or disapprove of what the fair leaders did I’m just wondering.
Bull. They’d denounce it? Just like when they denounced the murder of Lawrence King earlier this year? OH WAIT THEY DIDN’T denounce the murder of a middle school boy.
Just like they denounced the violent murder of an elderly gay male couple in Indiana a couple months ago? Again, silence.
Just like they denounced the arson committed against a gay couple last month? Once more silence.
And so on and so on and so on. Don’t give me this “the religious right is all touchy feely and into love” bull. If they can’t stand up even once in the past year to speak against anti-gay violence, anti-gay murders, then I doubt they’d say too much about lesser crimes and harassment.
Again and again people have said that the few acts which stepped over the line were over the line. But we can’t spend forever denouncing every Thomas, Richard, or Harold who does something stupid which crossed the line of good behavior.
But clearly the larger LGBT community must be worse and more evil than those who hate said community professionally. I mean how else could folks here feel superior and lordly?
Since I had to go to work, I’ll take this opportunity to catch up.
My, how “tolerant ®”.
Why is it that every stupid action done by gay liberals somehow applies to all gay people everywhere?
Because the actions of the rest of us aren’t newsworthy and held up as examples of “progressivism” or they aren’t considered worthy of celebration.
Because we allow “the gay community” to define who we are with “pride parades”, public sex, the FSF, Will & Grace, Ellen, Rosie etc. I concluded the rainbow flag and “the gay community” was based on bullshit long ago.
I agree. Your attempt to compare apples and oranges is pretty damn stupid.
Such as……?
So rather than opposing something because of what some people think, you’ll just grab your ankles and accept it. Quite frankly, I would respect someone’s opposition to such a thing, but only if I thought they were being sincere.
Any representatives from “the religion of peace” on there?
#64 [adDave to English filter on]
Links? I’m a liberal, I don’t need to provide documentation of my sources to show how true they are, they refute you, so they must be true.
Look let me drag up a non-sequitor reference here to a TV show, to distract from the agressive, unlawful, vile behaviour that you are asking me to take a stand on and condem in the real world. For who are we to judge? After all the FSF people are enlightened liberals, who are engaged in expressions of love and tolerance, well except against those intollerant bigots, and you won’t trick me into condemning such enlightened people.
Here, let me put out some other statements that I won’t provider links to (see above)
[adDave to English filter off]
Ahem, let me turn my brain back on and add something here.
As many have pointed out, the Mormons are an easy target. I doubt the gay grievance groups (GGG) expected the backlash they’re getting, and now have chosen to dig deeper.
Yup, that’s AdDave.
#66 PSUdain focuses on hate crimes against gays as some sort of red badge of courage. The whole idea that prejudice and bias is a cancer to be cut out of society by fiat and indoctrination is pathetic.
Often on this site, some commenter will compare their problems with civil rights for blacks. While I reject the comparison totally, I will offer an observation of history. Nat Turner, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers never got anywhere beyond the headlines. It was Martin Luther King and sit-ins and the willingness to take the blows that made the difference.
Are blacks still subjected to bias and prejudice and even being killed for their skin color? With all the fiat and indoctrination in place, the answer is “yes.”
PSUdain wants what no person can have: perfect harmony.
For gays to fight an organized religion because it is “anti-gay” brings up an interesting paradox. Shall the state side with the gays and cross the “wall of separation” and coerce the religion to drop its “gays are sinners” belief?
If PSUdain is looking for the state to pick up his cause and go full bore at the “problems,” then PSUdain had best come up with one of two weapons. 1) An awesom gay army that will intimidate its way to power or 2) an idea that is so powerful that its day has come and the majority will rush to adopt it.
From my viewing point, it appears that there are a lot of gays who just want to get even first and work on public relations later.
Livewire, thanks again for the laugh.
helio, the guys like PSUdain and BoxTurtle and others are all about “the hate” right now… or, I guess, that’s supposed to be written as “H8”.
They’ll probably succeed in turning more mainstream people AWAY from the gay civil rights movement by adopting symbols like the “rainbow fist” of judgment or vengence. What a stupid, blithering symbol –unless you’re into public fisting at Folsom.
