Showing posts with label Bigotry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bigotry. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Why Is Pat Robertson Still on TV?

It's time for the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) to follow EWTN's lead and "fire" one of its long-standing television personalities, who has lost his grip on reality.

Pat Robertson once again shows that he has no compassion for women and non-Christians.  He also displays his lack of respect for the institution of marriage, by condoning domestic violence.  His words are reprehensible.

In the video below, a viewer asks Robinson for advice on dealing with his wife, who "has become a real problem" and has "no respect" for him "as the head of the house."  Robinson's response is for her to move to Saudi Arabia so he can beat his wife.

Here's the video:

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Saturday, July 9, 2011

A Response to Archbishop Dolan's "Afterthoughts" and "Apology" Concerning the Same-Sex Marriage Battle in New York

Hello, readers.  I apologize for the long absence.  For my own well-being, I had to take a break from confronting the hatred out there.  That said, much has happened in New York where same-sex couples will now enjoy the state-level civil rights that opposite-sex couples enjoy.

Image Credit:   CBS News/Mike Segar
Archbishop Timothy Dolan just posted his "Afterthoughts" on his experience of being the mouthpiece for the anti-gay side of the New York marriage equality battle of the past few months.  In the response, which you can read in full here, he compares himself to John the Baptist and Thomas Moore, who were both beheaded.  He also "apologizes" to any gay persons who may have been offended by anything that he said.  (If you recall, he compared same-sex couples marrying to marrying his mother and that polygamy would follow gay rights.)

Here is my response.

Dear +Tim,

You are correct about one thing: "Finally, last point, for us in the Church, not much changes." Exactly, because in the U.S.A. there is a separation of church and state. You can discriminate as much as you want to in your churches and sacraments. That's what you purchase with your tax exemption. But know this: when you come after people's civil rights, you give up your claim to tax exemption. We will continue to fight you to retain our civil rights.

Those of us who are fighting for equal civil rights for LGBT persons are not "theophobic" or anti-religion; we're anti-theocracy. We don't care about your sacramental rights or rites.

I would think you would be anti-theocracy as well, since that's the real reason Thomas Moore was beheaded--he lived in a state where the King believed he was the hand of his god and not the pope's god. World history and your Old Testament show that there is a great danger marrying church and state; it always ends very bloody.

As for your "apology" to those of us who were "unintentionally" hurt by your "defense" of marriage, now you just dilute yourself. You said so many things that were based on unscientific, outdated and historically-abused stereotypes about homosexuals (i.e. the way you linked same-sex marriages to incest, polygamy, and such). You calculated your responses to hit below the belt and to stir the fears of your followers. You stoked hatred against LGBT persons who have been historically repressed and even tortured and murdered (see the Inquisition) in the name of your church.

Your "apology" is as hollow as the arguments you made against marriage equality. How do you look yourself in the mirror in the morning? How do you look gay priests and youth in the eyes? Do you have any idea how hurtful, demoralizing, and harmful your characterizations of homosexuals are? Your "apology" shows how out of touch you are with the virtue of compassion.

Yours outside of Christ,

Heretic Tom


Postscript: In case you forgot, +Tim, here's what the church did to gays in the Inquisition.
Source: Woodcut. Published in the 'Speculum in oculis Domini abominatium' by Franziscus Grotius, Leipzig,1474.  Reproduced in 'Inquisition torture instruments from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Age, "Qua d'Arno, Florence, 1985.


Sunday, April 10, 2011

Will Right-Wing Christians Go after Interracial Marriages Next?

     46% of these hardcore Republican voters believe interracial marriage should be illegal, while 40% think it should be legal.
     No, this isn't 1966 when interracial marriage became legal in Mississippi.  This is 2011.   

     But who are these "hardcore Republicans"?

     The PPP poll also revealed that [Sarah] Palin has more support among voters who believe interracial marriage should be illegal than among those who are OK with it. Mitt Romney's numbers reveal just the opposite. He has a higher favorability among Mississippi Republicans who want interracial marriage to remain legal.
     Interesting.   

     One thing I hear all the time from well-intentioned supporters of marriage equality is "Just be patient.  The next generation is more accepting. Things will change in another ten or twenty years."  Well check out this result from the poll:


Friday, January 21, 2011

Catholic Church Unveils 12-Step Program for Homosexual Addiction and So Much More

     It was really only a matter of time.  When I was a priest/seminarian, I was formed to believe that my (homo)sexuality was an addiction and prescribed so many "more natural" ways to "deal with" my "depraved" nature that was a "gift" from a loving god.

