Showing posts with label fundies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fundies. Show all posts

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Steve Fielding's descent into madness

I think the stress of the upcoming federal election has finally broken Mr. 1.9%'s tenuous grip on reality. Faced with the undeniable facts that he will be booted out of an electorate he never deserved in the first place, Steve has been driven, as the Joker would say, stark slavering mad. That's the only reason I can come up with for his increasingly erratic press releases and speeches.

Firstly, his attack on the Greens' drug policies:
Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding says the Greens are up to their old tricks with their plan to stick heroin injecting rooms on street corners across the country.

Senator Fielding’s comments come after it was revealed that the Greens will continue their soft stance on drugs ahead of this year federal election.

“As a community we should be getting tougher on drugs not softer,” Senator Fielding said.
Because the war on drugs has worked out so well for the US and Mexico. But here's the gold:
Senator Fielding said the policy of introducing heroin injecting rooms would only support the supply of illegal drugs and line the pockets of dealers. “Melbourne has already had one drug war too many, just imagine the increase in demand for these illegal narcotics if the Greens were able to get their way,” Senator Fielding said.
To quote Robot Chicken: Seriously dude, what the fuck. The whole point of decriminalisation is to negate a drug war and take the criminal element out of drug use, the freakin' opposite of what Steve claims will happen. Steve isn't just for supporting a failed drug policy, he simply doesn't have a clue of the issues he's talking about. Which, frankly, is unsurprising as Sarah Palin being a clueless liar (maybe they should bunk together sometime).

And having finished that sideshow, it's on to the main attraction:
Parental leave open to abortion rorts: Fielding
Only a true fundie could link a parental scheme to the dreaded surgical procedure. Long rant cut short, the Fluke is adamant that if the Bill is passed, welfare queens all over Australia will be getting pregnant just so that they can have an abortion at 20 weeks and collect the parental payment. Even Andrew 'Wormtongue' Bolt is saying "Dude...that's just low."

Steve has also written an opinion piece for the Punch. The entire piece reads like grade 6 material. Scattered with childish phrases like "mums who slog their guts out all day", the writing doesn't even achieve basic logical sense (even Piers 'Scattergun' Akerman can convey his messages). The notion is that the Bill will treat prisoners better than stay-at-home parents, which is bizarre as the point of the Bill is to treat them equally. The Fluke writes that these parents "don't receive a dime", a problem which the Bill Steve is lambasting is designed to rectify. Like I said, no logical sense.

Finally, to add insult to desperation, he writes " even prisoners and prostitutes are valued more highly than stay-at-home parents" which ignores the truly horrifying thought that sex workers may be entirely normal people with children themselves.

After this election, the Senate just won't be the same.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Did you know there was more than one Fundies First Senator?

I didn't-probably because ol' Steve spends his every waking moment thinking of news ways to gain attention/make a total arse of himself.

The FF doesn't just have coverage on the federal level; there are two senators in the South Australia and one on the NSW Legislative Council. The NSW guy is the most interesting, as he was in the Christian Theocratic Party before a hilarious fallout with Fred Nile, and then moving the the slightly-less-overtly-bigoted-yet-still-ironically-named Family First.

True to form, if anybody told him that there were gays in families, his head would explode.
“Most of the people promoting same sex adoption speak about the right of gay and lesbian couples to have a child to satisfy their own instinct for parenting. Our point is totally different. The concern of Family First is for the right of a child to have the role modelling and contributions that are given throughout a child’s life by a mother and a father.”
Reality notwithstanding, of course.

And then there's his painfully ironic press release titled '
The damaging consequences of bullying into adult life' despite his clear endorsement of homophobia. There's also the mandatory 'fertilised cells are people too!' posts, and the "EXTREME GREENS EXTREME GREENS EXTREME GREENS!!1!!"

In SA, the work experience kid has been assigned to graphic design and layout, while Pastor Evans is just as reality-immune as Moyes. The fundie roots are exposed in this funderful newsletter:
On Family First’s insistence, we no longer have ‘de facto’ marriages in South Australia – with all non marriage relationships being placed in a lower category called ‘domestic partnerships’. Further, the bill was worded in such a way as to place an obstacle in the path of gay adoptions and artificial insemination (which are heavily promoted by the Australian Greens and are the gay lobby’s stated next objective).
The Greens: more pro-family than FF, despite the former beginning as a single-issue environmental party and the latter beginning as a 'pro-family' party. And finally, there's a Palinesque dig at at Senator's Hanson-Young's age:
Tony Bates is a senior executive with Adelaide’s G.M. Holden operations. Tony's main competition in the fight to gain a South Australian Senate seat for FAMILY FIRST will be the Australian Democrats' "human shield" Ruth Russell, and SA Greens' 25-year old law student Sarah Hanson-Young.
And yet this 25 year old beat your sorry butt and and took the seat.

Well, thankfully, that's it. Steve is hellbound this year, stripping Fundies First of its most prominent Senator. This will significantly reduce the FF's national presence and hopefully bring them to where they belong; a minor, fringe party, of which most people would be embarrassed to admit their support for.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Tool of the Year 2009

Earlier this year, Military HQ hosted an ‘Unaustralian of the Year.’ Not to be outdone, I instead hosted ‘Tool of the Year 2008’, for that special someone who wasn’t simply Unaustralian, but a hypocrite and asshole to boot. The winner was Fred ‘Boobies are Satan’s pillowsNile, who had the gal to ruthlessly demonise the Muslim-Australian community, and then turn around and claim to be representing Muslim interests. Like I said, a hypocrite and an asshole.