It’s all about the H8 now… and their seething, foaming fury of impotence. Right now, all they’re good for on the best of days is some virus-tainted spittle and a sound bite or two.
You gotta love the GayLeftBorgTypes.
The entertaining thing about PSUdain’s diatribe is that he’s merely repeating the gay leftist meme that religious people are responsible for anything bad that happens to gays; therefore, they must be denouncing and apologizing for everything, even when there’s no link establishing that they had anything to do with it.
On the other hand, when gays commit acts of violence, arson, and whatnot against religious people, PSUdain and his ilk argue that they can’t be held responsible for such behavior even though they directly encouraged, participated in, and supported it.
Also, I love it when gay liberals bring up the Lawrence King murder as proof that “hate crimes” laws are necessary to eliminate all “prejudice” and “bias” against gays.
Mainly because, given that California already has a hate-crimes law, all it proves is that said laws don’t work.
“Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality”
Jon Stewart to Mike Huckabee.
Ah, the wit and wisdom of Jon Stewart. What does this have to do with the point exactly? Are you saying that the hatred of people who vote their conscience can be excused because it’s easier to forsake ones beliefs than ones bedpartner?
Still waiting for that condemnation, Rusty.
And according to gays like rusty, antireligious bigotry is a biological compulsion due to sexual orientation.
Yeah, what point is Jon Stewart trying to make? That it ought to be okay to discriminate against, harass, and vilify people because of their choice of religion?
Way to go everyone for missing my point. I was responding to the fourth comment made on the post. About how the religious right would condemn bad things that happen to gay people at the hands of people in the religious right. And I was just pointing out that past behavior is indicative of the opposite.
NDT as usual has made up fantastical arguments to put in my mouth. Do you actually read the posts? Or just skim them take out a few words and make up what I “actually” said?
heliotrope has missed the point, mischaracterized my positions, and flat made up things when he had no information to go on.
PSUDain, can you present evidence for each of the cases you cite that the person who committed the act of violence was motivated by religious belief, or encouraged to act by a religion? Or, do you just assume that religion is the motivation for all violence against gheys?
I googled those cases, and I didn’t see religion cited by the police as a motive in any of them, but I could have been looking up the wrong cases based on the minimal amount of information provided.
A Condemnation? LIVEWIRE, Forgive me, but I think you are asking for a condemnation of FSF. I have never attended the FSF, and have only ventured into SF on three occassions. ’81, ’86 and ’99 for very brief visits. I do know folk who dabble in the sub-culture of Leather (all of them gay). Some of those folk have attended FSF. I really have no interest in FSF. Nor do I have interest in Professional Wrestling, MudWrestling, Nascar, Spring Break Events for College Folk, Bad Girls gone Wild events, excetera. Aberant behavior is not something I truly seek out.
I for one try not to ‘cast stones’ for though I do not live a glass house, I do believe that finger pointing is not very effective and as an recovering catholic (i have forgiven the church for its sins) I do recall the calls of ‘love thy neighbor . . . those without sin, cast the first stone’.
Yes the FSF event does cast a shadow on the GLBT community. But if I may be so bold to suggest, a few simple steps to express concern about the FSF event could start with letters and comments directed to the executive director and the board of directors (through a simple search: http://folsomstreetfair.org/folsomstreetevents.php) .
Again, as I mentioned to NDT, another measure is to produce a family event nearby. A young gay men’s group started sponsoring a blow up jumper, face painting and other child-friendly activities at a NW community gay pride event in Spokane Wa and the adult tone of the event quickly diminished and more families began to attend along with sraight allies and families.
Finger pointing and condemnation might make your ego soar, but actual productive counter activities might produce more positive results.
As far a condemnation of sub-groups of under the GLBT umbrella, well, I am not sure where to start and where to stop. Like many other GLBT groups, the FSF folk state that monies raised through FSF event are donated to local charities, so similar sub groups like the Sisters of PI, DRAG groups, Lesbian Social CLubs, PFLAG, Grey Gays, GLBT business groups and even GLBT youth groups also promote and produce fundraisers and give to charities that support children, survivors of breast cancer, HIV programs and other social organizations. Maybe identifying those groups who get their monies from FSF and asking them to ‘redirect’ groups like FSF to clean up their acts might be another avenue for all of you with twisted tighty-whities.
