Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘Christofascists’

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

Ron Paul arguably more homophobic than fellow GOP bigots…if that’s possible.

I for one am glad that the Iowa Caucuses are over. The whole thing kind of reminded me of Halloween in January with all of the lunatics and crazies out. All of the back-slapping and sucking up to Ethanol farmers is over and now we can move on to other states and eventually to President Obama’s inevitable victory.

The results were disheartening but not surprising. It appears the God’s Own Party (the GOP, get it?) is as flagrantly anti-gay as ever. On top, we had Mitt Romney of the magic underwear cult who tried to block gay people’s happy day when he was governor of the Gay State. He’s such a judegmental, judging hatemonger bigot just like all Mormons. For more on that particular church see my anti-Mormon hate site on the right, “Stop the Mormons”. Then there was Michele “Pray Away the Gay” Bachmann who finished dismally, thank goodness. Her husband’s obviously a repressed homosexual; did you know that? Toward the bottom of the heap was Rick “I’m Not Ashamed to be a Christian” Perry. If he’s going to be a Christian, can’t he at least have the decency to be ashamed? Rick “Man-Dog Sex” Santorum was the surprise of the night, proving that you can still be a contender in the Republican Party and hold Roman Catholic beliefs, something that I think our Constitution prohibits.

I was really supporting the Texan Ron Paul until I found out that he doesn’t think that government should be in the marriage business. That really upset me. If I can’t get the government to recognize my marriage, that means I can’t force others to recognize it under penalty of law. I like to tell people that I just want the government out of my life, out of my bedroom, and out of my relationships. But that’s just another one of those lies that keeps dribbling out of my mouth like Michael’s spooge on a Saturday night. If that’s all I wanted,  I already had that before marriage equality came to my state. In fact, homos can have that in every state, even Mississippi. Nope, we want the government more involved in our personal lives, not less.  We want our relationships to be formalized and contractual. So when we say that we just want the government out of our lives, we actually mean exactly the opposite.

With Ron Paul, we wouldn’t be able to do that. No one would be forced to recognize my marriage, which defeats the purpose.

You can imagine how disappointed I was to learn that Ron Paul is in fact no different than the others. He likes to tell people that he’s a “defender of the Constitution” but then he turns around and denies the separation of church and state. Everyone knows that those words in the Constitution–right there in the first amendement. Well, I can’t find them, but I’m sure they’re there. If you don’t believe that, you’re probably a member of the Christian Taliban. Here’s what Paul actually said about the separation of church and state:

“In case after case, the supreme Court has used the infamous ‘separation of church and state’ metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. “

That’s the PURPOSE of the first amendment, you dolt! It isn’t to defend people of faith from the government. It’s to defend me from people of faith. They’re scary and the government needs to restrain them. The Constitution guarantees my right to never see or hear anything that might involve God, and it mandates the religious loons check their values outside the voting booth or else forfeit their right to vote.

Yeah, next thing we know he’s going to want to stone people for adultery. He continues:

“This ‘separation’ doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.”

Jefferson was a deist. That’s what I heard anyway. And even though he wasn’t involved in the drafting of the Constitution because he was the ambassador to France at the time, I’ll look to his words, taken out of context, for guidance. Only because he said what I want to hear. After all, he’s the expert. Jefferson’s words trump the actual text of the Constitution.

Paul doesn’t have such a great track record with teh gheys. He even opposed Lawrence v. Texas on the grounds that the Constitution doesn’t actually guarantee a right to sodomy! Can you believe that? I did a quick google search and determined that the word “sodomy” appears nowhere in the Constitution, much less a right thereto. But in 2003, a bunch of justices said that it did. And I agree with them because I like sodomy. I’m sure it’s emanating somewhere in the penumbras.

Batty ol’ Ron Paul disagrees. As he wrote in an essay found at Lewrockwell.com :

“Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

I get it. He wants the federal government out of our bedrooms. But the fifty state governments are still okay.

Ron Paul: He's a rock star to the youth voters. To me, he's just another Republican BIGOT.

It’s almost as if he’s saying that there are no sexual rights in the Constitution, and thus the issues are for the states to decide. But I’d like it much better if there were sexual rights in the Constitution. And because I want them there, that means that I support any judge who imagines them to be there and rules accordingly. It’s so much easier to just have a judge strike down all of the laws I don’t like than it would be to do the hard work of changing minds and laws in all fifty states. Less messy, too.

It doesn’t matter at all to me whether there’s a “right to privacy” in the Constitution. Those words aren’t there, but neither are “right to sodomy” or “separation of church and state”. If we were to go down that road of only accepting words contained in the Constitution as legitimately constitutional, we’d be in a world of trouble. I prefer a living, breathing document–it says what I want it to say.

Ron Paul even advocates the bizarre theory that homosexuals get AIDS from their sexual behaviors. That’s not true. We get AIDS from Ronald Reagan and the Catholic Church. Everyone knows that. As he wrote in his January 1990 newsletter:

‘The ACT-UP slogan on stickers plastered all over Manhattan is ‘Silence=Death.’ But shouldn’t it be Sodomy = Death’?