As 2009 comes to an end, I need to pick another TOTY. There were a number of contenders (Rudd, Minchin, Nile again, Tuckey, ) but only one person could fulfill that vomit-inducing combination of tooliness.

Namely, Fred Nile, again. And for very similar reasons he won last year. It may seem unfair that Nile win again, given that Kevin “Should I commit to human rights for refugees, or try and peel some votes off the ‘Howard racists’ voting bloc? Too late-found the dog whistle!” Rudd certainly came close. However, Nile wins again simply for outdoing himself this year.

Recently, a CDP operative was revealed to have made a string of abusive and derogatory remarks about Muslims in a few email exchanges. If they were about Jews, he wouldn’t have been so much criticized as booted out of the country. The CDP went into damage control, with Nile himself saying the party “disassociates itself completely" from the comments, ''which we totally reject. No one deserves to be subjected to such language and insult.'' However, one should look at some of Freddy’s ideas about domestic policies and Muslims: ban them from the military, and deport them.

So the TOTY medal must to go Fred ‘dy Kruger’ Nile, for critisising a CDP member for remarks that are, although cruder, still no less ostracizing than his own writings. Maybe Nile should apply the Wallace test to himself, and then actually asking “WWJD” before revelling in his hatred of the Other.

However, Nile also receives the runner-up prize for TOTY, for his views on women. Fred says he is "concerned
about the sexual exploitation of women in our society." This 'concern' of course, is more about women having reproductive and sexual freedom than anything else. Nile states that the Greens "sexually objectify" women through their civil libertarian policies on sex, that that this is damaging to women. However, Nile has shown exactly what he thinks of women, regarding women serving in the military:
"Combat roles will also expose female soldiers to gunshot injuries, which could prevent them from being able to bear children."
Women: nothing they do or contribute towards society is more important than being a baby factory. This alone could win Nile TOTY 2010.

Hattip to Orville Strayan.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Mr. 1.9%: the Senate's village idiot.

Steve Fielding doesn't like Greens. I have an impressive collection of articles in which Mr. Morality launches childish attack after childish attack, each of which is unsatirable* in its petty partisanship and amateurism. The Bongmeister, however, has come to the conclusion that these past works are too subtle for his Christian base. Thus, Stevie has dropped all flimsy pretenses of professionalism and gone for the lowest, crudest and downright laughable smear he can imagine:
GREENS’ PLAN ECONOMICALLY LAUGHABLE, FOOLISH AND LUDICROUS
Says the fellow who's sole economic policy consists of cutting the petrol tax. I know Steve lives in the 14th Century, but that's no excuse for not using the caps lock hey.
The Greens would rather send Australia back to the Stone Age than use common sense in negotiating on an Emissions Trading Scheme, Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding said today.
“I don’t know what planet the Greens are on, but by the look of their ‘Safe Climate Bill’ they look like they're lost in space,” Senator Fielding said.
I don't know what Steve was gunning for with those space puns-it's not like NASA is involved. Anyway, the rest of the piece is utterly juvenile-calling Bob and co. "hippies" and sloppy accusations of hypocrisy-by using planes, no less. I don't know how Greens Senators are supposed to travel in a less gas-emitting way, given that planes are a form of public transport. I presume Fielding also think Bob is a hypocrite because he emits carbon emissions by breathing.

But seriously, I can't understand what Steve expect to gain from schlock like this. Anyone even considering voting Green is sufficiently left-wing as to dismiss Fundies First as a group of fringe nutters, and vice-versa for FF voters. If anything, Steve is alienating what incomprehensibly tiny support base he has by acting like like such a jerk. Compare this release to what freshman/woman Senators Ludlam and Hanson-Young have produced. These political youngens have only been in Parliament since July 2008, yet they have displayed a political professionalism that completely outstripes Steve (and most major party backbenchers as well, to be honest). The Fluke is a child in a grownups' world: he stumbled into the Senate through luck and Labor's cynicism, was irrelevent from 04 to 07, and, now having been thrust into the balance-of-power limelight, has demonstrated that he hasn't a clue in parliamentary processes. Steve knows that he has barely a hope of re-election on primary votes-barely being the operative word-and has resorted to stunt after stunt in the vain hopes that he will increase the visability of his party enough to scrap in a re-election.

I, like all groupthing lefties, simply cannot wait for the 2010 election. Asides from an anti-Greens propaganda overdrive from all parties (which will be a joy to read, I can assure you all), Rudd has shown that he is a skilled and shrewd politician. The likelihood of Labor preferencing the Fundies in 2010 is infinitesimal, especially how much Steve has pissed Kevin off (Medicare levies, alcopops taxes and luxary car taxes, anybody?). Labor is a right-wing government, but Rudd knows that the Greens are a better deal than Steve, and that's where Labor's 2010 preferences will be heading. To humbly quote Field Marshall Editor: Steve: you and your Pentecostal mates are headed for the political dustbin of history and no stunt on Earth is going to save you. Perhaps when you fail to get re-elected in a couple of years you could work for Today Tonight.

Cross-posted at Officer Cadet Orville Strayan.

Various article goodies found here, here and here.

*That's a word, OK?

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Why are they so afraid?

Excellent Battle of Wellington last Saturday*. General Debbie commanded an air assault of rhyming chants and speeches discussing womens' reproductive rights. One speaker, (it may have been the General, or somebody else) raised a point that us lefties, liberals and progressives rarely consider-why do the anti-choicers fear womens' rights so much? These same 'pro-lifers' (with, I concede, a few rare exceptions) support the war in Iraq which has killed untold thousands of children, and the bombing of Gaza by Israel, killing hundred of Palestinian children. These same pro-lifers view supporting women as a lesser priority to saving those sacks of stem stems-it's pretty clear 'pro-lifers' are only pro-life in the sense of restricting womens' reproductive health, and pro-death in every other case (or maybe they just want more white, potentially-convertible-to-Jesus babies. Those Muslims in Iraq and Palestine are a lost cause). So back to General Debbie's question: why do various fundies and ultraconservatives hate control over the uterus?