But having direct experience in fund (fun) development, saying no to money is a hard one. I even know of the wonders of the Tabacco Companies giving monies to HIV/AIDS support programs, even though Board members are conflicted with the thought of using cigarette monies to support food and support programs for those living with HIV(with the ever increasing need to support folk living with HIV)
But condemnation, ah, can’t really do it, since I never have never been to FSF.
LIVEWIRE, the spam filter is chewing on a response to CONDEMNATION
PSUDain, can you present evidence for each of the cases you cite that the person who committed the act of violence was motivated by religious belief, or encouraged to act by a religion? Or, do you just assume that religion is the motivation for all violence against gheys?
Remember when the liberal left was screaming that the religious right was responsible for Jacob Robida and the New Bedford attacks?
Of course, there was no retraction when they found out that the person involved had no connection whatsoever to the religious right. Can’t ruin the meme that religious people are to blame for everything.
almost as sad as the silence on ‘gay community condems folsom street fair’
No results found for “gay community condemns Folsom Street Fairâ€.
I couldn’t find anything either, Livewire. I’m not surprised that HRC or other left gay organizations haven’t condemned the bad behavior at FSF, but I figured that LCR or gay conservative groups would have done so.
“Why rely on liberal sources anyway?”
Thanks TGC, you proved my point. You will only believe what comes from right wing sources so it’s pointless spend time providing links to things that you’ve already decided are wrong. If you were interested, there’s google, but you’re not.
“Finger pointing and condemnation might make your ego soar, but actual productive counter activities might produce more positive results.”
WORD!
Finger pointing and condemnation might make your ego soar, but actual productive counter activities might produce more positive results.
Why don’t rusty and adDave simply do what they’re already doing to Mormon churches and religious people — public protests, picketing these places, demanding that anyone who supports them be fired or forced to resign, burning things that are important to them on building steps, and mailing them envelopes of white powder?
Answer: Because they don’t oppose the Folsom Street Fair or think that anything that goes on at it is inappropriate. If they did, THEY would be carrying out the activities that they are whining about others not doing.
Why don’t rusty and adDave simply do what they’re already doing to Mormon churches and religious people — public protests, picketing these places, demanding that anyone who supports them be fired or forced to resign, burning things that are important to them on building steps, and mailing them envelopes of white powder?
Are Rusty and AdDave doing that? I missed the posts where they said they were doing all that.
Answer: Because they don’t oppose the Folsom Street Fair or think that anything that goes on at it is inappropriate. If they did, THEY would be carrying out the activities that they are whining about others not doing.
Or it could be that as bad as some of the activities at FSF are, the participants (except for Peter La Barbera and his fellow clowns) are not actively trying to restrict gay rights.
Or it could be that as bad as some of the activities at FSF are, the participants (except for Peter La Barbera and his fellow clowns) are not actively trying to restrict gay rights.
No, they’re just promoting irresponsible behavior that spreads lethal diseases and dressing up toddler-age children as sexual slaves to show off in front of naked masturbating adults and calling it an “educational experience” that everyone should support or be “close minded”.
Glad to know the priorities of the gay community are so in order.
I’d cry, if I were you, but then I have the capacity for shame. I guess if you don’t, all you can do is laugh like an idiot.
Especially if you have no principles.
Funny how the left rails against their ChiComm buddies regarding Tibet, but they gladly hold out their hands for this cash???
Cash, I suppose, is the reason why the gay left will allow public sex displays, bareback films and other dangerous behavior, then sit in the mud and demand more money for AIDS. Maybe AIDS funding should be cut off for as long as the “community” stands idly by and allows it to happen.