That is just ABSURD! He’s  insinuating that the best way to avoid getting AIDS is to stop taking it up the ass! That’s just irresponsible, especially coming from a medical doctor. He’s blaming the victim. It’s like telling someone that the best way to avoid lung cancer is to quit smoking, or the best way to avoid obesity is to watch their diet. Actions do not have consequences and I loathe people who tell me that they do. Science is very clear on this: there is no known connection between butt sex and AIDS. They are two completely unrelated concepts. He needs to go back to med school.

His newsletters are a treasure trove of homophobic delusions. Oh, here’s another one from September 1994. Watch out for malicious gays!

“those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”

Hey, I do know a few malicious gays who do stuff like that, but only to other willing partners. Fully knowledeable that they are HIV positive, they head on down to the bathhouse and engage in group sex with lots of other guys. Bu those other guys being infected already fall under the first category: those who commit sodomy. Not that sodomy has anything to do with AIDS.

The supposedly libertarian congressman also wants to keeps us queers from eating in restaurants. Well, not queers, but AIDS patients. He bases this on the “fact” that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”. That’s a lie. AIDS cannot be transmitted by saliva. Or sodomy, for that matter. AIDS is transmitted by lack of federal funding for research and by homophobia.

Oh, what a disappointment he turned out to be. I thought he was the face of a new, sodomy-friendly GOP. And it turns out that he’s the worst of the bunch! If it were between him and Santorum, and I absolutely had to choose one or the other, I think I might have to choose ol’ Man-Dog sex. At least he looks handsome in a sweater vest. (Okay, so I fantasize about him, just like Dan Savage does). Ron Paul just looks like a wrinkled old prune.

I took this picture of Ron Paul two winters ago while he was chopping ice. I was trying to catch a glimpse of his cock, but it was kind of shriveled in the cold water.

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!

Florida school district hates the Boy Scouts. And so do we!

The never-ending war against the Boy Scouts of America continues in Pinellas County Florida. The local school board has voted to cut funds to a Scout-affiliated program called Learning for Life due to its policy of excluding agnostics, atheists, and members of the LGBTQXYZ community. The organization will now miss out on a grant worth $54,000.

The organization’s mission statement is as follows:

“To develop and deliver engaging, research based academic, character, leadership and career focused programs aligned to state and national standards that guide and enable all students to achieve their full potential.”

Yeah, and to teach the little tykes to be judging, judgmental homophobes!

I say good riddance to the Boy Scouts. Get lost and don’t come back. We’ve had enough of your “values”, your helping little old ladies across the street and such. We’re on to you. We know that when you say “values” you really mean driving homosexuals to kill themselves!

The Boy Scouts of America--Ku Klux Klan in neckerchiefs.

Seriously though, if I threatened to kill myself do you think the government would force them to allow me to join? Because I would really be interested in taking some young boys camping. Threatening to kill myself usually works, but this time it might not. You see, back in 2000, there was this supreme court decision called Dale v. Boy Scouts that actually said that private organizations can maintain their own membership requirements because they are private! Can you believe that? I thought “private” meant that the government decided their membership requirements. That’s what private means to me. And because I’m so used to the government forcing people to accept my behavior, I was shocked–shocked!–to find out that this private organization had the right to free association.

Since the Dale decision, we homosexuals have teamed up with the godless community (and there’s a A LOT of overlapping there) to engage in a war of attrition against the BSA. We failed in our attempt to force them to accept us as members, so now we’re going to have harass them on every front, push them out of their long held meeting places, and cut their funding until they cry uncle and let homosexuals like me take their sons out on camping trips.

So what is their rationale for excluding sodomites? Apparently we’re “unclean”.

“Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed.”

Huh? So their lame ass excuse for keeping us out is that we’re “icky”! Nothing icky about two men buttfucking. And as far as morally straight, well…I don’t have a straight bone in  my body.

But seriously, what’s unclean about sodomy? Let’s ask radical gay bully and all around pervert Dan Savage. He knows. He coined the term “Santorum”, defined as:

Feces, jizz, and KY jelly. What’s unclean about that?

Just to underscore the point that sodomy is definitely NOT an unclean practice, let’s refer to that taxpayer funded youth-oriented pamphlet that I distribute out of my office at the high school. Let’s see, besides fuckin’, suckin’, piss play, and “lickin’ butt”, there’s also a section on toys.

“There is some risk of hepatitis, herpes, warts, and parasites.”

PARASITES? So I could get little critters crawling around among my dingleberries? Geez, that does sound a little gross. But it’s definitely not unclean as the bigoted Boy Scouts will tell you.

Oh yes, and the pamphlet also warns that the risk of intestinal parasites is very high when “rimming” (lickin’ butt). But all of that can be avoided if we just teach the little tenderfeet to do all of these things safely! Rather than discouraging such behaviors, scoutmasters should be offering instruction on how to properly clean toys between one boy’s anus and the other. That way they would be able to do it safely and it wouldn’t be at all unclean.

But no! These uptight prudes think the best solution is simply to teach their sons not to do these things. Which is just dumb. I want to get into this club so I can teach them my way of doing things.