Personally, I see it as fear; fear of women gaining control over their bodies, which represents men losing the power that has been slipping from them since the Suffragette movement. Conservatives of each era have lost the fight against each successive wave of feminism. This began when conservatives lost the fight against suffrage. Ever since then, sex equality has been increasing since and some people see this as a threat to their establishment.

However, this fails to explain anti-feminist women. This is where the powerful role of religion comes into play. However, despite my resonable knowledge of psychology and sociology, I am at a loss as to why anybody would volunterily deprive themselves of rights. In this manner, feminism is unique; no other group has opposed civil rights for themselves.

I'll try doing a 'going down the rabbit hole' of antifeminism in the future-although probably not for at least a month, as I have flight training** for the next month

*Apologies for a lack of posts regarding BOWs and a lack of general posts of late. My Sopwith Camel (prepare to hear a lot about Camels in the future) has been playing up lately, forcing me into some unenthusiastic study of the schematics.

**Nursing placement.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

10 years on, how much has changed?

I'm mildly busy at the moment, so I suspect many posts in the future will be Lazyboy Moments. Continuing on from the recent Equal Love rally, here's a ten year old article from PFLAG Detroit.

The Holy War on Gays

by Robert Dreyfuss

This article appeared in the Rolling Stones Magazine March 18, 1999

The Christian Right is on a new mission: To drive homosexuality back into the closet. Inside the war rooms of evangelical intolerance.

On a stormy day in mid-January 1996, about twenty leaders of the Christian right wing met in the basement of a Baptist church in Memphis. Representing a such large organizations as the Rev. Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, the Mississippi-based American Family Association and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, the activists had come together to launch an anti-homosexual network, which they called the National Pro-Family forum. What drove them the most that day was their alarm over a growing friendliness in America to the idea of gay and lesbian marriages.

Brainstorming during the course of a nine-hour discussion, they hammered out a national strategy to combat American’s increasing tolerance of homosexuality. And since then, meeting three or four times a year, the expanding group has coordinated a powerful counter offensive to the gay-right movement.











A few weeks after its initial meeting, the National Pro-Family Forum’s first action splashed onto the national scene during the February Iowa presidential caucus. Christian-right activists invited Republican presidential candidates to appear at an event held in a church in Des Moines, Iowa, where in front of more than 200 reporters, each candidate signed a pledge declaring his opposition to gay marriage. “No one was paying attention to the issue of same-sex marriages up to that point” says Phil Burress, a Cincinnati activist who organized the Memphis meeting. “And then all of sudden – BAM! This was an issue that was being debated nationwide!”

And the center of that debate was the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which defines marriage in the federal law as the union of a man and a woman. The bill was sketched out a the Memphis gathering; it was refined in the weeks afterward by Robert Knight, director of cultural studies at the Family Research Council, with help from Christian legal scholars, including the National Legal Foundation in Virginia, founded by Robertson.

Designed as a response to the consideration of gay marriages by Hawaiian courts, DOMA was an effort to prevent the legal authority of such unions from spreading to the continental United States; it also precludes same-sex couples from receiving federal spousal benefits. The bill sailed through Congress, spearheaded by Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., ironically twice divorced, thrice married himself. And, with apparent reluctance, President Bill Clinton went along. “The president signed it in the middle of the night, in the wee hours”, says Knight. “And only after [then-White house spokesman Mike] McCurry called it a hate-driven bill.” Since 1996, twenty-eight states have passed parallel legislation, ensuring that they would not have to recognize gay marriages approved by any other state.

The 1996 candidate pledges in Iowa and the passage of DOMA were the opening shouts in a nationwide campaign, fueled by the Christian right, to roll back gains won by gay activists since the 1980’s. Marshaling a political and religious force 30 million strong, who fervently believe that the Bible demands thy they condemn homosexuality, the network of Christian-right groups is trying to slam the door on America’s uncomfortable but increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians. Its leaders predict society’s collapse if the gay-rights agenda were to succeed. Sincere, passionate and implacable sometimes seemingly obsessed, the anti-gay movement sees gay rights as a pink dagger aimed at the heart of American family life.










In January 1998, the Christian right provided a convincing demonstration of its ability to inspire its voters to the polls. A wicked ice storm had coated Maine in a frozen blanked that felled trees, snapped power lines and paralyzed roads across the state. It was a storm-of-the-century event, trapping thousands in their homes and closing businesses and schools. But on February 10th, led by legions of motivated Christians, voters ignored the ice and tuned out for a election; they overturned Maine’s 1997 Human Rights Act by margin of four percent. That law, passed less than a year earlier, prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in jobs, housing, credit and public accommodations.

The vote was a stunning victory for the state chapters of the Christian Collation and the Christian Civic League, the two groups that had a petitioned for the referendum. Maine’s political establishment and gay-rights groups across the country were stunned. “The opposition did not realize the extent of our grass roots movement,” says Paul Volle, who heads the Christian Coalition of Maine.

Until last summer, however, the Christian rights anti-gay crusade operated largely out of view, bursting into the open windfall-scale political battles like Maine’s –and others in Colorado, Oregon, Ohio and elsewhere-flared up. Since the fall of 1997, when openly gay San Francisco philanthropist James Hormel was first nominated to be ambassador to Luxembourg, anti-gay forces have been protesting, warning darkly that he would be a spokesman for the “homosexual agenda”. Despite to their concerns, he was nominated.