     The Catholic Diocese in Colorado Springs has adopted a 12-step program that offers "support" for homosexuals.  Despite striking similarities to Alcoholics Anonymous's 12-step program for recovering addicts, proponents claim that the program is less about therapy than it is about support for people experiencing homosexual thoughts that they consider "a burden."
     Sure it is.  And it has nothing to do with a closeted clergy projecting their own crap onto the rest of the world.

     Here are the actual Twelve Steps as reported in The Huffington Post via The Gazette (and my comments):

      1. We admitted that we were powerless over homosexuality and our lives had become unmanageable.

     When I was parked at the edge of a frozen river with the plan of driving on the ice until it broke and I died, I admitted that I was powerless against Catholicism.

     2. We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

     So, I guess, those of us who are out of the closet are obviously insane.  

     3.  We made a decision to turn our will and our lives to the care of God as we understood Him.

    Clarification: as Holy Disfunctional Mother church taught us to understand "Him" [sic].

     4.  We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

     As a gay Catholic, my greatest was going to hell because god made me gay.  

     5. We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

     Exact nature?  According to Catholic teachings, their god makes people gay.  How can one's exact god-given nature be wrong?  Unless your god's a vindictive ass hole.

     6. We were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of our character.


     7. We humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings.

     Pray away the gay.  And you'll soon discover that nothing fails like prayer.

     8. We made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make direct amends to them all.

     Someone, who claims to have been injured by someone else's homosexuality, is the person who needs to be making amends for their bigotry.

     9. We made the direct amends to such people whenever possible except when to do so would injure them or others.

     I'm still waiting for Father Mustache and those who covered his tracks to apologize.  But maybe their apology would hurt me too much.

     10. We continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.

     Yes, just as Pope Benedict XVI, the Slapping Pope, has promptly admitted his wrongdoings in the sexual abuse scandals.

     11. We sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for the knowledge of God's Will for us and the power to carry it out.

     "Conscious contact"?  I guess that is in opposition to the unconscious contact that being gay implies.  

     12. Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to others and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

     So I guess that makes Rev. Larry Brennan, diocesan director of priest formation, who defended this program to the paper a liar, for The Gazette quoted him: “It’s not about therapy and not about activism.”  Yes, and the Catholic money, DVDs, and pamphlets that support the suppression of gay rights is totally not about activism either.

     And for those of you who just can't stop harping about the penile focus of the Catholic Church , don't worry.  The Gazette reports:
     A 12-step program for lesbians may also be created if there is demand for it, Brennan said.
    Fight on, my feminist lesbian sisters! 

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Justice Scalia Justifies Discrimination Against Women and Minorities Using the Fourteenth Amendment

     When it comes to the rights of women (and, by default, LGBT persons and racial or religious minorities), Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justice Scalia has voiced his biblical understanding of The Constitution of the United States.

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
What do you do when the original meaning of a constitutional provision is either in doubt or is unknown?
I do not pretend that originalism is perfect. There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot. ... We don't have the answer to everything, but by God [sic] we have an answer to a lot of stuff...
     "By God [sic]" indeed.

      Here is one response as reported in The Huffington Post:
     For the record, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
     Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.  In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."
     Greenberger added that under Scalia's doctrine, women could be legally barred from juries, paid less by the government, receive fewer benefits in the armed forces, and be excluded from state-run schools -- all things that have happened in the past, before their rights to equal protection were enforced.
     "In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they [women] were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."
     From a well-articulated editorial in The New York Times:
     Justice Scalia is now getting attention for his outlandish view, expressed in an interview in the magazine California Lawyer, that the promise of equal protection in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment does not extend to protecting women against sex discrimination. Legislatures may outlaw sex discrimination, Justice Scalia suggested, but if they decided to enact laws sanctioning such unfair treatment, it would not be unconstitutional.
     This is not the first time Justice Scalia has espoused this notion, and it generally tracks his jurisprudence in the area. Still, for a sitting member of the nation’s highest court to be pressing such an antiquated view of women’s rights is jarring, to say the least.
     No less dismaying is his notion that women, gays and other emerging minorities should be left at the mercy of the prevailing political majority when it comes to ensuring fair treatment. It is an “originalist” approach wholly antithetical to the framers’ understanding that vital questions of people’s rights should not be left solely to the political process. It also disrespects the wording of the Equal Protection Clause, which is intentionally broad, and its purpose of ensuring a fairer society.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Southern Poverty Law Center Adds NOM, FRC, & AFA to List of Hate Groups; Congressional Republicans Protesting