Luckily, we have the Democratic Party in our corner on this one. They hate the Boy Scouts just as much as we do. Who can forget when delegates at the 2000 DNC National Convention in Los Angeles actually booed the Boy Scouts while they were presenting the colors?

That was truly the highlight of the convention, even better than watching Al and Tipper make out. Now, at first I was a little confused. As I was watching the whole thing unfold, I thought to myself, “Are they booing the Christofascist scouts or are they booing the colors?” I’d be in favor of booing both, actually. But then I watched as the delegates quickly drew up makeshift signs that read “we support gay scouts”, and my heart swelled with pride. So they were booing the children. That was very sweet of them.

Interesting side note: the little scouts actually got their revenge on the Democrats. At the 2010 National Jamboree, the scouts booed President Obama. Ouch! I guess they can boo back. If I had been president, I would have called in drones on the whole encampment of little terrorists. Too bad he didn’t.

The Boy Scouts of America, a dangerous hate group. They're not yet on the SPLC's list of hate groups, though I trust they will be soon. Somebody's got to stop them.

I recently learned of the existence of a wonderful group called “Scouting for All” that works to pressure the BSA to repeal its ban on pole-smokers and the godless. Scouting for All holds “tolerance” and “diversity” as its highest ideals. Just in case you were wondering if those two words are codewords for homos infiltrating kiddie organizations, now you know that they are.

I hold the highest respect for one of Scouting for All’s leaders, a certain defrocked priest named John Hemstreet. He’s a gay man, a convicted child molester, an alcoholic, and the president of his local chapters of Scouting for All and PFLAG.

Wait–did I say that he’s a gay man and a child molester? That’s not possible. Because child molesters are not really attracted to their victims, they just rape them for the sense of power it provides. That’s the pat answer I’ve been given anyway. Child molesters are not gays and gays are not child molesters. The definition of one precludes the other. Because if you consider the fact that nearly all of the child predatory aspects of scouting are male-on-male, you’d have to assume that these people are in fact homosexuals, or at least bisexuals. But no, I prefer to believe that men who rape little boys don’t have a homosexual bone in their bodies. In fact, they don’t even get off on it. Again, as I mentioned before, there is no sexual attraction  involved. It’s merely a sense of power. Kind of odd though how child molesters seem to have a preference for one sex or the other. Even odder that a convicted child molester would be the president of his local chapter of an influential gay rights group (PFLAG).

As I mentioned before, John Hemstreet was a Catholic priest but then he got caught boinking the altar boys and he had to leave the priesthood. Normally, I would get all upset about that. I don’t really hate child molesting Catholic priests because they’re child molesters. I hate them because they’re Catholic priests. But this particular child molesting Catholic priest redeemed himself by leaving that awful church and spearheading two gay rights groups in his area. Which is kind of odd, considering the fact that he’s not gay, he’s a child molester. And it’s literally impossible for a person to be both. Weird.

Scouting for All knot. It interweaves the purple and white of the international scouting movement with the rainbow colors of the pro-sodomy movement.

Hemstreet led a protest outside the offices of the BSA’s Erie Shores Council in May of 2000. He says that he’s great scoutmaster material and the BSA should quit being H8-ful H8ers and just let him be a scoutmaster again, despite the fact that he’s already been to jail for raping little boys.

And really, why should that exclude him from being a scout leader? Hemstreet explains:

“The thing that I did seven years ago is a horrendous thing. I’m not denying that. Nor am I denying that I did it. I was arrested. I was arraigned. I did go to court. I served my time and I am off on probation.”

Furthermore, it wasn’t even scouts that Hemstreet was convicted of raping. It was altar boys. Big difference.

“The crime that I committed was committed after I, kind of, retired from the active priesthood. It was not related to scouting at all–I was drunker than a skunk.”

See? So it was the booze, not his pervy desires that drove him to bang children. And besides, the boys weren’t even associated with the scouts. It was completely compartmentalized. Even though he might force a child to pleasure him in the sacristy after mass, he would never–and I mean NEVER–force a child to pleasure him in his tent on a camporee.

“At the time I was mainly in denial, and I certainly wasn’t coming out.”

Wait, wait, wait. Did he say “coming out”? You mean like coming out as a homosexual? Damn it, will someone tell this guy to get back on script? He’s NOT GAY! He’s a child molester. And child molesters are not gay. He’s not really attracted to the male of the species, he just likes the feeling of power he gets when dominating boys. Because if we had to admit that men who molest boys are in fact homosexual–a fact that appears glaringly obvious to anyone who hasn’t been inundated with homosexual propaganda–we might have to admit that homosexual men are responsible for an alarmingly disproportionate amount of child molesting.

Hemstreet explained that his interest in scouting flows from an honest desire to “give back” to the community. He has hurt little boys in the past so now he wants to join the Boy Scouts to do some penance. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t believe an explanation like that coming out of the mouth of a convicted child molester. I believe him. Sure, he’s raped little boys before–not boy scouts, but other types of little boys. Sure he did time in prison. But now he’s out and he wants to repay his debt to society by…taking little boys camping! Nothing suspicious about that. He just likes kids and wants to do something to help them.

