Dispatches from the Creation Wars

It seems like bigotry has no bounds, just as long as you are not critical of homosexuality. The problem with the likes of neo-barbarians such as yourself is you reject the reality of evil. Homosexuality is an evil because one it is profoundly irrational and bound up in shear emotionalism. e.g., the "Gay" Arrogance movement's Appeals to pity, emotion, red herrings and smokescreens when it comes to pointing out the dysfunctionality of homosexuality. The higher instances of STDs among homosexuals relative to the general population, depression, suicide, alcoholism, etc., not to mention emotional immaturity, such as you have expressed in your drivel.

I would venture that you don't exactly believe the First Amendment protects anti-homosexual speech. If anti-Catholic bigotry should be acceptable, so should anti-homosexual prejudict.

Posted by: John | May 25, 2007 10:03 AM

I would venture that you don't exactly believe the First Amendment protects anti-homosexual speech.

You don't visit this blog much, do you? Ed is a free speech absolutist. See here and here for just two examples of his supporting the freedom of speech even of those he disagrees with. How many Christians would do the same?

Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | May 25, 2007 10:11 AM

"Then again, maybe God really is a man and he's okay with lipstick lesbians but finds gay men a threat to his masculinity."

Ha! Why does this sound like the plot to a crappy Adam Sandler movie to me?

As usual, though, I agree completely with your post.

Posted by: Raymond | May 25, 2007 10:23 AM

Homosexuality is an evil because one it is profoundly irrational and bound up in shear emotionalism.

Whereas my response to the sight of my girlfriend in our bedroom is purely dispassionate, rational and scientific?

Hey, John, there's nothing "irrational" or "emotionalistic" about prostitution. Does that make it "good" in your opinion?

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 25, 2007 10:29 AM

I would venture that you don't exactly believe the First Amendment protects anti-homosexual speech.

John, there are many blogs where your little "cut-and-paste" tirade might be an interesting observation and provoke discussion, but this isn't one of them. Cycle back through a few articles and read, for example, what Ed has actually said on this blog about putting up legal blockades to anti-gay hate speech in schools. Big hint - he's consistently for free speech, even when the speech in question is hateful crap directed at gay kids by other kids.

So how about instead of "venturing to believe" you actually, you know, read some of Ed's opinions that he's helpfully posted here and inform yourself as to the actual pro and con arguments, instead of just cutting and pasting some hateful crap that tells us more about the depths of your own psychological issues than it does about anything else.

Posted by: NonyNony | May 25, 2007 10:40 AM

So let me try to do some reverse engineering on your argument, John:

Your conclusion: Homosexuality is evil.

Reason no. 1: Homosexuality is profoundly irrational.

Reason no. 2: Homosexuality is bound up in shear [sic] emotionalism (whatever that means).

So, that which is irrational and bound up in emotionalism is evil. How about your silly religion, which bases its authority on ancient books with limited application in modern society? You can give me no good reasons why you believe in the teachings of that book, other than the fact that you were raised to place stock in it. If there are nuggets of truth in the Bible, they are true not because they are in the Bible but because they pass the tests of reason an moral intuition. Heterosexuality is, by your definition, evil as well. When I have fallen in love, whatever else is happening, I can say it has been profoundly irrational. People are not attracted to one another because they have made a rational decision to do so - but rather because they am following their instincts and emotions. Nature (or God, or whatever) has placed those instincts in sexually-reproducing organisms and, as a result, they are driven to mate and reproduce. They don't do it for rational reasons. Is all sex therefore evil? Well, you probably think it is. Too bad for you. With gays, their instincts have made them attracted to members of the same sex. So what? How does it affect you? The problem is that with lunatics like you, evil is incorrect belief, not incorrect outcome. The problem with that is that your beliefs may be incorrect, and you are willing to commit all kinds of real evil that affects actual human beings to placate your stupid imaginary friend.