     The Christmas spirit of love and peace has failed to reach the Republican and right-wing leadership in our nation's Christian community.  On Top Magazine reports:
     The Republicans have joined an online petition protesting the claims of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).  The SPLC recently added the Family Research Council (FRC), the American Family Association (AFA) and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to the same list of hate groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam and the Aryan Nations for their opposition to gay rights.
     Republicans aren't pleased.  They are fighting back calling the SPLC "slanderous" and "hateful," saying "Our debates can and must remain civil - but they must never be suppressed through personal assaults that aim only to malign an opponent’s character."

     These are hypocritical words of the greatest degree.  For the right-wing and Christian rhetoric used to strip LGBT persons of their rights been anything but civil.  Ask those in Iowa, Maine, California, and in every other state where the political commercials funded by FRC, AFA, and NOM have maligned the character of LGBT persons, their families and their allies.

     To see the letter of those who support these hate groups click here.  You will find that the Republican leadership in Congress is well represented, so are the leaders of most anti-gay Christian groups.  Some of the signatories include: Majority Leader-elect Eric Cantor, House Speaker-elect John Boehner, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Mike Hukabee, Rep. Jim Jordan, Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rep. Michele Backmann, Rep. Steve King, Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Joe Pitts, Bill Donahue (Catholic League), Lou Engle (of Uganda's Kill-the-Gays bill), Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Sen. David Vitter.

     To see how "civil" any of these signatories is when it comes to gay rights, just Google search his/her name with the words "gay," "anti-gay," "homophobic," or "hate," and see what comes up.  You might also try substituting "Muslim," "black," "immigration," or "woman" for gay to see what happens.

     In response to the right-wing's letter accusing the SPLC of  being anti-Christian, the SPLC responded:
     Booth Gunter, a spokesman for the SPLC, on Friday rejected the allegations.
     “The bottom line is it's simply not true that we attacked them because of their Judeo-Christian beliefs or their opposition to gay marriage,” Gunter told Fox News. “It's because of their continued propagation of falsehoods about gay men and lesbians that have the effect of demonizing them.” (Via On Top Magazine)
      Merry Christmas, everyone!

Monday, December 6, 2010

Live Telecast This Morning: Oral Arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger

     From Chad Griffin, the American Foundation for Equal Rights:
     I’m about to enter the courthouse with AFER’s lead attorneys, Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, where the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing oral arguments in our challenge to Prop. 8.
     Witness this historic moment. Visit afer.org for broadcast information including special coverage of today’s event. Whether you watch the hearing online or on TV, listen to it over the radio, or follow it over our Twitter-feed, this is an extraordinary opportunity to hear our legal team make the case for equality.
     The hearing is expected to last about two hours, and will address two questions. Starting at 10 a.m. PST, both sides will first address the issue of standing. David Boies will face off against the proponents of Prop. 8 and Imperial County, arguing that they lack the requirements necessary to appeal the Federal District Court decision.
     After the hour allotted to the standing question, there will be a short recess, followed by arguments on the merits of the case. Theodore B. Olson will argue that marriage is a fundamental right, denying that right to gay and lesbian Americans harms them and their families, and that Prop. 8 violates our nation’s promise of equality for all.
Watch it live on CSPAN or the California Channel.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Donatism Alert: Pope Benedict's Back on the Banning-Gay-Priests Bandwagon

     The big  news last week was that, in his new book, Pope Benedict said condom use to prevent HIV-infection is okay for male prostitutes.  The scientific world responded with a resounding, "It's about time.  But it's not enough."

     But there's much more to the book, in which Pope Ratzinger's bigotry shines through, like a sunbeam splitting the clouds and illuminating a dove flying over a pair of hands locked in prayer.   

     Once again, Ben's promoting his "theology" of celibacy and priesthood, which claims celibate gay men are so intrinsically disordered that they can't properly image Jesus and should therefore not be ordained.  