Sadly, the Scouts continue their evil discrimination. It takes a better organization full of kind and accepting people to extend membership to a guy like Hemstreet. Two organizations I can think of–Scouting for All and PFLAG– seem to have no problem whatsoever with allowing Hemstreet as a member. Heck, they have no problem with allowing him to serve in a leadership role. Now that’s what I call tolerance. The Boy Scouts could learn a thing or two from these two fine organizations.

This day in LGBTQXYZ History: October 7, 1998

The date October 7th may represent one of the most solemn days on the entire calender for members of the LGBTQXYZ community. It was on this date that two thugs robbed and murdered Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, in Laramie Wyoming.

Matthew Shepard 1976-1998. They killed him because he was GAY!

Poor kid was murdered because he was gay. That was how the media reported it anyway. And the media never get the story wrong. Luckily for us, we have about 99% of the media in our pocket so they basically write what we tell them to.

I remember when I first heard about the story, I thought it sounded like a piece of gay propaganda. Which would be awesome. I mean, we couldn’t have written a better morality play if we had tried. All this story needed was a few Mormon missionaries cast as the bad guys!  It was all just too good to be true: nice looking gay kid, beaten by a bunch of rednecks in Wyoming, of all places. And they killed him for no other reason than because he was different. I smell an ABC After School Special!

You know what we need? Some hate crimes laws. I mean, murder is already illegal. And Wyoming has the death penalty, which these two would have received if they hadn’t pleaded guilty. The punishment for murder is pretty darned stiff.

But we need a special law that makes murdering a gay kid worse than murdering other people. The penalty won’t be any more severe, since it’s pretty much impossible to impose a sentence worse than death. But at least people will know that the perp is being punished for killing a homo.

And killing a homo is worse than killing a deep sea fisherman, fly fisherman, libertarian, Rotarian, valedictorian, professional athlete, amateur magician, Tae Kwon Do champion, Democrat, Republican, Freemason, swinger, or saxophone player.

We need special protection. Cause we’re special, that’s why.

Now, don’t go getting all smart ass with me and insist that we homosexuals want to punish thought crimes. It’s not the thought that we’re punishing, at least not yet. It’s the deed. Well, the deed is already illegal so I can’t really explain why else we need another law. Okay, we want to punish the deed plus the thought behind it. If that weren’t the case then we would be happy with the law as it stands now, which says that it’s illegal to murder anyone except an unborn child. It’s already illegal to murder gay college students, straight college students, high school drop-outs, and just about anybody else.

So let’s face it–we are trying to punish thought. We’re trying to outlaw hate– a human emotion that has always existed and will always exist. But we think we can ban it from existence by passing a law. We’ll call it Matthew Shepard’s law. And then there won’t be any more hate in the world because anyone who has that emotion will be in jail.

It won’t take long before we’re obfuscating the entire equation. At the moment we’re fighting for something that resembles this: HATE + ACTUAL CRIME = HATE CRIME. Again, I can’t explain why we need this law when the actual crime is already illegal other than to say it would make me feel a lot better. But the first equation is just to get people used to the idea of hate being something criminal in and of itself. When we’re done with what we really want to accomplish, it will look more like this HATE = HATE CRIME.

This is where Matthew Shepard perished, pistol whipped to death.

And if you don’t believe me, look at Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals that now punish people for comments made in books, or laws in Europe about “inciting hatred”. That’s the endpoint. We’ll just lie every step of the way, insisting that we don’t want to reach the point that our trajectory so clearly leads us to.

If anybody asks, just tell them that Canadian/European style fascism can’t happen here because we have a first amendment. Not that the first amendment has ever stopped us before, but it gives the rest of America a false sense of security that we respect their rights.

Which we don’t!

ABC News revisited the Matthew Shepard murder in 2004, much to the chagrin of cock-gobbling activists like me. They basically reported that the original narrative–the one that we liked so much because it was just too good to be true–was in fact, too good to be true. The After School Special version of events was actually bullshit.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=277685

ABC News took a lot of heat from gay activists about this. They’re LYING!!! We know they’re lying because…we don’t want to hear what they’re saying. Basically, we slipped into emotional fits of rage because the kid wasn’t actually killed for being gay. Which is something you’d think we’d want to hear. I mean, isn’t that good news? Don’t we all sleep a little safer knowing that the kid wasn’t victimized for being a homosexual?

The answer is no. Because we need the Matthew Shepard story to buttress our claim to victimhood. We liked the first version of the story much better.

Okay, so Matthew Shepard’s murder had nothing to do with his sexual activities and everything to do with the fact that he was mixed up with drugs.  Shepard was well-known in the local college party scene, which was closely intertwined with the local methamphetamine scene that both Shepard and his murderers were involved in. Tina LaBrie, a friend of Matthew’s, commented:

“He said ‘Everywhere I move, it seems like I get sucked into the drug scene,'”

Shepard was at the Fireside Lounge the night his killers–Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson–walked through the door. McKinney hadn’t slept for a week, having been on a serious meth binge. A few days prior he had traded a gram of meth for a pistol. It was his intention to use the pistol to rob a drug dealer of methamphetamines but instead used it to beat the shit out of Shepard.

The Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming. This is where McKinney and Henderson met their victim. They later lured him away from this bar, robbed and murdered him.

When he saw Shepard, McKinney thought he’d found a good target to rob. Which is kind of a disappointment for me, because I was still hoping that McKinney had killed the kid for being a homo. I liked that version of the story better because then I get to share in the victimhood. Which is what I want.

So why did they tell the court originally that they had killed Shepard because of Shepard’s gay advances? I know this is going to sound hard to believe, but they were hoping to get off easier. McKinney had been sexually abused as a child by an adult man (who was definitely NOT gay!), and he believed that he would get some sympathy from the court if he claimed that he had killed Shepard because of his homosexual advances. The court refused to even hear the defense, much less let them off with a lesser punishment because of it. Oops.

When Shepard told McKinney and Henderson that he was too drunk to drive home, the two offered him a ride. They were, of course, intending to rob him. On the way home, Shepard placed a hand on McKinney’s leg and McKinney responded by pistol whipping him.

“I was getting ready to pull it on him anyway.”

After driving him out onto a country road, McKinney proceeded to rob him of his wallet, coat, and shoes before smashing Shepard’s face in with the pistol. Then the two left the victim to die.

The two men then drove to Shepard’s apartment, hoping to burglarize it. They encountered another group of men in the parking lot where they had a violent altercation and were arrested by police who discovered the bloody pistol from the first crime in the truck.

Obviously, robbery wasn’t the motive here. I mean, it can’t be. Let’s see–a bunch of meth heads rob another meth head for meth money. They take his wallet, his coat, and his shoes. Then they head to his apartment to burglarize the apartment too. We know they went there because that’s where they were arrested. But obviously, they killed him because he was gay. Not because they were whacked out on drugs and wanted more. That’s such a ridiculous theory.

The killers stand trial. These two are going to spend the rest of their lives in jail, but that doesn't sit right by me. I want them to spend the rest of their lives in jail because they killed a gay kid, not because they killed a kid who looked like he might have some money in his wallet. Even though the evidence doesn't support the idea that he was killed for being gay.

And now we’re stuck with the ultimate irony of hate crimes legislation. The slaying of Matthew Shepard was indeed brutal. It was a vicious act of barbaric violence. But was it less heinous because it was motivated by money? Was the same murder any less atrocious because the killer was a meth-head out of his  mind and desperate for money to buy his next fix?

Well, yes. Because if Matthew was killed for being a homo, then…that’s worse. Than killing him for money. I can’t say why. I blame Christians though.

Yeah. I mean, obviously these two learned this type of behavior in church. Neither of them is religious, and Shepard wasn’t really killed for being a pickle smoocher. He was killed because one of the guys wanted money for meth. But I think we can lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of Evangelicals and pretty much anyone who’s ever opposed us.

And that’s what this is really about. We steam roll our opposition whenever we insinuate–or declare explicitly–that anyone who has ever said anything negative about homosexuality is in fact partially to blame for the murder of Shepard. If you think that homosexuality is contrary to the laws of God, well you’re a killer too.  Your religious fanaticism created the environment for this kind of hate. You’re just like Henderson and McKinney.

Okay, so you’re nothing like Henderson and McKinney. Neither of them were church boys. If they had been church boys they probably wouldn’t have been in a bar looking for a drug dealer to roll for his dope.

In fact, McKinney was was partial to sodomy too. McKinney’s long time friend, Tom O’Connor, claims to have had a three way with McKinney and his girlfriend, both of whom happened to live on O’Connor’s property. Says O’Connor:

“I know he’s bisexual. There ain’t no doubt in my mind. He is bisexual.”

Well geez. That kind of changes things. The version of the story I liked better went something like this: two raging homophobes, bathed in hatred after years of going to church in backwoods America, kill poor gay college student who basically angelic. That’s really what I prefer to believe.

I don’t like what actually happened: two meth heads hit the town looking for a drug dealer to rob. They stumble upon Matthew Shepard, who is in fact a meth head himself. One bisexual meth head kills a gay meth head and takes his wallet only to discover that it contains a measly thirty bucks. So they drive to the dead meth head’s apartment, planning to burglarize the place, then get arrested.

Damn. That story doesn’t give us much of a martyr. And that’s what we need–a martyr. So that we can silence all opposition. Jason Marsden of the Casper Star-Tribune commented:

“I remember one of my fellow reporters saying, ‘this kid is going to be the new poster child for gay rights.”

Well, yeah. And we need one. Because Matthew’s death went a long way in shutting people up. We made people who opposed us feel guilty for his death, despite the fact that it was actually motivated by drugs, and even if it hadn’t been, the blame would still have fallen on the heads of those who actually committed the crime, not every person who finds buttfucking immoral.

But we want every person who finds buttfucking immoral to share in the blame. So we invented this little fairy tale and it upsets us whenever it’s contradicted.

