Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘Christians’

Why do we honor this Christian Talibani with a holiday?

Oh, puke. It’s January again and that means that it’s time to pay homage to Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s his birthday, and now we all have to prostrate ourselves and pretend like we honor his legacy.

I get so sick of doing this every year. Martin Luther King is not a hero of mine. He was one of the churchy blacks and he made it very clear that the Bible–“God’s law”–was the basis of his beliefs. Furthermore, he thought it should be the basis of our laws, which is just un-American, and frankly, scary. I think it’s safe to say that MLK was one of those wild-eyed Christian fundamentalist wackjobs. He was a member of the Christian Taliban, long before anyone knew what that was.

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I think that the attempt of homosexuals to hijack MLK Day and turn it into a gay thing is commendable. We really ought to step it up. When you think about it, our struggle for equality is the same as theirs. Gay people in contemporary society are treated the same way blacks used to be. For example, I have to ride in the back of the bus. When a straight person comes, I have to give up my seat even if I’m tired and my feet hurt. Well, I don’t actually ride a bus because my husband drives me around in his Lexus. He’s a lawyer. But if I did ride the bus, I’m sure I would be forced to sit in the back. And I’m not allowed to stay in a hotel south of the Mason-Dixon line either.  And who can forget the legions of homosexuals who were sold into slavery? Sodomites today are kind of like slaves. Sure, I buy that.

Okay, so the comparison doesn’t quite fit. But the point is this–our struggle is like theirs. They were enslaved and segregated because of the color of their skin. People disapprove of me opening my asscheeks to other men to sodomize me. The similarities are eerie. They have no choice in being black, I have no choice in my who I sleep with.  And because buttfucking is equivalent to having black sin, there is a legitimate comparison to be made.

Unfortunately, MLK himself left something to be desired. It’s pretty clear from his own writings that he supported a theocracy. I refer you to his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, in which he explained to his fellow clergy why he found it necessarily to take action against segregation.

King begins by comparing himself to the Biblical Paul who.

“…just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town.”

Anyone who would appeal to that old batshit lunatic must have a pretty weak argument. Paul was a committed homophobe whose condemnations of homosexuality now come down to us as the indisputable “word of God.” They should be recognized as what they are–the word of a first century bigot. And in case Martin Luther King needs another reason to discount Paul, he also supported slavery. As Paul wrote in Titus 2: 9-10:

Slaves are to be under control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction, not talking back to them or stealing from them, but exhibiting complete good faith, so as to adorn the doctrine of God our savior in every way.”

Did you hear that, Martin? Don’t talk back to your master. That’s what Paul would tell you.

If that weren’t enough, King argues that our code of civil law must live up to “God’s law”. That’s hooey. In a secular democracy such as ours, religion has no place in the law books. Some people–like me for example–don’t believe in God and we don’t want to be ruled over in a manner described in some old dusty book of fairy tales. We cannot concern ourselves what “God” would say about the affairs of men. We are rational creatures. But not Martin Luther King. He argues in favor of theocracy in America:

“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Oh, so he just picks and chooses which laws he wants to follow. Typical Christian. There are even some Christians who think that they shouldn’t be forced to place children in gay couples’ homes because it “violates their religion”. I’m so sick of this argument that one’s religion exempts one from obeying the law. We have one law in this country–it is civil, it is secular, and it applies to everyone.

He says that “unjust laws” must be disobeyed. We know that a law is “unjust” if it goes against “God’s law” or “moral law”. So he’s a moralist who draws his “morality” from his “God” and thinks that his definition should be the foundation of our law. If man’s law fails to live up to God’s law, man’s law must be disobeyed. He’s an advocate for theocracy and breaking whichever laws he doesn’t like.

Next he appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas, another homophobe, this time from Dark Ages. Aquinas argues that human law should be in harmony with “natural law”.

St. Thomas Aquinas. He can take that book and shove it up his ass. This Bible-thumping religious zealot is the guy MLK thinks should have the last word on our laws.

All you gay boys out there should beware anyone who makes their argument on the basis of “natural law”. That’s a code word for oppressing cock gobblers. “Natural law” was invoked to support California’ Proposition H8. Check out this article by a Los Angeles-based Catholic priest. His “natural law” argument sounds suspiciously like MLK’s. He’s a modern day St. Thomas Aquinas, and his thinking hasn’t evolved a bit since the thirteenth century!

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_there_a_natural_right_to_same_sex_marriage

This is "natural law". Watch out for the "natural law" bigots.

Again, King makes it clear that he thinks people can simply choose which laws they follow according to their religion. That’s ludicrous. What if a Christian said that it violated his conscience to have his child in the pro-homosexual indoctrination courses taught in public schools? What if a Christian said that it violated a “higher law” to force him to make cupcakes for a Coming Out Day? Could he just disobey those laws? Considering the fact that I know that state power is firmly on my side, I am completely in favor of using that power against my enemies to force them to do my will. I never worry that the same power can be used against me.

“Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience… It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.”

The Christians in Rome were just troublemakers. Everywhere the early Christians went, they told people how to live their lives. They stuck their noses in other people’s business–no false idols, no sodomy, no bedding young boys, no human sacrifice, no killing unwanted infants. They pushed their arbitrary code of “morals” on everyone they could.