     What he is saying is that the priesthood must consist of men who have renounced the love of women, not those for whom it has never been a major temptation:
     "Sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual...The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman.  And, in this way, to give humanity posterity, children, a future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality's intrinsic meaning and direction ... Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation.  Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don't want to get married anyway."
     This is ironic in view of the widely held view that he himself is not a man for the ladies (as a gay catholic once said to me). It's also obviously unworkable. But his reasoning is interesting, for it shows that he understands one of the problems that compulsory celibacy has brought to the church in the West. As it became less and less common for men not to marry – and perhaps this was a result of increasing prosperity as much as anything else – the church was one of the few professions in which a gay man could remain "respectable", even to himself.
     Furthermore, Ben's viewpoint, if promulgated, will create a dilemma of Donatist proportions: Are gay priests who have already been ordained validly ordained?  If not, what does that mean about all the sacraments that they performed?  Does that mean my child wasn't really baptized?  Have I only been eating bread and wine all these years and not Jesus' body and blood?  Are my confessed sins really forgiven?  Is my marriage invalid?  Are my children bastards?  Am I going to hell?

     No need to worry, conservative Catholics.  That line of thinking is Donatism; a heresy. (Had you lived in the fourth century and believed that sinful priests' sacraments were invalid and did not confer your god's grace, you would have been excommunicated or put to death.)  

     A priest, who lives in a state of mortal sin, will someday leave the priesthood, or is later found to have an invalid or illicit ordination, still performs valid sacraments.  Why?  Because the Catholic god provides, where sinful gay priests (like me) failed.

     Confused?  I'll try to clarify Ben's anti-gay and anti-Donatist logic with a few "hypothetical" situations. 

     1.  A heterosexual priest hears the confessions of his nine-year-old students.  Unbeknownst to the children's parents and (maybe) teachers, the priest has been feeding the children more than Christ's body for the past two years.  Even though the priest is raping these children, the sacraments of Confession and Eucharist that he performs for the children still shower them with god's grace and love, because the priest, in spite of his moral failure to stop using the children for his sexual gratification, is still a vessel of god by virtue of his ordination.  To believe that that abusive priest's sacraments fail to confer grace upon the children he's raping is Donatism.

     2.  A gay priest, who has never had sex (this includes with children), retires at age 73 after forty-eight years of faithful ministry.  If Pope Benedict's anti-gay-ordination theology is promulgated, this closeted and celibate gay priest's ordination could be invalidated.  All of the sacraments performed by this gay priest would remain valid.  But, after a lifetime of sacrifice and service, this priest is thrown out, because being gay is just so evil.

     That's the logic of Pope Benedict.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Pentagon's Report on Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell Released; Guess Who's Still Not Coming to Dinner

     Yesterday, the Pentagon's Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was released.  Read it by clicking here.  The Pentagon's conclusion is that DADT should be repealed.

     Secretary Gates wants the Senate to pass a graduated repeal, before the scary "activist judges" force an immediate full repeal (see the second video below).  Why is "activist" considered a bad word by so many on the Right?  If it weren't for activists who challenged their generations' affronts to civil rights, we wouldn't have women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, religious freedom, child labor laws, etc.  We wouldn't have the United States of America.



     But not everyone in the military that was polled in the report wants gays and lesbians to be able to serve honestly and openly.   A military minority is dissenting.  Guess who's most opposed to the repeal?  Military chaplains.  I was in seminary with someone who is now a military chaplain.  Rumor was that he hit on guys left and right (and I do mean that politically).  It's okay for priests to sleep with liberals, but not to agree with them politically.  It's okay for priests to sleep around (even with men), as long as nobody knows about it.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell indeed. 

     Imagine if the Pentagon did a study of whether Female or Muslim soldiers in the military has a negative impact on "unit cohesiveness," etc.  My guess is that there would be just as vocal a minority against these groups as there are against gays and lesbians.

     The military has already integrated persons of color and women.  People of all religious beliefs can serve.  Gays and lesbians are already serving in the military.  I find it revolting that it took 267 pages for the the military and many of our tax dollars for President Obama and the Pentagon to finally conclude that honest soldiers won't destroy the integrity of the armed forces.  Apparently, in twenty-first America, honesty and integrity cost.
     Now the question is whether the Senate's Republican minority will block the military's request for repeal.  Flip-flopping hypocrite and leader of repeal's opposition, Sen. John McCain called for more hearings and study, just weeks ago.  Apparently, he's more interested in spending more of our tax dollars on preserving discrimination and bigotry than on the 9.6% of Americans who are unemployed (but remember he's for deficit reduction and is on the side of the middle class, blah, blah, blah).  As of this morning, McCain's was already making a preemptive strike against the DADT report, criticizing its parameters and accusing the Pentagon and Obama administration of not being objective.