Enemy of the state suspended in Fort Worth

Thought crimes abound at Western Hills High School in Fort Worth, Texas. The school recently gave an in-house suspension to fourteen year old Dakota Ary, an honors student, varsity athlete, and Christian, for commenting to another student in class that “being a homosexual is wrong”.

Western Hills High School. Remember to check your rights at the door!

Dakota’s teacher immediately rebuked the young homophobe, losing his temper and yelling, then sent him to the office where he was given a two day in-house suspension. Tell me, has the school been to lenient? I mean, how about we waterboard him until he tells us about the rest of his homophobe network?

Predictably, the right wing has gone ballistic, claiming that the kids’ “first amendment” rights were violated. When are these people going to learn that the first amendment does not protect speech that hurts my feelings?

Now, don’t get me wrong. Whenever statist thugs use the force of law to censor Christians in other countries, I always tell those right-wingers to calm down because that can’t happen here. We have a first amendment. For example, when Ake Green was arrested out of his pulpit in Sweden for preaching against homosexuality, I told conservatives to cut it out with the alarmism because we have a first amendment and that can’t happen here. When an LGBTQXYZ police officer in England arrested street preacher Dale McAlpline for for reading from his Bible that homosexuality is a sin, I told these nutty conservatives to take a chill pill because that can’t happen in America.

But then when it actually does happen in America, I applaud it. I will argue that such comments aren’t really protected by the first amendment because…well, because I say so. That’s why.

The first amendment is very clear on this subject. Let me quote it:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (except when protecting the feelings of homosexuals who need constant affirmation or else they tend to kill themselves), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Come to think of it, this is just like using the N-word. Yes, when Dakota turned around and mentioned to another student that he thinks that homosexuality is wrong, that’s the same as chasing a black kid down the hall and yelling racial epithets at him.

Dakota Ary, public enemy and threat to public safety. His existence makes me want to kill myself. And if I kill myself, it will be Dakota's fault, as well as the fault of his school for not restricting his free speech.

See if you can follow my logic here. It’s a little bit circuitous, I know. I read it in my official gay talking points memo I got from Kevin Jennings. Sodomy is basically equivalent to having black skin. You’re just going to have to take my word for that, okay? I don’t know how a person’s sexual behaviors somehow equate to race and I can’t even prove that the desires to commit such behaviors are inborn–not that it would matter if they were–but skin color and buttfucking are basically the same thing. And then, a mildly phrased opinion about such behavior is the same as inflammatory racial name-calling.

In the end, when I compare the Dakota’s opinion about my sex life to racism, what I’m really saying is that we’ve already surrendered out rights to speak freely on matters of race. And I want the same gag rule extended to negative opinions of homosexuality as well.

Okay, so the truth is that I just don’t think that Christians have any rights. There isn’t a single scenario I can think of in which I would ever side with a Christian who objects to homosexuality. I will always invent new rationalizations for why the Christian must be gagged. Just give me a new scenario and I will give you a new rationalization. I can do this all day; try me.

I agree with Chai R. Feldblum, the lesbian activist recently appointed by President Obama (peace be upon him) to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She’s a great legal mind. Says Feldblum:

“There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty. But in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

That’s true. And the major difference of course is that the Constitution is chock full of sexual rights–the right to take it in the poopchute, the right to anonymous hookups in the bushes in Central Park–but is oddly silent about matters of religious liberty. Ergo, my sexual freedoms must trump some one else’s religious freedoms. In fact, my right to exercise my sexual freedoms without negative judgements trumps religious freedom. That means that you’re not allowed to think bad things about me just because I’m a sodomite.

Chai Feldblum, homosexual activist and all around gay bully. We owe her a debt of gratitude.

When asked under what circumstances she believes religious liberty should take precedence, Feldblum replied:

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Unfortunately, the kid went out and got a lawyer from the gay-hating Liberty Counsel. I say that Liberty Counsel hates gays because it refuses to compromise on first amendment freedoms just to spare the delicate feelings of butt pirates like me. Enter Matt Krause, a self-styled “first amendment attorney”. He calls himself that because he takes up cases that involve the defense of first amendment rights, which, as we’ve already established, Christofascist H8ers like Dakota Ary are not entitled to.

Matt Krause on the Ary case:

“Students don’t lose their first amendment rights just because they go in the schoolhouse doors.”

Krause is of course quoting the majority opinion from the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines. In it, several high school students sued their school because they were suspended for wearing black arm bands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The students won their case.

In the majority opinion, the court found that a school may limit speech, but it must

“be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

Which clearly this was! I mean, it was offensive! And to drag out my catch-all, speech restricting, thought-stopping weapon of mass destruction…SOME KID MIGHT KILL HIMSELF! Yep, that’s basically what my argument boils down to–our first amendment rights must be curtailed or else some kid might blow his brains out. I will continue to exploit acts of suicide for the purposes of censorship until the cows come home.

If other people are allowed to hold differing opinions, some gay kid might kill himself.

By the way, don’t get cute with me and ask if I think we should suspend our constitutional rights every time a Christian kills himself. This doesn’t work both ways. And besides, the suicide rates for pickle-smoochers is much higher than for Christians, which I think might be because Christians are well-adjusted, mentally balanced people and homosexuals are batshit crazy emotional basketcases.