“If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

Oh, more whining from the Christians. They are “suppressed”. I don’t see how Christians are oppressed in a communist country, or here for that matter. They can still worship in the manner the government prescribes. They can believe to the degree that the government allows. What they CANNOT do is establish a separate law of their own.

King goes on to explain that the church should play a role in forming the mores of society:

“There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.

They sure did. Prior to the Christianization of the Roman World, man-on-man sex was commonplace and nobody had a problem with it. So was man-on-boy sex. And then came the judgmental Christians with their sexual hang-ups. Darkness fell over Europe. It appears that King is applauding the role of the Christians, as if to say that Christian “morality” should transform the mores of society.That’s absurd.

Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man.

Sounds no different than the Christofascists of today. They’re on a mission from God. They’re crazy beyond your wildest dreams. Think Michele Bachmann or George W. Bush. That kind of crazy.

It’s unfortunate that MLK also subscribes to this ruse that we’re a “Judaeo-Christian” nation. That’s the type of hogwash you usually hear out of the mouth of James Dobson. Everyone knows that the Judeo-Christian myth is historical revisionism. Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of our nation. The founding fathers were deists and atheists and they wanted to ensure that religion played no role in the government. Somebody tell that to MLK.

One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Both were written by slave holders, dummy. In any case, the Constitution doesn’t talk about God at all. The Declaration of Independence does talk about “certain inalienable rights” being “endowed by a creator”, which is really strange because Jefferson didn’t believe in that crap. Neither do I. My rights don’t come from a fictitious man in the sky. They come from the government. The government gives them and the government can take them away.

Whatever the Jews and the Christians believe, that’s their business. They can follow their own morals all they want, but they can’t force them on me. It’s not part of our “heritage”. Whenever you hear anyone making such an argument, run the other direction as fast as you can. He’s a huckster. He wants to impose Christian Sharia here in America.

I just can’t wait until this orgy of obsequious ass-kissing is over. There’s something seriously wrong with a man who draws his inspiration from St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas, or the “Judeo-Christian heritage” of our nation. When you hear that kind of talk, you should understand that the person speaking is a nut.

If you want to live in a country like that, fine. Move to some Middle Eastern shithole. Or just join the fucking Taliban. I heard they’re looking for soldiers of God. Here in America, religion plays no role in the government. If you happen to have religious sentiments, that’s fine as long as you hide your belief and and vote the opposite when you go to the polls. That’s what the constitution says you have to do.

Sadly, people like Martin Luther King only encourage them.

Advertisements

Banning Christianity: The British Model

Boy, I sure do love the United Kingdom! Those British chaps over there have all the fun. Besides the great gay scene in Brighton, they also have tea, crumpets, and the Georges–George Michael and Boy George. It’s real Cool Britannia.

Cool Britannia: Where Christianity is being incrementally outlawed. Cheers, mate!

The best part about the UK has to be all of the censorship and anti-Christian repression. Now that’s an import we could use over here in America. Seriously. Freedom has gotten out of control. When people are free to speak their minds and  practice their religions, gay people tend to kill themselves. So we need to tighten down on all of this “freedom” crap to protect the very delicate feelings of homosexuals.

For a comprehensive picture of the justified marginalization of Christians, check out this report. (Warning: The report is from the Christian crybaby perspective. In other words, the underlying assumption is that the anti-Christian trend in Britain is a bad thing. Ridiculous.)

http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/marginchristians.pdf

As you may have heard, a “Christian” cafe owner in Blackpool England was recently visited by the local constabulary who warned him that he should cease and desist with a television screen that runs the text of New Testament in a continuous loop in his cafe.

I put “Christian” in derisive quotation marks because anyone who actually follows what the Bible says about homosexuality is not really a Christian at all. Real Christians affirm sinfulness. It’s the only Christian thing to do. Because when you tell someone that their behavior is wrong, no matter how mildly you phrase it, you hurt their feelings. When you hurt someone’s feelings, that’s the opposite of loving. And loving is what all Christians should aspire to. There is no such thing as loving the sinner and hating the sin. In order to love the sinner, you MUST love the sin too. If you disagree with this interpretation I will blow my brains out, so don’t push me!

This is what happens every time I hear anyone disapprove of homosexuality. In order to prevent me from doing this, all dissenting opinions must be outlawed. Wouldn't it be easier for the state to just police everyone else's thoughts than for me to just get some damned counseling?

Okay, so this rule isn’t absolute. It’s still okay to tell adulterers that adultery is wrong, just as long as the adulterer in question is a Republican elected official. So if you want to tell Newt Gingrich that he’s an awful person because he cheats on his wife, go ahead. And stealing is wrong too, I suppose. I’ll still permit you little Christofascist bigots to speak that out loud. Drunkenness, sloth, cheating, and lying are all bad too. Okay, so I admit it–this rule I have about not judging others really only applies to people who commit my own pet sin. It’s okay to say that theft is wrong, just not to say one boy bending another boy over is wrong. If you say that, you are extremely un-Christian. Christians are still free to speak out against all the other  sins, just not my favorite sin. Because it makes me cry, that’s why.