Sweet Jesus, you’re dumb. I didn’t prove your point at all, unless your point was that liberal sources are BS and the only thing out there. Some of us have jobs and other chores to do and don’t have the luxury of sitting around with one hand on the keyboard and the other on our cock. One would think that if you were to make assertions like you have, you’d be willing and able to provide examples, especially with all the time you’ve had.
The fact of the matter is that you CAN’T. Just sack up and be honest. You’ll get a lot more respect that way than your piss poor “you wouldn’t believe me anyway” excuse. If we wouldn’t believe you, then one wonders why in the hell you said it in the first place.
Bruce and Dan don’t dig commenters attacking others, but if there were a bigger bleeding pussy than you, I haven’t seen it yet. And it’s not really an “attack” so much as it’s the God’s honest truth. Essentially it comes down to “put up or shut up”. You have a choice.
I’ll tell you plain, if you can back up your statements, you’ll get far more respect from folks ’round here than if you just use “you wouldn’t believe me anyway” cop-outs. I think each one of us have admitted that we’re wrong at some point or another. It’s not that big of a deal and you will curry more favor that way than almost any other.
Even without the child abuse, FSF is still a mass display of indecency and depravity that has no place on public streets. The fact that the gay community even has to question whether it is appropriate for children just shows how low its moral standards are.
Rusty, longer reply when I get home. Short safefor work version. I condemn the FSF for the simple reason that it reflects poorly on me, and the SSC Lifestyle I believe people should be allowed to express themselves in.
No, they’re just promoting irresponsible behavior that spreads lethal diseases and dressing up toddler-age children as sexual slaves to show off in front of naked masturbating adults and calling it an “educational experience†that everyone should support or be “close mindedâ€.
I tell you what, NDT. Why don’t you ask them, instead of making up your own reasons?
Even without the child abuse, FSF is still a mass display of indecency and depravity that has no place on public streets. The fact that the gay community even has to question whether it is appropriate for children just shows how low its moral standards are.
Who’s the gay community, V the K? HRC? I don’t think I know anybody, gay or straight, who is questioning whether it is appropriate for children. They obviously know it isn’t. I agree with you regarding FSF. I would never attend such a thing. So that’s two of us. There’s got to be much more of us.
Who’s the gay community, V the K?
The 400,000 who attend FSF and the millions more who support it. Oh, and this from the FSF organizers. “We don’t have any age restrictions at the gates.”
Also, this article, Parents have Mixed Feelings about bringing their children to this year’s bondage fest.
Mixed feelings? What the hell is wrong with these people?
There you have it. If you don’t believe in bringing preteen children to depraved bondage festivals, you’re “close-minded.”
Why can’t these people just get a hotel, or a private ranch or something, if they want to display their dysfunctional behavior? Why does it have to be an event on city streets.
And what’s with elevating a sexual fetish to the level of a ‘culture.’ I don’t care if people put on leather and whip each other in the privacy of their bedrooms or dungeons, but there is something deeply dysfunctional the need to flaunt it publicly, and to be defined by such a fetish seems really unhealthy and limiting. I don’t object to the behavior, per se, but I think the normalization of the behavior is profoundly unhealthy.
2008 Beneficiaries http://folsomstreetfair.org/fair-beneficiaries.php
The board of directors of Folsom Street Events has selected the following roster of 501(c)(3) organizations below as our 2008 beneficiaries. This list represents organizations from both our “Major” and “Supporting” beneficiary categories. If your organization missed applying for a 2008 grant, there is still time to apply to be a “Beverage Partner” for the 2008 season.
AIDS Emergency Fund
Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness Center
Community United Against Violence
Frameline
Healing Waters
Lyon-Martin Health Services
Pets Are Wonderful Support (PAWS)
Positive Resource Center
Project Open Hand
Quan Yin Healing Arts Center
San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus
Shanti Project
St. James Infirmary
Tenderloin Health
Transgender Law Center
Triangle Martial Arts Association
So here are the beneficiaries of the 2008 FSF event. Again, if those who object to FSF want to attempt enacting some change, check with these beneficiaries about their concerns of accepting monies from FSF. It is also my understanding from reading the FSF website that these 501 3c organizations must submit an application to receive monies from FSF.