By the way, to suggest Ed doesn't defend the legal right to attack homosexuality is absolutely laughable. You obviously are simply recycling right wing talking points at every blog you encounter evil librul opinions.

Posted by: Chuck | May 25, 2007 11:32 AM

@john

one of those pesky homosexuals here.... so lets cover some of those accusations:

depression: nope
thoughts of suicide: nope
alcoholism: nope
stds: never
emotional immaturity: i find the show 'ugly betty' funny so i guess you got me there

And have you thought that higher levels of depression, suicide, and alcoholism among gay males could be related to ... saaaaay ... people like you obsessed with the need to drive us underground?

What you said is completely wrong but i'll protect your right to say it.

Posted by: yoshi | May 25, 2007 12:09 PM

McCaffrey says following his comments about Falwell, Maher launched into a vile assault on Catholicism... She believes Maher would never have said such things about Muslims.

She's is seriously factually challenged. Right after Maher trashed the Christians on this video, he went after the Muslims, and gave Jesus some props in the process:

"Their religion's even worse. That thing about the 72 virgins? That's the lowest. Promising pussy in the afterlife is the lowest thing I've ever heard in my life. I'm no Christian, but I do think Jesus is a fantastic role model, and the reason he is is he never said anything like 'blessed are the meek, for they shall get laid.'"

It is worth noting how often those from the Right justify their speculations with more speculation. They do this all the time when they get into media bias ("if that had happened to a liberal, they wouldn't be so critical"). It's just as flawed then too.

Posted by: Science Avenger | May 25, 2007 12:52 PM

John trolled: Homosexuality is an evil because one it is profoundly irrational and bound up in shear emotionalism.

Care to give some examples that do not apply equally to a sterile heterosexual couple? And no, bibbling doesn't count.

The higher instances of STDs among homosexuals relative to the general population, depression, suicide, alcoholism, etc.

The last I checked, lesbians had LOWER instances of STDS than the general population. I know, I know, facts tend to unsettle our predjudices, the bastards.

As for male homosexuals, care to reference a study that shows the higher incidence of STDs is not completely related to the higher promiscuity rate of men generally? In other words, how many heterosexual men would have far more sexual partners than they do now, and consequently contract more STDs, were women as unselective on average as men are?

As for the depression, suicide, and alcoholism, you don't suppose having a large proportion of the population telling you that you are evil, that diseases you get were God's punishment for being who you are, that you are unfit to serve in the military, not allowed to have the same legal protections and rights with regard to your loved ones as others are, not allowed to adopt children, having yours taken from you, and beaten up, sometimes to death, by the bright lights of society, being forced to hide who you are to avoid ostracism, being disowned by your family for who you are, that all these things might just elicit some depression, suicides, and a wee bit of elbow-bending to get through the day? Complicated this ain't.

I mean really, what is it with you nutjob Christians that the idea of homosexuality puts you into such a self-righteous, self-contradictory spazz attack? You torment gays, then blame them for being depressed. You condemn gays for not having committed partners, then you fight tooth and nail to keep them from getting the same legal right to do so as everyone else. You preach the virtues of a stable two-parent household, to save the children of course, but to hell with the children if they have a gay parent.

Hell, I'm as heterosexual as one can be, and you twits could make me an activist for gays. I'm convinced it is true, re Ted Haggert, Mark Foley, etc., and even more so that it is the politically expedient thing to espouse, that rabid anti-homosexuals are very often in-the-closet homosexuals themselves. They're religious views cause them to hate themselves, and to fear other gays who might bring them out of the closet, so they compensate by becoming more homophobic than thou.

So John my friend, get comfortable with your homosexual side. Who knows, you might like it.

Posted by: Science Avenger | May 25, 2007 1:20 PM

That one's easy, coin. First they take political power, then they don't have to defend anything, because they can just legislate it into the state religion.