So let’s examine what happened. Some time last month, Jamie Murray, the owner of the Salt and Light Cafe in Blackpool, was visited by police. The bobbies informed him that they had received a complaint from an anonymous woman who claimed that the cafe was displaying messages on a television screen that were “insulting” and “homophobic”. So far, so good. That’s the purpose the of police, isn’t it? To tell people what they can and can’t say?

As it turns out, the messages being displayed on the television screen were Bible passages. The Salt and Light cafe is a Christofascist coffeehouse and the owner plays a set of DVD’s on the screen that contain the New Testament in its entirety. Apparently, some of the verses caused offense.The police questioned him for an hour and then warned him to stop displaying the New Testament because he was committing a crime.

The Watchword Bible on DVD. This is the offending material. Unfortunately, the police failed to confiscate this contraband before leaving. That's my only complaint. Other than that, the bobbies did everything just perfectly.

Professional Christian crybaby Jamie Murray had this to say about the confrontation with the heroic police:

“I couldn’t believe the police were saying I can’t display the Bible. The officers were not very polite, in fact they were quite aggressive. It felt like an interrogation. I said ‘surely it isn’t a crime to show the Bible?’ But they said they had checked with their sergeant and insulting words are a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I was shocked.”

Oh, quit your bellyaching, you insolent little bitch. You know what these Christians’ problem is? They think the law doesn’t apply to them. The Public Order Act of 1986 is very clear. No one is allowed to display material that is “threatening, abusive, or insulting”. And I find the Bible to be all three of these, and therefore they can’t display it. No threat to free speech there. Never you worry, your freedoms are still completely intact.

But these Christians think they are above the law and cite “religious freedom” every time a cop threatens to arrest them for the crime of showing Bible verses on the screen. Religious freedom does not mean that you can break the law. So any time I feel like restricting your religion (which is all of the time) I can just pass a law making the exercise of your religion illegal. See how this works? Guarantees of religious freedom are essentially meaningless once we make the free exercise of your religion a crime. Because religion is not an excuse for breaking the law!

We are not a threat to your freedom. Never have been, never will be. If you think that we are, you must be a Christiofascist bully. And we will punish you. Understand?

Mike Judge of the Christofascist “Christian Institute” came to Murray’s defense.

“Yes, the Bible speaks about morality, of course it does. But the Bible isn’t hate speech. Disagreement isn’t hatred. If a café customer dislikes parts of the Bible, the right response is to take their custom elsewhere – not dial 999.”

Disagreement isn’t hatred? Yes it is! That’s the entire foundation of my argument. If you tell me that my behavior is wrong, THAT MEANS THAT YOU HATE ME. Because I’m just born this way. I have no free will, I just have to do what my dick tells me to do.

The logic of my conclusion is inescapable. Disapproval of another person’s sexual behavior is hatred, case closed.  No, I will not walk out of your Christian cafe and have my coffee elsewhere. I will ring the cops just as fast as possible and they will threaten you with arrest.

Now don’t go accusing me of “intolerance”. I’m a very broad minded person and I have no problem tolerating other people’s religious beliefs, so long as I never see them or hear them. They should be hidden at all times. And if I happen to walk into a Christian cafe, I expect to be able to sip my coffee without being assaulted–I said assaulted!–with anything that wreaks of Christianity. Don’t you force that Christian stuff on me!

Did you know that some passages of the New Testament preach that sodomites don’t go to heaven? That’s so ridiculous. From First Corinthians 6: 9-10:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Hate speech! That’s hate speech against homosexuals like me. I suppose it’s also hate speech against thieves, adulterers and drunkards. But they aren’t organized like we homos are. Upon further consideration, it only makes sense that they should be protected too. Some thief might take offense at the idea that he’s not going to heaven. Or a drunkard. And I then he would feel bad about himself, and we can’t have that. We could have anti-thief bullying in our schools, or a rash of suicides in the drunkard community.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe in heaven. It’s an imaginary place made up by uneducated people who think that some guy named Jesus came back from the dead and performed miracles and other such hogwash. From time to time, I like to pretend that I believe in this Jesus fellow, but only as a means of undermining the people who actually believe in him.

But I’m a Christian too, and my church teaches me that sodomy is just fine! We’ve evolved past the Bible over here in my church. So we’re better Christians than you!

But still, it hurts my feelings when people tell me that I’m not going to a place I don’t believe in, just because I open my anus to other men. I bet they even believe that I’m going to that other place that I don’t believe in. The hot one that smells of sulfur.

It’s important to be very sneaky about our efforts to criminalize their religion. If people have the foresight to see where our little censorship campaign is headed, they tend not to allow even small steps in that direction. So we employ stealth, moving little by little toward a society that is completely intolerant of Christian belief. Er, I mean “Christian” belief. I forgot the derisive scare quotes there. And if anyone ever sees clearly enough to discern our ultimate goal, we scream at them to quit making up ridiculous excuses to justify their bigotry.

There go the Christofascists again, fearmongering the way they always do. Next thing you know they’re going to be telling people we want to ban the Bible, which is just so absurd.