SPAM FILTER
FSF Beneficiaries:
http://folsomstreetfair.org/fair-beneficiaries.php
AIDS Emergency Fund
Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness Center
Community United Against Violence
Frameline
Healing Waters
Lyon-Martin Health Services
Pets Are Wonderful Support (PAWS)
Positive Resource Center
Project Open Hand
Quan Yin Healing Arts Center
San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus
Shanti Project
St. James Infirmary
Tenderloin Health
Transgender Law Center
Triangle Martial Arts Association
So here are the beneficiaries of the 2008 FSF event. Again, if those who object to FSF want to attempt enacting some change, check with these beneficiaries about their concerns of accepting monies from FSF. It is also my understanding from reading the FSF website that these 501 3c organizations must submit an application to receive monies from FSF.
The 400,000 who attend FSF and the millions more who support it. Oh, and this from the FSF organizers. “We don’t have any age restrictions at the gates.â€
Okay, that’s a huge number. A couple of questions here, as I’m not sure what the answers are. First of all, are all of the attendants gay? How many of the ones that attend think it’s okay to bring children or to dress them up as sex slaves? How many of them actually saw children attend the fair, and did any of them at least report the presence of children? And the millions that do support FSF, how many of them support bringing children to the event?
As for the FSF organizers, they damn well should have age restrictions at the gates. Even if the event was cleaned up, it obviously shouldn’t have children.
There you have it. If you don’t believe in bringing preteen children to depraved bondage festivals, you’re “close-minded.â€
Coming from a parent that apparently would bring children to the event, if he hasn’t already, I have little regard for that opinion.
Bloody filter.
Ok lots of points to hit here, so bear with me.
First, Rusty. I’ve never been to the FSF, my (late) friend went there and if I’d known then what I do now, I’d have been abhorred. She was a good conservative Republican Wiccan and we felt like we were kindred spirits. The reason I ask if you’ll condemn the excesses of FSF is that, like it or not, it is a face of the gay community people see. Just as it’s a face of the leather community that people see. As social minorities, I feel we -must- take steps to denounce loudly and publicly such excesses, just as I denounce Fred Phelps as a nut job calling himself a Christian. Silence is not golden in this case. The ironic thing about this statement “Aberrant behavior is not something I truly seek out,†is that we do engage in aberrant behavior, you with other men, me with a flogger and a consensual partner. We may not call it aberrant but the word fits “differing from the normal or accepted way, esp. in behaviorâ€
I’ve spent my life being different from the normal, not going to deny it.
Now as to the charities, to use the extreme example, Hamas builds schools. Now the point isn’t to compare the leather community to suicide bombers, the point is that it doesn’t matter that money’s going to good causes, it matters what they’re doing in raising the money.
NDT, please don’t lump rusty in with the arsonists and terrorist cowards doing those things. He may condone the FSF, it doesn’t mean that he plays Osmond records backwards looking for hidden messages.
V the K, here in the Midwest, we do “just get a hotel, or a private ranch or something, if they want to display their dysfunctional behavior.†For Ohio Leather Fest, we would rent out a hotel, or, if we couldn’t get the entire hotel, we’d post guards to keep the mundanes away from the event. My (now ex) wife and I kept the dungeon/playspace locked when we were away, at first to keep my stepson out, later to keep his friends out when they were legal (you think coming out to your family is hard, imagine explaining to your step-son why the ‘love cuffs’ he just bought for his girlfriend have safety releases).
Whew, that was long, and cathartic. Thank you Dan and Bruce, for letting me rant.
rusty, my turn to have a reply in the filter.
And I didn’t even mention a certain Greek Island
There, fixed it for you.
I will try to tip-toe around the spam filter.
A certain fair in a well known city is relevant to where a minority stands with the general population. Just because there is a market it does not follow that there needs to be a marketplace.
Not all human behavior is an art form. (National Endowment for the Arts aside.) Every minority that seeks public acceptance is hindered most by its members who are offensive. That certain fair is full of people who are studied and discussed in the medical literature.