Last July, things became very public when fifteen organizations belonging to the National Pro-Family Form launched the truth in love campaign, a $ 500, 000 advertising blitz in national newspapers proclaiming that homosexuals to ”can change”, featuring “ex- gays” who have “walked out of homosexuality into sexual celebrity or even marriage.”

A who’s who of anti gay groups sponsored the ad campaign—from the Christian Coalition, the AFA, the FRC and American for Truth About Homosexuality – as well as large media-savvy Christian churches like Coral Ridge Ministries, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The ads through withering fire from gay—rights activists, who called them hate-filled and homophobic, which the sponsors bitterly denied. And the media, drawn to conflict, gave wide exposure to the ads, from Newsweek (a cover story), to People, and ABC’s Nightline.

Then, at the height of the controversy last October, a gay college student named Matthew Shepherd was savagely battered in Wyoming and left to bleed to death, tied scarecrow like to a fence along a deserted roadside. Shepherds death shocked the country and gave to renewed calls for federal hate-crime legislation. Christian right activists, too, denounced Shepherds murder. But because they’d spread the gospel of anti-homosexuality, they were criticized on the premise that their declarations can foment violent gay bashing.













“Words have consequences,” says Wayne Besen, a spokesman before the Human Rights campaign, a gay rights group in Washington D C. “You can see it in any school yard in America.”

And all of a sudden, the National Battle over gay rights was once again front and center. Abortion and homosexuality are the top preoccupations for much of the Christian right. Indeed, the gay rights issue has become an important source of cash through direct mail appeals to carefully cultivated list of supporters. “It’s a very lucrative target for them,” says Deanna Derby, former director of education policy at People for the American Way, a civil rights group. “It brings in a lot of money.”

Not only that, but the message to the broader audience—honed in response to advances in gay rights—has become more sophisticated and, and a perverse way, politically correct. The meaning of the Truth in Love ads is couched in terms are Christian “love” for the homosexual sinner. Another strategy has proved very successful and electoral battles in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and Ohio; ignoring evidence of hate crimes and discrimination against gays, the Christian right portrays efforts to secure equal rights for gays as a bid for “special rights” that give them privileges other Americans don’t have. “We haven’t found an defective way of countering that,” says Rebecca Isaacs, political director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

If the army of Christian soldiers in the homosexuality wars has a general it FRC’s Robert Knight. In 1996, as a journalist for the Los Angeles Times, Knight concluded a long, gradual process of thought and medication; at that point, he says, “I gave my life to Jesus Christ.” Though he spent three more years at the Times, Knight was a changed man, having descended to commit himself to Christianity. After stints at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the Heritage Foundation, Washington’s premiere conservative think tank, he moved to the F R C. “Just look at the human body!” Says Knight. “You can’t fool nature. The rectum was not made for sexual activity.” Then, impishly, he adds, “it is an exit ramp, not an entry ramp.” Boyish and almost baby-faced, Knight, 47, is urgently sincere. “I’ve let Jesus Christ come into my life,” he says. “When you meet God face to face, you understand how far short you have fallen of God’s standards.” He hands me a pamphlet, “The Bible and Homosexuality,” which cites the passages from Genesis, Leviticus, Judges, Samuel 1 and 2, Romans, Timothy 1 and Corinthians I in which conservative Christians believe homosexuality is condemned. By far the most famous is the story of Lot in Sodom (Genesis 19:1-29), where an unruly crowd of men demand that Lot hand over some men, or angels, “So that we may know them” (in FRC’s translation: “So that we can have sex with them”) At that point, God destroyed Sodom.

Those passages and numerous others are nothing less than God’s law for many Christians, though many others theologians dispute the exact meaning and relevance of each and every passage. Knight’s blue eyes are unblinking as he warns that America’s “man-based culture” could shudder and fall with the advent of a sexual revolution brought about by gays. “As man is reduced in stature, all hell will break loose,” he says. “We’ll see a breakdown in social organizations, with more drug use, more disease, more unwanted pregnancies. You’re mainstreaming dysfunction.”

As the war room for the Christian right’s anti-gay campaign, the Family Research Council is a formidable force. House in a luxurious modern building in downtown Washington, D.C., FRC (slogan: “Family, Faith and Freedom”) is a $14 million-a-year operation that lobbies Congress and state legislatures, and churns out a steady stream of books, pamphlets and monographs on homosexuality; pornography, school prayer and abortion. FRC’s monthly Washington Watch reaches more than 400,000 homes, and its radio broadcasts are heard daily on 400 stations across the country.

Previously, FRC was part of Focus on the Family, James Dobson’s sprawling empire based in Colorado Springs, nestled against the Rockies. Dobson, a child psychologist and the author of Dare to Discipline, a book advocating corporal punishment for children, founded Focus on the Family in 1977, working out of a tiny office in Arcadia, California. Since moving to Colorado, Focus has grown astonishingly, into a $109 million-a-year ministry employing 1,300 people, who produce a dozen different radio and television broadcasts, fourteen publications (including its flagship monthly magazine, Focus on the Family, with a circulation of 2.5 million) and a wide rage of films and videos. Though virtually unknown to the general population, Dobson is wildly popular among his millions of followers, who listen daily to the Focus on the Family broadcasts on more than 1,900 radio outlets.

In 1992, as the FRC shifted its emphasis to lobbying Congress, Focus spun off FRC as a freestanding operation, though they have retained close ties.