But of course we DO want to ban the Bible.  Because it’s hate and hate cannot be tolerated. You’re going to love the new hate free society. Everyone is forced to be nice to each other and no one has any freedom. Well, let’s not be extreme about this. No one will be forced to be nice to Christians. We will still treat them like dogshit the way we do now.

A few years ago, the Arkansas GOP sent out this ridiculous mailing to its mindless followers enjoining them to vote for conservatives because the liberals have a very radical agenda. I’ll just let you read it yourself.

Unfortunately for us, the flyer correctly lists the points of the liberal agenda. Notice the Bible on the side with the word "banned" stamped on it.

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever seen such hyper-paranoid scare tactics? I bet you they ate this up down there in the Bible belt. You’re aware that they all go to church and they’re boinking their sisters, right?

So the inbred voting bloc thinks that we want to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, which is just stupid. I want to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, not one stinkin’ phrase. Allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent? I suppose, although I’d prefer if all of their sexual relationships were homosexual in nature. Then they wouldn’t need to kill their unborn children. Overturning the ban on partial birth abortion? Ditto.  Allowing same sex marriages? You betcha!

So only one of the above is actually correct, and the other three are partially correct from a certain point of view. I suppose you could say that “liberals” want all of the above. Not me personally, but liberals generally. It’s not really a secret.

Take note of the Bible on the right side stamped with the word “banned”. Damn it, they’re on to us! They see where this tolerance train is heading and they want to get off RIGHT NOW! At the time, I said that the flyer was absolute bullshit. No one wants to ban the Bible. No one except the secular progressives of Europe and Canada who are now intimidating Christian cafe owners like common criminals. Because, according to British law, they are common criminals. And as we’ve already established, religion is no excuse for breaking the law.

"Open up, guv'na! This is the tolerance police! We'd better not find any Bible reading going on in there!"

Don’t doubt for a minute that I emulate these countries and that I want to bring their Stalinist repression here. So long as it’s always and everywhere employed against Christians, I’m all for this kind of censorship and intimidation.

I’m going to have to make a visit to Albion in the near future. I wonder if they’ll let me be “queen” for a day. I would really like that! Cheerio!

I might have to rethink this “wall of separation” now that it inconveniences me.

Raging homophobe Mike Adams is at it again. This time he’s taking aim at the University of North Carolina for publishing a list of pro-LGBTQXYZ churches.

Adams, a criminology professor and Christian turned atheist, turned Christian again, took issue with a list of approved churches distributed by the university’s  LGBTQIA Office. That’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersexed, and Allied, for those of you who are not in the know.

Professor Mike Adams of UNC-Wilmington. It's just too bad that these homophobes have to be so handsome. He opposes the official state endorsement of churches based on their gay friendliness. Is there any way we can fire this man?

Adams viciously attacked the church-endorsement program, saying:

“…they investigate and then endorse churches based on their stance on homosexuality. And they print lists of approved gay-friendly churches using official university letter-head. Then they circulate their approved church list on state-owned computers to other state employees who then recommend the approved churches to their students.”

Uh..yeah. So? Isn’t that what a state-run, tax-payer funded university is supposed to be doing?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not a believer in that ancient religion of cannibalism. I don’t think that this guy named Jesus became a zombie and walked out of his tomb. Or that a guy named Jonah was swallowed by a fish and lived to tell the tale. I also don’t believe in talking serpents, or exorcising demons. And I certainly don’t believe in this concept called “sin”, or that I need to be saved from my sins. So please don’t think that I’m suddenly getting hip to Christianity.

Typical service at Christian churches across America. Not here in Provincetown, of course. The churches here fly the rainbow flag out front, so you know that they are filled with normal people who have completely abandoned the Bible and all of the weird/dangerous things that it teaches. This picture is from one of those gay-hating churches found in other parts of the country that I've never actually visited. I'm talking about the Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon churches in places like Oklahoma and Nebraska.

I might be able to join this religion called Christianity if I weren’t required to believe all of those things listed above. Like the resurrection, for example. I would really like to drop the concept of sin from any version of Christianity I might choose to join. Also, I think all people should be able to go to heaven, regardless of whether they accept Christ or not. Buddhists and Jews go to heaven. Heck, even atheists go to heaven, despite the fact that we don’t believe in it. The only ones who aren’t going to heaven are these judgmental Christian fanatics who actually believe what the Bible tells them.

Isn’t that right, Queer Christian?

I haven’t found God, or anything like that.  But I do think that pro-gay churches play an important role in our community–namely, they serve to confuse people about what scripture actually teaches. Which is a very good thing. The Bible is pretty clear about homosexuality, in both the Old and New Testaments. There is essentially no ambiguity. But that shouldn’t stop queer activists from infiltrating churches, changing doctrine, reforming attitudes, and generally placing the targets of their aggression on an un-Biblical path for years to come.

The primary purpose of gay-friendly churches is to drive home the point that Christianity itself has nothing to say about the morality of sexual behaviors. Yes, some denominations have a lot to say on the subject. Those are the hateful, evil, intolerant denominations. Those denominations are filled with child molesters and crypto-Nazis. They care only about what you do with your private parts.

But other denominations think it’s all fine. Since some denominations think it’s okay for a man to sodomize another man, that means that Christianity has no agreed-upon teaching. Some individual churches do, but those are on the fringe. Christianity itself is silent–even supportive–of homosexuality. Or whatever your particular bag may be.