     My prediction: the Republican minority will again block a vote on the repeal in the Senate.  Over the past two years, they have consistently shown us that they are not concerned with what is best for the people of this nation, but only with what is best for their political careers.  Right now, they are more concerned with opposing anything that President Obama supports and exposing his ineptitude than with doing what is right and good for the American people.
  

     In this video, Rachel Maddow discusses the report and names numerous Republican senators, who over the past year said they were waiting for the military's report and green light before repealing DADT.

     In this video, Keith Olbermann interview Dan Savage about the report and whether McCain will again block the repeal.
     

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Spanish Gay Couples Stage Kiss-In in Protest of Pope Benedict's "Intrinsically Disordered" Anti-Gay Politics


     Pope Benedict XVI strongly defended traditional families and the rights of the unborn on Sunday, directly attacking Spanish laws that allow gay marriage, fast-track divorce and easier abortions as he dedicated Barcelona's iconic church, the Sagrada Familia.
     It was the second time in as many days that Benedict had criticized the policies of Spain's Socialist government and called for Europe as a whole to rediscover Christian teachings and apply them to everyday life.
     As he headed to the church named for the sacred family, about 200 gays and lesbians staged a “kiss-in” to protest his visit and church policies on homosexuals, condom use and a host of other issues. Church teaching holds that gays should be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered”.
     So, according to the Catholic Church and Pope Ben, this is "intrinsically disordered":

     But this is okay:

And this is sweet:

And this is properly ordered:

And this is just politics:

And this is way normal (and good for digestion):
(He's kissing dirt.)

And this is so 100% normal:

And this is in every conceivable way 
intrinsically ordered.

     P.S.  Here's iol News' short description of part of Pope Ben's blessing ceremony at Sagrada Familia.  Notice the proper order of things:
     During the ritual-filled dedication ceremony, Benedict poured holy oil over the marble altar and spread it across all four corners with his hands, an apron protecting his vestments. He then lit a brass incense burner on the altar as Spain's King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia looked on.  Afterward, four nuns dressed in black mopped up the remaining oil from the altar and placed fresh linens on it.
Image Credits:

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Friday, November 5, 2010

NOM Lost More Elections Than It Won

     Despite anti-gay NOM's boasting and plans to funnel it's out-of-state dollars into the politics of New Hampshire and Minnesota, the Christian liars at NOM didn't do as well in the elections as they claim.

     NOM Exposed reports:
     While NOM made significant investments this cycle, its electoral win/loss record is decidedly mixed. In fact, NOM lost more races than it won. NOM endorsed at least 29 candidates. As of Wednesday afternoon, NOM had lost 19 of these races, won eight, and the remaining two (the Minnesota governor’s race and a New Hampshire statehouse candidate) were undecided. With the exception of a judicial election they hijacked in Iowa, NOM lost its most expensive and high-profile gambits in California and New Hampshire and all of its races in Maine and the District of Columbia. And it fought campaign finance laws all along the way.

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Holy Blog's Anniversary and a Message about the Future

     Dear Heretics,

     The Gospel According to Hate had its first anniversary on October 2.  Since going online, the Holy Blog has received over 110,000 page views by more than 55,000 visitors.  I have published over 700 posts.  Thank you for reading, commenting, and confronting the hatred that some preach in the names of their gods.

     A special thank you to the blog's followers and those of you who comment regularly: Buffy, Doorman-Priest, Truthspew, Russ, FDeF, Deldachez, and, of course, Anonymous (who can really be a judgmental asshole).  Thank you to folks who emailed me to let me know I'd missed a typo.  

     A huge thank you and hug to my Super Husband Extraordinaire (SHE) for his assistance with research, proofreading, and all his support, when I doubted myself.  

     A very special thank you to my dear friend, Iowa Soup Mama, who's guest post during last year's Twelve Hates of Christmas, "I Hate Mall Rage," has been the blog's most visited post with over 5000 hits.