Like many of his allies, Bob Knight believes that gays die younger, take more drugs, take more risks and engage in a wide range of anti-social conduct. Treading on highly controversial ground, Knight warns that the “gay agenda” targets children. “They are luring kids into a homosexual behavior,” says Knight. In a 1993 speech, he said, “There is a strong undercurrent of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture.”

If Knight is the movement’s general, his lieutenant is Pete LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. Energetic and fast-talking, LaBarbera, 36, was a liberal and an activist with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in the early 1980’s. Spurred by anti-communism and support of President Reagan’s 1983 invasion of Grenada, LaBarbera gravitated toward the right while a student at the University of Michigan. His personal “Damascus road” moment came thirteen years ago, when he met a woman- “ a missionary” he says – who helped him develop a “personal relationship with God.” With his intensified religious fervor came a growing revulsion toward homosexuality. Since 1993, LaBarbera has put out The Lambda Report, which is devoted exclusively to news about the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender world as seen through Christian-activist eyes. Though its circulation is just 3,000, the publication is notorious for it exposes of what LaBarbera sees as the unseemly and often lurid activities associated with the “gay lifestyle”. He regularly goes under cover to gay-rights meetings, gay bars and other locales, then recounts in near pornographic detail episode of fellatio, masturbation and sadomasochistic sex that he claims to observe. (Warning: Contains graphic descriptions” reads the subhead for one recent Lambda Report “exclusive” on a Washington D.C., “dungeon dance.”)

The Christian Right succeeds by tapping into American’s deep ambivalence toward homosexuality. Polls show a kind of schizophrenia: People seem to strongly favor anti-discrimination measures and other civil rights protections for gays and lesbians, while at the same time they view homosexuality negatively- a sort of distasteful tolerance. A national survey conducted in the Washington Post found that fifty-seven percent of Americans questioned considered homosexuality unacceptable; when asked about gay sex, seventy-two percent called it unacceptable. Yet an overwhelming eight-seven percent believe that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities.

Americans’ growing tolerance frustrates the Christian right, but its leaders counter balance this trend with considerable political clout. In Congress, a substantial bloc of senators and congressmen owe their allegiance, if not their election, to the Christian Coalition and it allies. They have a powerful grass foots apparatus along with a widespread network of radio and television outlets that millions of Christians turn to for alternative sources for news and opinion.
Indeed, the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, was credited to the power of the Christian right, and many of the freshman elected to Congress that year reinforced a loosely organized “God squad” on issues like homosexuality, abortion and school prayer. One member of that class, former Rep. Randy Tate, R-Wash, lost his bid for reelection in 1996, and now heads the Christian Coalition.

Especially, for Bible Belt Republicans in Congress, the Christian right has a make-or-break power. In Republican primaries where turnout is relatively low, groups like the Christian Coalition and focus on the Family can mobilize militant, committed voters at the polls. This edge in the primaries gives the groups access to the highest levels of the Republican party in Washington, including senate Majority Leader Trent Lott; last year, Lott won their praise when he compared homosexuality to disorders like alcoholism and kleptomania. Many other highly visible politicians, including Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla; Sen. James Inhofe, F-Okla; Sen. Jesse Helms, R-NC; Rep. Bob Inglis, R-SC, and Rep Henry Hyde, R-Ill, have publicly disparaged gays.

Still, many on the Christian right are angry that the GOP doesn’t pay more attention to their issues. Last year, Dobson threatened a complete break with the GOP when he believed that the Christian right was getting short shrift from the national Republican leadership. He and other like minded activists met in May with Republican House leaders, who promised to attend to the social conservative agenda. In July, House Republicans introduced a proposal to deny federal housing money to communities that provide benefits for unmarried domestic partners, another proposal seeks to block President Clinton’s efforts to prevent job discrimination against gay and lesbian federal employees.














I’m living proof that truth can set you free: The headline of a full-page ad appears below a photograph of an attractive, dark-haired woman, smiling and with her left hand held up to prominently display a wedding band. The caption reads: “Anne Paulk-wife, mother, former lesbian”. Also pictured are members of Exodus International, a worldwide network of Christian ministries devoted to helping gays and lesbians “confront the truth of their sexual sin.” The Truth in Love advertising campaign originated in the ten-acre Fort Lauderdale campus of Coral Ridge Ministries, whose awe-inspiring 300 foot spire looms over Federal Highway. Coral Ridge is the home of the dynamic Rev. D. James Kennedy, who has been preaching in Florida since the 1950’s. While Kennedy’s congregation of more than 9,000 members often swells with worshipers from around the country, it is through The Coral Ridge Hour that Kennedy reaches as estimated 3.5 million people weekly on 1,200 radio and television stations and two cable networks. Kennedy, who is dignified, articulate and fatherly, openly advocates that America should be transformed into the “Christian Republic”. Janet Folger, a former anti-abortion activist from Ohio, is director of the Center for Reclaiming America, the ministry’s political arm. Like many of her fellow Christian activists, Folger projects an aggrieved, set-upon mentality, arguing that Bible-Believing Christians are the true victims of discrimination, not gays. The FRC’s The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism says that “many men and women of faith.. have lost their jobs or been disciplined for standing against the homosexual agenda.” It is a constant refrain. “We have been picketed” says Folger. “They say our whole side is extreme, that we are religious-political extremists.” That feeling contributed to how upset and angry Folger became over denunciations of Trent Lott for his comparison of gays to alcoholics. She proposed to members of the National Pro-Family Forum that they conduct an outreach campaign through advertising. “We wanted to express a message of hope,” says Folger. “We wanted to tell homosexuals that you can change.”