Posted by: Russell Miller | May 25, 2007 2:11 PM

Coin -

The Catholic League has nothing to do with stopping actual religious bigotry against Catholics because, surprise, there's actually very little of it that goes on in the US. So instead the Catholic League likes to spend time attacking free speech and trying to make "saying negative things about the Catholic Church" into the same thing as "bigotry". Oh, and getting the rubes to contribute money to the Catholic League and pay Bill Donohue's $300,000 a year salary. That's also very important.

In the past, the Catholic League was most noted for being the group that would protest movies and make them "controversial" so that more people would line up to see them than might have otherwise. The first time I ever heard of them (and I'm a Catholic myself) was when they were picketing "The Last Temptation of Christ" in the 80's and claiming that it was "anti-Catholic bigotry" by the "Hollywood Secular Humanists". Later they protested Kevin Smith's movie "Dogma" as also being "anti-Catholic bigotry".

The Catholic League has gotten more play in recent years, with Bill Donohue's bloviating face up on the screen far more often than it should be in a sane universe. The best reason I've heard for that so far is that the Church was spooked by the pedophile scandals and told the priests to back off on TV appearances. That left a hole for a "Catholic viewpoint" on the TV news shows that Donohue slithered in to fill.

Posted by: NonyNony | May 25, 2007 4:00 PM

A Google search for the Bill Maher controversy landed me on your web site for the first time. I was really fascinated by the well thought out thrashing you all performed on poor Bill. By coming to his defense, I am probably am asking to become the next punching bag.

Ed was pretty authoritative when he said, "I've got news for you: yes you do have to tolerate it, and you damn well should have to tolerate it. This is a free society, which means one in which everyone has the right to express their beliefs AND that everyone has to deal with the fact that others get to criticize those beliefs. Don't like that? Tough."

Likewise, you all backed up Ed in the follow-on threads I read, by repeatedly implying that all of you worship freedom of speech just as much as most religious people worship their 10 commandments. Fact is that the only group the Constitution commands to allow others a Freedom of Speech is Congress who writes our laws. The only group who must allow for freedom of religion is also Congress. To talk of speech or religion in fundamental freedoms terminology in any other context, is well, as most of you may say, ignorant. Ed's response was saying that Catholics have to accept barbaric ridicule. Sorry to say but McCaffray was right on this, not Ed; Christians also have a right to defend themselves against attack just as much as Ed's gay friends do when they are attacked. Non-Christians always get the moral of the story completely wrong about turning the other cheek. Jesus instructs for humanity not to return hatred with hatred. This is only another way of saying to love your neighbor as your self. It is not a commandment to Christians to become Masochists, as you seem to believe.

The other part of the posts remarked on how consistent Ed was in his defense of this all-encompassing holy grail of freedom of speech. Perhaps the "saintly, because he is so consistent", Ed Brayton, can also point in a previous post as to his support of Don Imus's freedom to call black basketball players "Nappy headed hos". Gee, that would make me feel so much better.

Remarks Ed:, "Virtually all of my Christian friends were as appalled by Falwell as I was."

Actually, as a Catholic myself, I would be more interested in how Ed's Christian friends reacted to Bill Maher saying:

"We weren't having sex, officer, I was performing a very private Mass, here in my car. I was letting my rod and staff comfort him. Take this and eat of it, for this is my roommate Barry."

People of religion are trying to set an example for thier children for a lifestyle that they believe best suits the continuation of his family and in the larger sense, society. You may feel that you have a right to shoot-up or some other self-destructive activity and frankly I do care enough for others that they do not engage in activities I feel will hurt them. And yet, I certainly do care that they do not seduce my children into believing that such behavior was acceptable. It is hard enough to get respect as a parent from their own children without society working against their interests. You want homosexual sex in the privacy of your own home, fine, none of my business. But if you start a homosexual act in front of my children, then it is my business.

Posted by: David | May 25, 2007 9:07 PM

Sigh, I post here occasionally under Dave or David, I'll start using my full name so folks can discern between me and the David a couple of posts above.