     I have a confession to make: this blog began as a graduate school writing assignment.  It wasn't my intention for it to become an unpaid thirty-hour-a-week job.  I've enjoyed the research, writing, and interaction with you, my readers.  That said, I need a break.

     Every morning, I awake peacefully.  Then I spend two to four hours combing through news stories that are infuriating and listening to the hatred that people spew in the names of their gods, churches, and dogmas.  I need a reprieve from that negative energy.  Also, I have a thesis that is currently demanding my full attention and focus.  Unfortunately, the blog has become a convenient distraction.

     That said, I'm going to continue to publish, but not with my expanded commentary and not daily.  I will still post links, videos, etc. when huge stories of hypocrisy, hatred and violence in the name of religion cross my path.  Please email me at gospelaccordingtohate@gmail.com if you see a story you think should be reported.

     It's also been a painful year.  Coming from a religious background, numerous friends and family members have taken great offense to me voicing my opinions.  Thank you to my readers and friends who understand the point of this blog.  Thank you for your support.  

     Despite some people's opposition, this blog has been a success and a place of refuge.  Numerous people have emailed me to confide their own stories of being abused by church leaders, to ask support after being cut off from family because of their sexual orientation or changed religious beliefs, or to ask for guidance because they are still priests struggling with the anti-gay rhetoric of the church.  I hope that I was able to help them.  My goal in writing the blog was to help people in situations such as these to find a voice.

     Again thank you for reading.  Please continue to stop by.  Don't stop confronting religious violence, bigotry, and hatred.  Get out the vote on Tuesday!

     As we say at USC: "Fight on!"

Friday, September 10, 2010

Terrorist Terry Jones' Qu'ran Burning Is Off, Westboro Baptist's Is On, No Wait, Jones' Might Be On Again


     Yesterday, the Telegraph reported:
     The US pastor who planned an ''International Burn-a-Koran Day'' on September 11 has called off the protest after his plans were widely condemned. President Barack Obama , Tony Blair and William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, was among those who condemned Pastor Terry Jones, who leads a tiny Florida church, describing his plan as ''selfish and provocative in the extreme''.
     Hooray for the triumph of reason and civility!  But wait...

     Shortly thereafter, The Gainesville Sun reported:
     Westboro Baptist Church, the small Topeka, Kan., church that pickets funerals of American soldiers to spread its message that God is punishing the country for being tolerant of homosexuals, has vowed to hold a Quran burning if Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center calls its off.
     "WBC burned the Koran once – and if you sissy brats of Doomed america bully Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach Center until they change their plans to burn that blasphemous tripe called the Koran, then WBC will burn it (again), to clearly show you some things," the church announced in a news release this week.
     But wait!  The most recent news out of Florida is that Jones' burning might be back on.  Because--get this--good Christian Terry Jones is now claiming that Imam Musri lied to him in the meeting yesterday.  That's original: white Christian male claims that brown non-Christian is a liar.

     Here the report from CMN:
     Imam Muhammad Musri says that Jones told him the event would be canceled because it poses a threat to US Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Jones said he canceled the event because Musri [who has no jurisdiction over the mosque] had agreed to move the mosque. Jones and Musri are scheduled to meet, but the heated arguments between the two men may continue.  Based on “lies” Jones believed were told to him by the Imam, he said that his group is forced to “rethink” their cancellation of the Qu’ran burning. Instead, the event is only “suspended.”
     This situation is insane.

     That the freedom of worship in the United States and the safety of Americans and Afghans are being held hostage by a fundamentalist Christian's bigoted plan to burn the Qu'ran is repulsive.

     Terry Jones' actions and words are putting the lives of people at risk for the sake of his bigotry.  He's inciting riots and violence in the Muslim world.  He's inviting violence against U.S. troops, citizens, and allies.  Jones' personal holy war on Islam, includes theocracies as well as terrorist groups that may or may not have access to weapons of mass destruction that could be used against innocent people by Jones' fundamentalist Muslim counterparts.  But that's Jones' "right"?

     It sounds like terrorism to me.  

     One side uses commercial airliners.  The other side uses the media.  Both inspire terror.

     Dog bless America.
Postscript:
Here's a video report on the morning news cycle (It wouldn't embed).     
Jones can't even pronounce the title, imam, correctly.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Ken Mehlman Outs How Republicans Used Hatred of Gays to Get Bush Reelected

     Ken Mehlman, former manager of the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign and former chairman of the Republican National Committee in 2006, has come out of the closet.  This is no big news.