As I read more into this case, I was thrilled to find that the teacher was himself a member of the LGBTQXYZ community! Can anyone find out if the gentleman is single? His blatant homosexual fascism is such a turn-on! I get hard every time I think about an adult teacher bullying a fourteen year old Christian honor student. It’s so GAY-STAPO of him.

Like most gay teachers, this particular unnamed educator brings his advocacy to work with him. He’s a change agent! He considers it his job to seek out kids like Dakota and reform their wayward thinking. That’s spectacular.

“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topic. The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”

That’s great. I can see how that ties into German. Sure. I’m sure he put it there because it has some relationship to German, and not because he is himself a homosexual and he has an agenda to push.

“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now.”

So homosexuality was a frequent topic in this teacher’s German class, which is really a great development. I took German for a semester or two back in high school just because I wanted to learn how to read Mein Kampf in the original German. All the goose-stepping and the gayness in the SA really turned me on. I also admired Hitler’s militant atheism and the LGBTQXYZ members of his staff like Ernst Roehm. And guess what? My German teacher never even touched on the topic of homosexuality. We learned verb conjugation, vocabulary, adjective endings, cases, word order, and tenses. What we should have been talking about was gayness in Germany.

I can completely understand why homosexuality might be a frequent topic in German class. After all, some people in Germany are homosexual. Some people in Germany are also vegetarian, but we don’t spend time in German class talking about that. Some people in Germany are also into Scheisse porn, but we don’t spend time talking about that. Some people in Germany are also Jehovah’s Witnesses, but we don’t spend class time talking about that.

But we do talk about homosexuality, loudly and often. We ALWAYS portray it in a good light, and discussion is only permitted if you agree with the teacher and his opinion. Otherwise, STFU or we’ll suspend you for two days.

Weaving homosexuality into any class is as easy as 1-2-3. Let’s see…French class? Yes, there are gays in France. So let’s talk about gayness in France. Biology? People are just born gay, get over it. History? Abe Lincoln was gay and so was Alexander Hamilton! English Lit? How about we read some of the books from the GLSEN teen reading list that include gay sex between teachers and students?

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20091210-Rod-Dreher-GLSEN-s-toxic-7559.ece

This game is easier than playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Seriously, I can tie gayness to virtually anything. It appears that this particular teacher did just that. Western Hills High School hired him to teach German, but he had other ideas.

Sadly, it appears that the school is backing down. After a lot of whining from his bitchy Christian mother, Dakota was let off with just one day of in-school suspension. Still, she won’t shut up about her son’s “constitutional rights”.

These pedophiles are stealing our schtick. Good for them.

These pedophiles are stealing our schtick. As you may have heard, the push is on to get pedophilia removed the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

This should recall shades of the 70’s era gay rights movement when teaming hordes of pissy homosexuals crashed APA conferences and demanded that their sexuality be legitimized. They pioneered the tactic of threatening and shouting down anyone who opposed them. It took a few years of bullying psychiatrists but they eventually relented and removed same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD) from the DSM. Thank goodness.

These days, we’ve got the APA stuffed to the gills with LGBTQXYZ advocates who masquerade as non-partisan professionals. Many of them are homosexuals themselves! And as we know, homosexuals have no ax to grind in the homosexuality debate. Their research is in no way tainted by the fact that they are, themselves, practitioners of the same sexual proclivities that they’re studying with a dispassionate and unbiased eye. The APA even endorsed marriage equality…unanimously!

If these pedophiles are smart, they’ll do the same thing. When you stack the field  with people who already agree with you, “the experts” will always be on your side. They will write papers, publish books, and conduct experiments that all come to your predetermined conclusions! 

It appears that the child molesting community has since discovered that they may need to take a similar course of action if they’re ever going to remove the stigma associated with raping little children. Once the psychiatric community decides that your behavior no longer constitutes a mental disorder, the flood gates are open! Not that I support that. I mean, child molesters are bad. And stuff.

B4U-ACT, a Maryland-based organization of psychiatric practitioners, recently sponsored a conference that addressed the issue of how to destigmatize pedophilia. The conference was attended by Christofascist loser Matt Barber of the fringe right-wing Liberty Counsel Action. Any group that would take offense at a pedophilia conference is obviously a hate group. I checked the Southern Poverty Law Center website to see if these people have yet been identified as a hate group, and I they aren’t. But they should be.

Right-wing bigot Matt Barber says that he felt he was “on another planet”. Speakers at the conference openly endorsed the removal of pedophilia from the DSM. Said Barber:

“The entire focus of the event was on the victimhood of the pedophile.”

Well, yeah. I’ve heard that all of the hate that society heaps on child molesters really makes them feel bad. Somebody has to stand up for them. Leave it up to Barber to malign this group for the crime of compassion. Only a real douchebag would fault these caring professionals for trying to remove the stigma associated with pedophilia. I say we charge Barber with murder if any child molesters end up killing themselves because of the shame bigots thrust upon them.