Folger’s proposal, which was enthusiastically accepted by Coral Ridge and eventually, sponsored by more than a dozen groups, was not Coral Ridge’s first foray into the anti-gay movement. The ministry pours money into anti-gay-rights ballot measures and the National Legal Foundations. Coral Ridge’s media sophistication allowed it to easily assemble the ad campaign. Soon afterward, Anne Paulk found herself staring from newspaper pages across the country. Paulk and her formerly gay husband, John Paulk, have become spokespeople for the “ex-gay” movement. She says that by surrendering to God she managed to abandon her lesbian life for heterosexuality: “I was able to finally give all my relations to God and begin a the real road to healing.” John paulk, who had been a drag queen and gay prostitute, now chairs Exodus International. Founded in Anaheim, California, in 1976, Exodus today includes ninety-seven affiliated ministries. It receives 400 to 600 inquires a month from homosexuals and their families, say Bob Davies, the group’s North American director. A large stable of therapists and counselors, many of them affiliated with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals, often works with Exodus clients to help them shed their gay identity.

The ads generated considerable backlash. To most medical experts, including the American Psychiatric Association, therapists engaging in so-called “reparative therapy” aimed at changing the sexual orientation of gay patients borders on malpractice. On December 14th, the APA warned, “The potential risk of “reparative Therapy” are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior… The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion “ therapy, which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or … that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation”. Indeed, since the early 1970s, virtually the entire medical profession has undergone a sea change in favor of accepting homosexuality. But that hardly deterred the anti-gay movement, which claims that the APA, along with the American Psychological Association and other societies, has surrendered to pressure and intimidation tactics by gay-rights activists. A television ad campaign promoting the ex-gay philosophy is in the works.











While the conservative Christians who champion reparative therapy say they are motivated by sympathy for trouble gays, that is not true of everyone in the crusade against homosexuality. Extremists advocate the death penalty for gays, based on a radical interpretation of the Bible. The most notorious Anti-gay activist is the Rev Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro, Baptist church in Kansas, whose Web-site address is godhatesfags.com. To a man, the mainstream Christian-right groups have denounced Phelps, and he in turn has denounced the religious right as a “lukewarm cowards.” Phelps’ followers actually picket funeral of gay people. “ We display large, colorful signs containing bible words and sentiments,” says Phelps, including “GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL, etc”. He cites “statistics’ such as, “The average fag fellates 106 men, swallows fifty seminal discharges, has seventy-two penile penetrations of the anus and ingests feces of twenty three different men every year.”

One thing that Phelps has in common with the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition and ex gay ministries like Exodus is that they all refer to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron, founder of the Family Research Institute and ISIS, the institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality. Cameron, 59, a former psychologist based in Colorado Springs, issues a stream of data often used by anti-gay activists: that gays are far more likely than straights to molest children, that gays are more likely to commit crimes as mundane as tax evasion or shoplifting, and so on. “We’re kind of the wellspring of most of the statistics about the gay lifestyle.” Cameron says. Cameron, who in the 1980s called for quarantining gays to prevent the spread of AIDS, has been attacked not only by gay-rights groups but also by psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists, who have engaged in decades long war with Cameron. Like many of his allies, Cameron believes that, if left unchecked, homosexuality will destroy America like God did Sodom. “Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system,” says Cameron. “If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm.” So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. “I’m convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers,” says Cameron. “People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical,” he adds, sounding evangelical himself. “It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they’ll take enormous risks, do anything.” He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. “Martial sex tends toward the boring end,” he points out. “Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does” So, Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.

Whether or not one agrees with Cameron’s views, his research has been used efficiently by the Christian right During the 1990s in the campaign to overturn advances by gays and lesbians, and, it can be argued, to darken the prospects for peaceful acceptance of homosexuality. Gay rights activist David Garrity says that the referendum in Maine has intensified anti homosexual feelings there. “We all noticed a huge increase in harassment—a great number of shouts from teenagers in cars while we were walking on the street,” he says. “I can think of five incidents like that myself.” Tracking violent incidents, either state wide or nationally, is difficult. But according to the FBI’s latest data, in 1997 therefore 1,102 recorded hate crimes linked to sexual orientation, mostly aimed at gay males. The National Coalition of Anti- Violence Programs gives a figure of 2,445. The coalition also tracked sharp increases of anti gay violence during ballot initiative debates in Colorado and Oregon.

Following the Maine vote, the Christian Coalition announced its intention to launch a campaign called Families 2000, seeking “repeal of legislation giving special rights based on sexual behavior” in other states and “defeat of state gay adoption laws.” As a result of the Maine initiative, the coalition noted, “we add 100,000 new names to our organization in Maine.” With its complementary strategies portraying sexual orientation as a simple choice and arguing that gays wants special rights, the anti gay movement is only growing stronger.

Friday, July 31, 2009

My equivalent of Homer Simpson's 'new bilboard day'.

CDP press release day!

For those who don't follow the adventures of Fred and his fellow fundies on an obsessive-compulsive basis, the CDP is a little haphazard about giving online press releases. Namely, that the page is updates only a few times every year, so 50+ articles are put up in one go (my theory is that most CDPers are involved in some sex scandal like their American counterparts, so every time another volunteer is found out, Fred needs to find an train a new guy. And because computers allow such easy access to the naughty stuff, the CDP loses more tech workers than Atari on a bad day).

Most press releases are rather boring, however several are truly spectacular in their fundishness (that's a word now, OK?).

- Fred Nile can't understand the difference between group sex and rape.

- Fred thinks that all Muslim schools teach Wahhabism.