Of course, only an illiterate person who can’t read the Bible would believe this, but that’s okay. I’ve heard that the members of the pro-gay congregations haven’t cracked their Bibles in quite some time. Kudos to them for that. The Bible is hate speech and should be avoided.

And if the LGBTQIA office of UNC-Wilmington wants to further that goal, I’m all for it. Please endorse gay-friendly churches.

The University of North Carolina at Wilmington celebrates perversity. I mean, diversity.

Professor Adams disagrees.

“If I were to stand up and start recommending churches in the classroom, that would be a serious problem.”

Well, yeah. But that’s because he’s a Christian. A Christian who believes the Bible. And those types of Christians should not be endorsing churches in their capacities as state employees. In fact, they shouldn’t be state employees. Or employees anywhere.

Under normal circumstances, I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. In fact, I often insist that it’s a constitutional principle, despite its absence in the constitution. Let’s just say that it’s written in invisible ink, readable only to the wise judges of the Supreme Court. If I had to admit that the separation of church and state was not actually in the constitution, I might then be forced to admit that most of the things progressives believe to be part of the constitution are actually not there at all. For example, there is no right to privacy, no right to safe space, no right to birth control, no right to abortion, no right to a court-appointed defense attorney, no right to marriage, no right to serve in the military, no right not to have my feelings hurt by the mean things that right-wingers say. There are no sexual rights listed in the constitution at all.

And that’s highly problematic for me. So let’s play along for a while and pretend that the separation of church and state is actually there…somewhere in the penumbras.

And it took Justice Hugo Black to find it!  Justice Black was an Old South segregationist appointed to the court by President Franklin Roosevelt. He is perhaps best known for writing the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, in which he upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps. (Justice Black always endorsed the policies of the man who appointed him. He was essentially a rubber stamp for the executive branch.)

Black was a former member of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and a rabid anti-Catholic. He hated Catholics almost as much as I do. He once worked as defense counsel to a KKK member accused of murdering a Catholic priest. The KKK member was acquitted, thank goodness!

Hugo Black. He was a mixed bag. Although he supported segregation and the internment of Japanese-Americans, it appears that he also hated Catholics. And so do I. Without him, the phrase "separation of church and state" might never have entered case law, and we might have to actually refer to the first amendment of the constitution for guidance rather than to a letter written by a guy who wasn't at the constitutional convention. And that would be shitty because I prefer to believe that the separation of church and state exists.

The term “separation of church and state” first became case law when Justice Black cited it in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). The case involved a school district that used its buses to help transport children to Catholic schools. Keep in mind that Black was a Catholic-hater of the first degree, although that certainly had no bearing on his judgment at all. Black interpreted the constitution with an eye toward Thomas Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”. He plucked the phrase “separation of church and state” from Jefferson’s letter, albeit wildly out of context. Which is really odd, because Thomas Jefferson was not the author of the constitution. In fact, he had nothing to do with its text as he was serving as the US Ambassador to France at the time. But I don’t care. I like Black’s conclusion and I don’t care how he came to it.

In the majority opinion, Black wrote:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

For years, the doctrine established in Everson v. Board of Education has been used as a weapon against people of faith, and that’s great. That’s what it’s supposed to used for. But now it appears that it’s being turned around against us. Dr. Adams seems to be suggesting that his university, UNC-Wilmington, is endorsing particular churches just because they’ve issued a list of endorsed churches. And he’s saying that, according to supreme court precedent, the university can’t do that.

That just doesn’t sit right by me. It’s okay for governmental institutions to endorse churches, to prefer one religion over another, to influence a person to go to a certain church, and to spend taxpayer money in support of certain churches, as long as they are churches that I like. If they happen to be churches I don’t like–churches that haven’t abandoned the Bible, for example–then they should be shunned.

So let’s just put it this way. These aren’t normal circumstances. We’re not talking about a state-run university endorsing churches that preach hate. We’re talking about a state-run university that’s endorsing good churches; ie, churches that make gay people feel all warm inside. And so the endorsement of such churches is fine. Perhaps the university can do its part to grow the pro-sodomy churches and to perpetuate the belief that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity. That would be a great service to the community.

In other words, pay Justice Black’s “separation” no mind. That concept has outlived its usefulness now that it can’t be used as a weapon against people I hate.

Michele and Marcus Bachmann are homophobic. I am ex-homophobic.

The gay-hating Bachmann duo is at it again. ABC World News Tonight led off Monday’s broadcast with a piece on Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and her husband Dr. Marcus Bachmann, who appear to be involved in some kind of reparative therapy “pray away the gay” scheme at their counseling and treatment clinic in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Yes, this was the most important news story in the entire world this past Monday. That’s why ABC World News Tonight led off with it. Not a damned thing more important, anywhere in the world.

Marcus and Michele Bachmann, known homophobes. She's the darling of the teabagger movement, he's a shrink who "cures" homosexuality. I'd bet he's a repressed homosexual himself. Perhaps wishful thinking on my part, but there's a good possibility. Anti-gay males tend to be gay males. Sounds stupid, but it's true. Actually, it's just a comeback I heard once in high school and I've repeated it a zillion times ever since.