     What's so tragic about Mehlman's news is that while he was in a position of Republican power, he lead the successful charge for anti-gay marriage rights amendments in eleven states.  He now admits that he and the Bush/Cheney campaign stoked homophobia and inspired hatred for gays as a strategy to bring out the conservative vote and get Bush reelected.  

     It's no wonder that Republicans are gathering in Washington DC today to reclaim the civil rights movement from minorities, protesting Muslim American's right to worship in Manhattan, and trying to remove Iowa's supreme court justices.  The midterm elections are months away.  Hate sells and it gets Republicans elected.  Dog bless America.

     The Advocate recently interviewed Mehlman about his role in anti-gay rights politics under Bush.  Here's a snippet:
     There’s a lot of gays and lesbians and other people who are still angry about the 2004 election and the fact that that those 11 amendments were on the ballot. Is there anything that you would like to say about that in particular?
     Look, I have a lot of friends who ask questions and who are angry about it. I understand that folks are angry, I don’t know that you can change the past. As I’ve said, one thing I regret a lot is the fact that I wasn’t in the position I am today where I was comfortable with this part of my life, where I was able to be an advocate against that [strategy] and able to be someone who argued against it. I can’t change that – it is something I wish I could and I can only try to be helpful in the future.
     Mehlman is an example of what is so tragic about the movement for LGBT civil rights: the shame and self-loathing of closeted gays, especially those in politics and religion, is often used as a motivation to attack honest LGBT persons, their families, and their civil rights.  I agree with Dan Savage (see the embedded video below).  Mehlman needs to do more than one gay-friendly fundraiser to make up for the damage of his past homophobia.  His hateful legacy lives on in eleven states and Bush's reelection.

     Here's Keith Olbermann's report on Mehlman's admission that Christian Republican's strategy in election time is to inspire hatred towards certain groups in order to bring out the conservative vote, including the winning of Ohio, and thus the presidency,  in 2004.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Sam Harris Calls on Muslim Moderates to Speak Out against Atrocities Committed by Fundamentalists

     Here's a different perspective from what I've heard concerning the so-called "Ground Zero mosque."

     Author and Washington Post columnist Sam Harris (The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation) agrees in his essay, "Silence is Not Moderation," that the "controversy" over the Islamic center in southern Manhattan is a false one.  The building project is legal and should remain legal.  

     However, after affirming that point, Harris calls upon Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, religious leader behind the building project, and other moderate Muslim leaders to LOUDLY confront the violent and terrorist sects of Islam rather than remaining quiet.

     Here's what Harris proposes
     The true scandal here is that Muslim moderates have been so abysmally lacking in candor about the nature of their faith and so slow to disavow its genuine (and growing) pathologies--leading perfectly sane and tolerant people to worry whether Muslim moderation even exists.
     Despite his past equivocations on this issue, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf could dispel these fears in a single paragraph:
     "Like all decent people, I am horrified by much that goes on in the name of 'Islam,' and I consider it a duty of all moderate Muslims to recognize that many of the doctrines espoused in the Qur'an and hadith present some unique liabilities at this moment in history. Our traditional ideas about martyrdom, jihad, blasphemy, apostasy, and the status of women must be abandoned, as they are proving disastrous in the 21st century. Many of Islam's critics have fully justified concerns about the state of discourse in parts of the Muslim world--where it is a tissue of conspiracy theories, genocidal ravings regarding the Jews, and the most abject, triumphalist fantasies about conquering the world for the glory of Allah. While the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity also contain terrible passages, it has been many centuries since they truly informed the mainstream faith. Hence, we do not tend to see vast numbers of Jews and Christians calling for the murder of apostates today. This is not true of Islam, and there is simply no honest way of denying this shocking disparity. We are members of a faith community that appears more concerned about harmless cartoons than about the daily atrocities committed in its name--and no one suffers from this stupidity and barbarism more than our fellow Muslims. Islam must grow up. And Muslim moderates like ourselves must be the first to defend the rights of novelists, cartoonists, and public intellectuals to criticize all religious faiths, including our own."
     These are the sorts of sentiments that should be the litmus test for Muslim moderation. Find an imam who will speak this way, and gather followers who think this way, and I'll volunteer to cut the ribbon on his mosque in lower Manhattan.