- All environmentalists are secret extremists who want humanity to die, starting with the innocent children. Oh, teh gay agenda is there as well.

- Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because the collective texts written by bronze age sheep herders who thought the earth was flat and insects have four legs provide a stronger basis for modern society than current psychological and pediatric institutions.

That's all, folks.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Pure misogyny: the sequel

A while back, I wrote a post regarding 'purity balls'. My main beef was the double standard; that sexual purity was/is only ever applied to girls, whilst boys were ignored. In hindsight, I now realise I missed something equally as problematic; that religious fundamentalists and hardline conservatives can't separate morality from sexuality (when I say 'sexuality' I'm referring to one's sexual self, not which sex they're attracted to. Sexual orientation is a component of sexual self, but the sexual self also encompasses views on sex, sexual drive, etc).

Check out 'sexual morality' and its sister page, 'sex-negativity'. It becomes very clear what the far-conservatives, religious and areligious, believe that any form of sexual expression outside of your married partner is inherently amoral, and this reflects on your person; that you are amoral as well. This is a concept so ridiculous I have a hard time trying to formulate a proper response, but this is a good example. Turtle is a prime example of sexual absolutism; s/he is unable to discern a hypothetical gay teacher's sexual orientation (viewed as sinful) from the teacher's moral beliefs. As far as Turtle is concerned, the teacher's immorality begins and ends with his sinful orientation-no other information, such as compassion or charity work, is required.

Similar, if more crude and insulting, views can be found by searching 'slut' or 'whore' in FSTDT. Once again, we peoples'-in this case womens'-morality totally defined by their sexual self.

This actually explains a great deal of fundie beliefs. Fundies believe that sexuality defines morality; therefore, someone who adheres to traditional sexuality (no premarital sex, no contraception et al) is moral, regardless of their other beliefs and actions. You can be pro-war, reject any compassion or kindness to the poverty stricken, you can lie, defame and hate those different from you, yet you are moral because of your sexuality. Equally, somebody who doesn't conform to such rigid sexual norms is amoral, no matter who they are. A sex worker may regularly fundrais to support anti-poverty measures, but they will still be considered completely devoid of morality by religious fundamentalists.

Shakesville gives an excellent statement regarding that 'sexuality as morality' philosophy, in this case in the context of purity balls:
This transaction immutably and inextricably links a girl's virginity with her character—to the exclusion, Hart worries, of all else. "[T]hese dads and daughters may be falling for the misperception … that some sort of righteousness is inherent in the status of virgin, or any outward appearance of propriety. But what if that same virginal girl has a heart full of bitterness, envy, lust, greed? Would her dad still be proud? Would she? Should they be?" Good questions all. Here's another: Is there not something deeply troubling about a parent who finds it quite impossible to be proud of his daughter, or a daughter who likewise finds it quite impossible to be proud of herself, if she has a heart full of love and kindness and generosity, and is also an unmarried non-virgin? How many girls, knowing their father's love and respect is contingent upon their "purity," will resist telling their fathers if they are molested, or raped?
To say that defining morality as sexuality is dangerous is a spectacular understatement. A low key example is this, where a city manager was fired because his wife is a porn actor. This also shows that people (such as the aforementioned Turtle) are unable to distinguish a person's private life from their public life. Mr. Janke was fired not because of ability to his job, but because the council was uncomfortable with his private life. I don't care if it was Ms. Janke who was the city manager; the idea that one's personal life is also their public life is ludicrous. Thankfully, the community is at worst, neutral, and a best, supportive of the Jankes.

This, I feel, doesn't only show the inherent danger of 'purity' but, on an unrelated note, provides an adequate explanation for the fundies' support for Bush; in return for their vote, he gave America abstinence-only indoctrination, disenfranchisement of gays, and attempted to roll back Roe v. Wade.

Other good stuff here, here and here.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Fundies: the source of everything good, holy and hilarious. Well, hilarious, anyway.

A while back, the Chaser did a skit, satirising the objects Christians claim to see holy people in. In response, the Christian Theo 'Democratic' Party gave a press release condemning the skit*. Now, an American is claiming that he can see Mary in some bird crap on his wing mirror. Either this guy is a fundie of the highest (or lowest) order, or he is a brilliant Poe.

I actually think it's impossible to properly make fun of fundies. They do it so well already, nobody else can top it.

*In the press release, also note the brilliant segue from condemning the sketch to good ol' fashion Islamophobia. Piers Akerman would be proud.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

I watched 'God on My Side' recently.

Good lord, it was terrifying. The film pulls very few, if any, punches, delving deep inside the psychology of American Christian fundamentalism-one half of the Republican vote (other half being big business). The film shows in as impartial way as possible why it is so important to prevent fundies from returning to power-because they want theocracy.

GOMS establishes that the fundamentalists freely want to align the laws of America along their interpretation of Christian principles. With theocracy, the freedoms of religion perish. From the ten commandments outside government buildings, to teacher-lead prayer in schools, abortion and homosexuality illegalised,to abstinence-only indoctrination (I won't call it 'sex education' because 'abstinence-only sex education' is an oxymoron), the effects of American theocracy are terrifying.

American theocracy needs to be opposed because those policies above are the antithesis of a liberal democracy. What if a non-believing child doesn't wish to participate in school prayer? Who gets to decide what's morally 'right' in the bedroom, wherein all parties are consenting (indeed, such anti-Sodomy laws are highly reminiscent of anti-interracial laws)?