Here’s what happened: Andrew Ramirez was “sent” to the Bachmann clinic in 2004 after coming out to his parents. The article doesn’t make it clear whether his parents were forcing him, just that he was “sent”. Ramirez describes the gut-wrenching experience:

From the outset, Ramirez says, his therapist—one of roughly twenty employed at the Lake Elmo clinic—made it clear that renouncing his sexual orientation was the only moral choice. “He basically said being gay was not an acceptable lifestyle in God’s eyes,” Ramirez recalls. According to Ramirez, his therapist then set about trying to “cure” him. Among other things, he urged Ramirez to pray and read the Bible, particularly verses that cast homosexuality as an abomination, and referred him to a local church for people who had given up the “gay lifestyle.” He even offered to set Ramirez up with an ex-lesbian mentor.

The horror! They urged him to PRAY and READ THE BIBLE! They also told him that homosexuality is immoral. I’m surprised the poor thing didn’t kill himself. I found myself on the suicide hotline just reading about it.

Okay, so the truth is that ex-gays scare the crap out of me, and that’s why I have to tear them down. If you’ve heard of homophobes, then you can just call me an ex-homophobe. That doesn’t mean that I used to be homophobic and now I’m not. It means that I hate ex-homosexuals. I think they should be shamed into returning to our side of the rainbow. In this sense, we’re kind of like a cult. Once you’re in, you can NEVER leave.

The Bachmann clinic received a visit at a later date from perpetually aggrieved homosexual activist John Becker of the group Truth Wins Out. Becker smuggled a camera into the clinic to record the goings-on, posing as a gay man in search of a cure to his homosexual affliction. Becker describes his experience at Truth Wins Out:

…I was advised to find a heterosexual “accountability buddy” as I struggled to increase my attraction to women and decrease my attraction to men. I was to confide in, pray with, and be held accountable to this person. Bachmann & Associates sells a book written by Twin Cities minister and self-proclaimed “ex-lesbian” Janet Boynes. This book chronicles her supposed journey “out of the lesbian lifestyle.” Next to the stack of books was a prominently-displayed, typewritten note that read, “Janet is a friend. I recommend this book as she speaks to the heart of the matter and gives practical insights of truth to set people free. – Marcus Bachmann, PhD.”

I like Truth Wins Out because they belittle ex-gays and accuse of them of secretly continuing their homosexuality on the down low. They put derisive quotations marks around “ex-gay” and “ex-lesbian”. They do not allow people to define their own sexuality, but rather assign them labels which they do not accept. For example, they refer to author Janet Boynes as “self-proclaimed” “ex-lesbian” Janet Boynes. See, so she’s not really an ex-lesbian. She’s just telling people that. We’ll decide for her whether she’s a lesbian or not. Don’t let her fool you with her self-proclamations. She’s still muff-diving on the side, we’re sure of it. She may tell you that she’s completed a journey out of the “lesbian lifestyle”, but don’t believe it. It’s a “supposed journey”, not a journey.

Boynes has her own website, by the way. And it’s not girl-on-girl porn. Read this crap and tell me if you don’t think she’s batshit crazy:

http://janetboynesministries.com/

Janet Boynes, so-called "ex-lesbian" who will help you understand your sexuality via her supposed "journey" out of lesbianism. And in case you haven't noticed, she's black. One of the churchy blacks. My loyal readers know what I think about them. If they care so much about traditional values, maybe they'd like to be enslaved again. Hmmm? Try that one on for size Bishop Jackson, Star Parker, and Alan Keyes.

Before you go seeking therapy from the Bachmann clinic or similar reparative therapy outlets, be forewarned that a number of ex-gays have relapsed. These failed attempts to change sexual behavior prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is immutable. So don’t even try. Really. Similarly, you shouldn’t try to quit smoking because you’ll probably fail just like everyone else. Without drugs or other types of help, the success rate of any given attempt to quit is about four to seven percent. So most smokers relapse. Diets are even worse. Ninety-five percent of dieters who lose a significant amount of weight will gain it all back and then some within three years. Alcoholics and prescription painkiller addicts have an even lower success rates. Change is hopeless. You are who you are.

Some people are just hard headed in this regard. Just the other day, an old friend called me from San Francisco, telling me that he was finally planning on getting clean. He was going to quit drinking, popping pills, and smoking cigarettes. And I advised him to stop wasting his time because the chances of his success are much, much lower than the chances that he’ll be able to give up butt sex. Because some have failed in the past, NO ONE should try. He took my advice and decided to continue killing himself with drugs and sodomy.

This whole concept of “curing” gays is pseudo-scientific at its root. If you want sound science, stick with us homos and our fleeting “gay gene”. Look, homosexuality is genetic in nature. You’re either born that way or you aren’t. Scientists have been searching for this gay gene since before I was born but they haven’t found it yet. So what? I take it on faith and so should you. Just believe the theory and let the scientists find the supporting evidence in the meantime. This could take years, so be patient and bear with us. Let’s put it this way–we’ll find that gene before your silly “Messiah” comes back.