I wanted to find out more about this group so I sought out their website. Yes, they have one: http://b4uact.org/

Even though homosexuality and pedophilia bear no relation to each other–and the societal acceptance of the former will have no effect on the societal acceptance of the latter–the organization seems to be using the gay rights movement as a precedent. Odd. Dr. Fred Berlin, as quoted on their website:

“Just as has been the case historically with homosexuality, society is currently addressing the matter of pedophilia with a balance that is far more heavily weighted on the side of criminal justice solutions than on the side of mental health solutions.”

Just has been the case with homosexuality? Whoa! There’s no comparison there. It’s almost as if homosexuality is paving the way for all sorts of other perversions to become normalized, something that I insisted would never happen. Well, I can forgive Dr. Berlin in this instance because I know that he’s not a Christofascist who would try to use the linkage as a weapon against us.  

B4U-ACT appeals to the child molesters directly:

“You may be looking for mental health services to deal with anxiety, depression, anger, or other factors either unrelated to your sexuality or resulting from society’s stereotypes and reactions to your sexual feelings.”

Yes, society has a lot of stereotypes about child molesters. Like that they’re sick, for example. And once we remove pedophilia as a sickness from the DSM, it just won’t be a sickness anymore. Anyone who still claims that it’s a sickness will be a science-hater. And you don’t want to be a science-hater…do you? Psychiatrists who still diagnose and treat pedophilia as a sickeness will have their licenses revoked. In other words, we’ll just do to them what we’ve done to people who still believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder. It worked like gangbusters for us, so why not?

I’m sure that child molesters also deal with a lot of depression and anger as a result of society’s deep-rooted prejudices. As a victim of such prejudices myself, I can attest to the pain of not being validated. That’s what I desire more than anything else. I need people to tell me over and over again that my sexual behavior is healthy, normal, and beautiful.

The idea that someone, somewhere, is harboring the slightest disapproval of what I do is enough to make me want to kill myself. That’s why we need to police the beliefs of others and punish free speech–so that fragile people like me won’t off themselves. I threaten to kill myself at the drop of a hat. Just this morning I had to call the suicide hotline after I got out of bed and saw that the sky was cloudy. Every time I don’t get my way I tell my opponent that he’s murdering gay people with his mean attitudes.

Does anyone know the suicide rate for child molesters? It must be astronomically high. There’s only one way to lower that statistic and that’s a full-court press propaganda campaign to push pedophilia into the mainstream. It has to be everywhere, at all times, loud, and in your face.

The appeal to child molesters continues: 

“Or you may be wondering how to live life fully and stay within the law.”

See? So they want to help child piddlers stay within the law. We certainly wouldn’t want them to get in trouble. That’s the concern, not the safety of children, and certainly not the immorality of having sex with minors.

And when you think about it, laws can be changed. When the National Coalition of Gay Organizations laid out its platform at its 1972 convention, they specifically demanded the “Repeal of all laws governing the age of consent.” Looking back on the historic document, I can see that they’ve achieved almost everything on their to-do list. Only a few items–such as the abolition of age of consent laws–still remain to be done.

http://www.robertslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

In Britain, the rainbow brigades have succeeded in lowering the age of consent for homosexual relations from twenty-one to eighteen, then again from eighteen to sixteen. Peter Tatchell of Britain’s OutRage! group is now pressing for fourteen as the age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual relations. And who knows if they’ll be finished then? Eleven sounds pretty good. How about eight?

Peter Tatchell of Britain's OutRage! He's a giant in the British wing of the gay rights movement. He wants the age of consent to be lowered to fourteen. Tatchell argues that lowering the age of consent will reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse. So legalizing child sexual abuse is the best way to root it out. Makes sense to me.

Incrimentalism is a wonderful thing. Society would never swallow the whole turd if we force-fed it to them in one bite, so let’s spoon it to them one morsel at a time.

As you can see, “staying within the law” is kind of moving target. All we have to do is change the law and it becomes much easier for these people to “live life fully” while staying within it.

Let’s get on it!

This just in: As I’ve read further about this organization, it’s come to my attention that the operations director of B4U-ACT, Richard Kramer, is a self-described “boy lover”. He has written a wonderful letter to the editor of a pro-pedophilia organization, yearning for the good old days of the 1970’s when there wasn’t such an unthinking kneejerk reaction to men having sex with boys. He uses the word “we” when speaking of BL’s (boy lovers) and GL’s (girl lovers).

“The fundamental issue we need to address is the defense of our humanity. We need to confront the stigmatization, demonization, and stereotyping that exists due simply to our attraction to children or adolescents, regardless of our behavior. To do this, we need to be honest about our sexuality.”

I am not surprised. Not in the least. If there’s one thing that Kramer learned well from the example gays have bequethed him, it’s that opposition to your agenda can best be combatted by infiltrating the opposing camp and neutralizing them from the inside. That’s how we dealt with  the APA when they called our sexuality a pathology, and now he’s trying it as well. With any luck, he’ll soon be infilitrating the schools and churches.

Mr. Kramer can be reached here:  (443) 547-4061  DIRECTOR@b4uact.org

Tag Cloud