When a minority feels that the rules of marriage should be changed to accept their specific combination, they have to confront the general opinion of what that combination is like and what it does for “completion.” The general opinion is guided by many sources of information, bias, and folklore. A certain fair or an attack on Mormons is not a force for change. It is reason to hunker down and keep things as they are.
If the publisher of porn gave millions to an orphanage, it does not change the taint of the source of the money. A fine man stealing from a thief to help the poor is great stuff in literature and movies. But the fine man is still a thief himself.
It is weak tea to argue that the ends justify the means. Unless you are a liberal. In which case you act on your unique sense of “justice” as the spirit moves you at a particular moment in time.
“And it’s not really an “attack†so much as it’s the God’s honest truth”
So TGC, clearly you believe in the same “god” as the toxic religious right and their murderous fanatic twins in the Middle East. As long as you claim it’s from God you can do or say whatever you want no matter how foul I do appreciate your comments though they show how completely
unhinged you are. I must say though you do have a way with words 🙂
Oh, and for the record I work 10 – 12 hours a day and usually another 4 or 5 on the weekend and holidays so stuff your fantasy of what I do with my time in the orifice that most of your “wisdom” flows from. And have a great weekend.
#105 AE, no need to fix what wasn’t broke.
I agree, leave marriage alone, it aint broke.
#107 a different Dave flames:
So, I ask a different Dave:
1) Where is the dividing line between the religious right and the religious sort of right?
2) What are the elements we should look for to determine what is “toxic” in the religious right?
3.) Please detail the twin actions/beliefs the radical right shares with their “murderous fanatic twins in the Middle East. (You may detail just one, if you prefer.)
4.) Beyond “religion” as a social exercise, do you believe in God? I include this, because you little lettered God and slapped Him in quotes. Also, if you do not believe in God, then I would assume that you compartmentalize those who do believe in God as being a bit off their reasoning powers and those who are very devout as being really nuts. If I am correct in my assumption, then your gripe is against all religion that holds you to any standard which makes you squirm.
5.) What is your battle plan to defeat the toxic religious right and their murderous fanatic twins in the Middle East. Will you sic the intergalactic eunuchs of the United Nations on them? Will you Joan of Arc them with an army of true unbelievers? Will you sit alone in your room and hate them to pieces? Or will you spew toxic words at them over the internet? How about ordering them to “coexist” by way of a bumper sticker? Maybe a fish with feet and the name Darwin in the middle for your trunk deck would put them in their place.
C’mon, a different Dave, fess up. You have nothing in your arsenal but bluster and derision. Why don’t you go paint a big dirty word on the side of an Amish buggy and laugh at them when they all run around trying to figure out what motivates you. You can explain toxic to them. And believe me, they are as funky religious right as you can get.
#109 – I answered you with far too many words – it was doomed to the spam filter oblivion. If it’s not resurrected I’ll try in segments at a later time. Good questions though based on incorrect assumptions.
oops 111 was supposed to be referring to 110. Since I know you can’t live another day without knowing my response I’ll try again 🙂
1 and 2) The difference is one group understands that their religion is a personal thing, it is a guide for how to live THEIR lives, not a battle plan for world domination. Certainly they share their beliefs with others and seek to influence others by demonstrating the teachings of their religion in their lives. The other group believes that they are commanded to turn the US into a “God-fearing” country ruled by Biblical law – peacefully if possible but Matthew 11:12 “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” is a favorite. It all boils down to “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel” compared to “Go ye into all the world and conquer for the Gospel”.
5) most of what you ask here is amusing but stupid. Bumpersticker warfare is good only for passing the time while waiting at stoplights. I don’t believe that the toxic right or fanatic Islam can be defeated. I don’t look at the people involved as something to “defeat”. I think that people can turn away from those beliefs when they see what the underlying goals really are. People look for easy answers to deal with the complexities of life – rigid religion offers that and it’s easy for it to move from there to blaming the ills of the world on “the other”. There is no easy answer.
so, my answers to questions 1,2 and 5 made it. To clarify one thing, when I say they can’t be defeated I mean that there will always be those who resort to extremes and use whatever religion (or anti-religion) they claim to practice as the justification of such.