That’s how science works, right guys? Come up with the theory first and search for the evidence later? That’s how I learned the scientific method when I was in school. Either you agree with me or you hate science. It’s that simple. Don’t let me find out that any of you are science haters!

Homosexuality MUST be an inborn trait. It’s the cornerstone of my belief system and I cannot accept any idea that contradicts it. It is my dogma, my unshakeable belief. Otherwise I would have to accept that I am in control of my own penis, which sounds like personal responsibility. There’s nothing I hate more than personal responsibility.

So let’s get one thing straight. (Woops, did I say straight?) I do not choose who I sleep with. Sexual intercourse is not a volitional act. My penis has a mind of its own. I do not control it, it controls me. Just the other day I woke up next to a drag queen named Wilma Ballsdrop in a seedy motel room near the beach. I have no idea how I got there or who put those cigarette burns on my doughy asscheeks. I don’t even know if I enjoyed it.  As I was leaving, I noticed this mysterious photo of me and the drag queen stored in my cell phone:

I really don't know where this picture was taken but it looks like we were having a great time together. I know who the person on the right is. That's me. The tranny on the left is a mystery. I just know s/he goes by the name Wilma Ballsdrop. That whole night is a blur. May our paths cross again.

So please don’t tell me that I “choose” to be gay. We know that no one chooses to be gay. To say that a person chooses homosexuality is like saying that a person chooses to be shunned, hated, and rejected by society. That’s right, despite the overwhelming support of corporate America, the news media, the entertainment industry, the public schools, academia, some of the churches, the federal government, the state governments, the cultural elite and the fabulously rich, I am still trying to peddle the ridiculous canard that society stigmatizes homosexuality. Even though all of the aforementioned institutions are engaged in a full court press in support of our advocacy efforts, I’m still going to be a little bitch and tell everyone how oppressed I am as a gay man.

Just the other day, a guy was fired from Cisco Systems for writing a book in support of marriage equality! Oh wait, that didn’t happen.

Someone ought to pass the message along to Congresswoman and Dr. Bachmann: You cannot pray away the gay! God put those instincts in me because he wants me to act on them. If it says otherwise in that silly book of yours, then just do what my LGBTQXYZ  friends do and cross it out with a black marker. God wants his children to be happy and butt sex makes me very happy. Because sexual instincts are inborn, acting upon them becomes a right and even a duty. God wants all of us to do whatever our wee-wees and vajayjays tell us to do. Otherwise he wouldn’t have put the urge there in the first place. (For more on that, see previous post “Straight People Are Pretty Gross, but I Won’t Judge…”:  https://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/straight-people-are-pretty-gross-but-i-wont-judge/ )

If other people have found that butt sex doesn’t make them happy, and voluntarily choose to seek help, they should be denied. I mean, normally I think the consenting adults should be allowed to do what they wish, at least as far as bedroom behavior goes. But if a consenting gay adult seeks help from a consenting therapist adult, I think it’s time for me to shove my nose into their business. If the consenting gay adult asks for help in resisting his gay urges, then someone has to take action to stop the consenting therapist adult from giving the homosexual the guidance he’s asked for. Especially if it involves prayer, which is something that gives me the heebeejeebies. Consensual or non-consensual, this type of “therapy” should not be allowed even if both parties agree to it.

I’m really worried that this therapy might prove to be successful, thus shaking the pillar of my homosexual faith–the myth of inborn homosexuality. And it might also cut down on the number of guys I can sleep with. The survival of the gay race–ha! ha!–depends on squelching this kind of therapy before it goes mainstream. 

Also, I think it’s about time we destroyed the bitch from Minnesota before she gets anywhere near the White House. Kudos to ABC News for getting the ball rolling on that.

If only I loved poor children as much as I hate Christians…

I take pleasure in announcing another great victory for the movement towards full equality. We are now depriving third world children of shoes!

Recently, entrepreneur and TOMS shoes founder Blake Mycoskie appeared at a speaking engagement sponsored by the anti-gay, anti-choice, “Focus on the Family”. I’m pretty sure these people don’t believe in dinosaurs, actually. Focus on the Family is so evil that they must not be allowed to do good. In fact, if they try, we should prevent them from doing good.

Focus on the Family flyer advertising its "Feet on the Ground" event with Blake Mycoskie. Very incriminating. This flyer is very hateful. It appears that Focus on the Family is conspiring with a shoe manufacturer to...distribute shoes to poor people! This is the smoking gun.

Here’s all you need to know about Focus on the Family. They oppose gay marriage, just like half of the country. They oppose abortion, just like a slim majority of the country. They don’t believe in evolution just like 61% of Americans.  And they’re VERY much on the fringe. They’re not hip, they’re square. They’re basically the mothership of the Christofascist movement. Focus on the Family also sponsors an annual “Day of Dialogue” in which they encourage students to talk about “God’s plan” for sexuality. The day is scheduled to coincide annually with the pro-gay National Day of Silence. Personally, I don’t really care about “God’s plan” for my dick. I care about my plan. In any case, the National Day of Silence is a time for people to shut up. The name of the day is very clear. They want dialogue and we want SILENCE!