Fundies are unable to understand why separation doesn't protect only the state-it protects religion as well. Who gets to decide which interpretation of fundamentalist Christianity is correct? James Dobson? Joseph Ratzinger? Fred Phelps? All an America theocracy needs is a hardline-enough President, and Christian denominations with opposing beliefs will be illegalised. Democracy is a fundamental tenant of religious freedom. What is also seen is that fundamentalists view the past (pre-banning of prayer) as a golden age of morality. Fundamentalises would give David Irving a run for his money for historial revisionism; pre-1962, there was rampant racism, rape was legal, African-Americans couldn't vote, and McCarthyism had only just subsided.

What I find most unappealing about all fundamentalist religions (not merely Christianity), much more than the anti-science stances (creationism and stem cells, anyone?) is the total intolerance of any faiths other than their own, and the fundamentalist hatred this generates. These people believe that Earth enters the end times, they will enter heaven, and the rest of humanity will be left on a hellish earth. It doesn't matter how moral I am; that I support various human rights and anti-poverty organisations-I am a non-believer, and so I will spend all eternity in torture in the lake of fire, simply for being so.

Perhaps these so-called Christian folk could take a lesson or two from the Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

"Your feeble irony metres are no match for the power of the Dark Side!"

The Pope: irony meter-destroyer extraordinaire.
Pope Benedict XVI has warned against the misuse of religion for political ends, in a speech to Muslim leaders on the second day of his visit to Jordan.

Speaking in the King Hussein Mosque in Amman, he argued that religion was a force for good, but its "manipulation" caused divisions and even violence.

...

"Some assert that religion is necessarily a cause of division in our world and so they argue that the lesser attention given to religion in the public sphere the better," he said.

"Certainly, the contradiction of tensions and divisions between the followers of different religious traditions, sadly, cannot be denied.

"However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society?"


I’ve had it up to *here* with Ratzinger’s inanities. There has never been any religious organisation that has abused its power for political purposes as much as the Vatican. From imprisoning scientists who went against its beliefs, masquerading as a country on the world stage, committing genocide against African women through its (and I say, entirely intentional) refusal to upgrade its policies on sexuality beyond the Medieval ages, excommunicating a girl who had an abortion OTHERWISE SHE WOULD DIE, condoning the state-sanctioned execution of gays and of course, for decades protecting pedophiles from being prosecuted and deliberately allowing children to be abused, so long as nobody knew about it.

Because that’s what dictatorships* do-they do everything possible to retain and expand their power. Suppressing opposition (maybe that’s there Burma got the idea from), increasing its influence through the UN, enacting policies to producing the maximum number of Catholics regardless of who dies in the process, ruling through fear and threat of exclusion, and protecting its own matter what. The sooner the Vatican goes the way of past dictatorial empires, the better.

Hat tip to Stupid Evil Bastard.

*One man, with absolute power, who rules until death ...come on. Tell me that that isn’t a dictatorship.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

So what do the fundies think of liberals?

Asides from hating us, I mean. If you're like me and enjoy the comedy gold that resides in Conservapedia (did you know that Barack HUSSEIN Obama was both an Muslim and an atheist? You will after reading our fallacy-proof journalism!), you may have seen their checklist to spot a liberal.
A liberal is someone who rejects logical
7 words in, and already my irony meter's been blown.
and biblical standards,
Except for all those liberal Christians.
often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
OK, we've had a jolly laugh at conservapedia's perception of us. But now onto the checklist.
A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices.
- Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
Yes, because there shouldn't be a correlation between a woman's wealth and her right to privacy.
- Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
Well, it is unconstitutional.
- Support for gun control
Quite right. So far, con'pedia is actually doing quite well in describing our positions.
- Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[1]
Again, liberals usually see sexual rights as an extension of the rights to free speech, press and privacy.
- Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
Yup, that's us! This is getting rather boring-where is the craziness usually associated with con'pedia?
- Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care
- Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
I honestly can't see how anybody could be against those above ideas. A person's right to decent health care and a child's right to a adequate education should not be based on wealth. It's compassion 101. Also, see here for education specifically.
- The denial of inherent gender differences
Ladies and gentlemen, we have just entered Jebus County, Texas. Above, you will see the farmers constructing a strawman. Moving on, we will a wormhole that will take us to the 1950's.
- Insisting that men and women have the same access to jobs in the military
And that concludes our brief trip through Jebus County. Breathe deeply while you can; the bus will be U-turning soon and we will only briefly see some sanity.
- Legalized same-sex marriage
- Implementation of affirmative action
- Political correctness
-Support of labor unions
I hope you enjoyed the brief respite from fundieism. Returning through Jebus County, you will see below that the farmers have constructed their strawman, and are currently filling it with all excerpts of "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" they've removed from their Bibles.
- Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex.[2]
If you check your field maps, you will see the truth. Moving on, we will see Southern lawyers trying to relegalise slavery and strip women of property.
- A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
Thus concludes our field trip through Jebus County. We will return soon, though, so tell your friends about it. Finally, we will take a trip through a moderately Blue Texan street.
- Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
- Abolition of the death penalty
- Environmentalism[3]
-
Disarmament treaties
- Globalism
- Opposition to an
interventionalist [sic] American foreign policy [4]
- Opposition to full private property rights[5]
- Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
- In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that
liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.
- Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
...with one exception.
Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).
Weird-I've only ever heard Obama being referred to as "Senator," "Democrat Nominee," "Presumptive Nominee," "Presidential Candidate," "President-elect," and "President." Still, I shouldn't be surprised.

This is also my 20th post that relates to fundies. We seem to exist in a symbiotic relationship: they need us (by 'us' I mean 'liberals') to generate anti-family, pro-sodomy, feminazi outrage that will fill their coffers, and I need them because otherwise my blog would feature little else but digital tumbleweeds. Sick, really.