When word got out that Mycoskie was associating with the likes of Focus on the Family, the shit hit the fan. The feminists went berserk, and so did the sodomites. The gay blogosphere was abuzz with vitriol for TOMS. I immediately ran to my shoe closet to see if I owned a pair. After searching through the seventy pairs of shoes I own, I found that in fact, I DO own some of TOMS shoes. They’re pink and they have sequins on them. I ran to the deck and hurled them out into the ocean just to show my disgust for Mr. Mycoskie and his company.

Blake Mycoskie, founder of TOMS shoes and known accomplice of the Focus on the Family hate group. He stepped off the reservation for just a second, but we brought him back into line. Here he is distributing shoes to some impoverished kid in the third world, which he does quite a bit. Just one question: Is the handsome young gentleman single?

Ms. Magazine immediately started an online petition asking TOMS shoes to drop any relationship with Focus on the Family. LGBTQXYZ people and their allies alerted each other via facebook and twitter to get over there and sign the petition. It didn’t take more than a few minutes before the handsome man got back on the right side of things. Let’s face it, we homos have POWER! We just have to pretend that we don’t so that we can continue to perpetuate the myth that we’re poor, downtrodden victims, abused by society. We’re nothing of the sort.

Irene Carmon of Jezebel.com explains her thinking in regards to TOMS shoes and Focus on the Family:

“There’s nothing inherently political about distributing shoes to African children, of course. In theory, it’s a good thing for Focus to spend less time trying to police sex and more actually helping people, but they’ve not really cut back on the former. And Focus On The Family isn’t the only group TOMS could have turned to for collaboration, nor is it the only Christian group involved in charitable missions. It carries significant cultural and political baggage, for good reason. TOMS is at major risk of alienating a constituency that has enthusiastically adopted their product, including yours truly.”

I couldn’t agree more. For years, I’ve said that “Christian” groups like Focus on the Family should spend more of their time and effort trying to feed and clothe the poor and less of their time worrying about sodomy and baby-killing. When I phrase it that way, it sounds like a zero sum game, as if they can’t do both. Every time you say that homosexuality is wrong, another child dies in a third world village. It’s just one of many schemes I’ve come up with to shut people up. It makes them feel like a “bad Christian” for opposing my agenda, and that’s what I want them to believe.

The truth is that the Christian groups that I hate so much DO perform lots of acts of charity to the poor. That really pisses me off. So when they actually take my advice and do what I think they should be doing, I get pretty upset about that too. I’d rather the kids not have shoes if hateful, hate-mongering haters are going to have anything to do with it.  

Mr. Mycoksie quickly distanced himself from the far-right hate group with an official apology:

Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family’s beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event. It was an oversight on my part and the company’s part and one we regret…Furthermore, contrary to what has been reported, Focus on the Family is not a TOMS giving partner. So there is no misunderstanding created by this mistake, let me clearly state that both TOMS, and I as the founder, are passionate believers in equal human and civil rights for all. That belief is a core value of the company and of which we are most proud.

Nice apology, I suppose. I went down to the waterfront after I read that to see if I could fish my pink shoes out of the ocean, but it appears they are gone. I’ll check again at low-tide.

TOMS Shoes is a big fan of helping poor children. I'm just glad they don't allow their love for children to overshadow their hate for Christians who actually believe the Bible. It's more important that we shun and punish those we disagree with than to acheive humanitarian goals.

Mycoskie stressed that Focus on the Family will NOT be part of the “One-for-One” program that gives shoes to children in the third world.  For each pair of shoes you buy, TOMS donates one pair to needy children. Mycoskie learned the value of shoes during his trips to Argentina, where he sometimes encountered people who had none. TOMS explains on its website why shoes are so important:

1. Many children in developing countries grow up barefoot. Whether at play, doing chores or going to school, these children are at risk:

2. A leading cause of disease in developing countries is soil-transmitted diseases, which can penetrate the skin through bare feet. Wearing shoes can help prevent these diseases, and the long-term physical and cognitive harm they cause.

3. Wearing shoes also prevents feet from getting cuts and sores. Not only are these injuries painful, they also are dangerous when wounds become infected.

4. Many times children can’t attend school barefoot because shoes are a required part of their uniform. If they don’t have shoes, they don’t go to school. If they don’t receive an education, they don’t have the opportunity to realize their potential.

TOMS also partners with other organizations in order to further its mission. From a video on their website:

“We partner with humanitarian and health organizations around the world. They can help us give shoes year after year, providing shoes to the same children as they grow.

But they won’t partner with Focus on the Family and I’m glad for that. If that means that thousands of kids will have to go barefoot and get communicable diseases and other icky stuff like that, then I suppose that’s the way the cookie crumbles. If that means that they can’t go to school and get an education, I’m fine with that too. If their little feet get cut up and infected, that’s just too damned bad. I’d hate to think that somewhere in Somalia or Myanmar there’s some kid walking around with a pair of shoes on his feet that were paid for by a homophobic American pastor. So it’s better this way. A lot better.  

 
Thanks to all of you who signed the petition. TOMS shoes really heard us loud and clear!  As I’ve said before, we have corporate America in our pocket. We say ‘jump’, and they say ‘how high?’ Just remember–eternal vigilance is the price of guilt-free sodomy!

Tag Cloud