First, David, you are incorrect when you say: "Fact is that the only group the Constitution commands to allow others a Freedom of Speech is Congress who writes our laws. The only group who must allow for freedom of religion is also Congress." The Bill of Rights applies to government(s), meaning that none of the branches of government (legislative, judicial, executive) can abridge my right to speech or religion. The 14th amendment extends these restraints to the state governments. Basic civics.

Nobody is arguing that Catholics cannot defend themselves against what they perceive as impolitic or impolite speech. They have every right to do so within the public space of ideas and speech. Write a blog, buy time for an infomercial, stand on a streetcorner and exhort. However, just as you get to defend your faith from these perceived attacks, those of us who are non-believers and those who believe that much of religion is used as a battering ram for socially dogmatic views and policy get to make our arguments regarding your arguments. That many point out the logical inconsistencies between some of your brethren is the price he or she pays for making illogical and unsupported arguments. What this means David is that yes, you have to take the ridicule, and I must take yours as well.

As far as Mahr's line: "We weren't having sex, officer, I was performing a very private Mass, here in my car. I was letting my rod and staff comfort him. Take this and eat of it, for this is my roommate Barry." I find it funny. It plays with the dogma of the church catholic and exposes the pretense that religion stands on in relation to the sanctity of its rituals. Are catholics the only faith that get to institutionalize rituals?

People of faith should set examples for their children. But remember that Jim Jones was a man of faith. When people of faith act stupidly, they should be called on it. When atheists act stupidly, they should be called on it.

AS for you last comment. what in your mind constitutes a "homosexual act?" Is it intercourse? Is it kissing? Is it holding hands? On the first I would probably recognize your right to, in your words, make it "your business." However, as to the latter 2, I don't think its any of your business.

Cheers,

David Worthington

Posted by: Dave | May 25, 2007 10:26 PM

Ian, I couldn't really follow your train of thought on the first paragraph. I think you believe that I advocated "restrictions" on free speech - If by restrictions you mean, Congress writing laws, I thought I made myself clear here. "Congress shall make no law..." All I am asking is that you do not blindly "defend to the death" his right to make an ass of himself. Bill Maher deserves support from no one for his remarks.

Bill Maher did not make his offensive remarks in the basement of a leather club; he made them on HBO, broadcasted straight through the walls, into the living rooms of millions of homes. I don't have that kind of freedom of speech. Of course, your next talking point will be that I don't have to buy HBO and you would be right. I am already past you as I have come to expect HBO to allow offensive remarks and so I do not buy HBO. However, if Bill Donohue can persuade HBO that they would have better business without Bill Maher, I fully expect you to support the free speech rights of HBO to dump Bill Maher.

Therefore, in an ironic sort of way, and if it makes you happy, I have now placed my own children into the closet. Thanks!

Posted by: David | May 25, 2007 10:46 PM

DuWayne, thanks for the caring support: "Heres a thought, rather than insulating your children from the evils (or perceived evils) of society, talk to them about them. Don't wait until they get the shock of their lives, when you have to settle for damage control. Preempt it by letting them know it exists and why it's wrong. Don't infringe on everyone elses freedom and expect your kids to be safe, shit will still happen and if it happens to happen in front of them, they may not realize they shouldn't join in. Not that I would try to tell you how to raise your kids - by all means, do as you will, just my humble suggestion."

It reminds me of a confrontation I had with the local school administration. They had decided for me that my son should be exposed to all the evils of the world now rather than later. So they issued him a daily planner where each day had a different cartoon character engaging in one of the worlds vices; smoking one day, drugs the next, unprotected sex, and so on. Of course, by the last frame the cartoon character was always shown the stupidity of his ways. When confronted, the high level admin still saw no problem. I asked him if he had any children. "Sure", he said proudly, "two daughters." "Great!", I said, "Give them to me for a few hours so I can have them watch my wife and I perform in the bedroom. And I promise, after we are done, we will be sure to tell them the moral lesson that it is best that they wait until they are married before they do what we did, as this is only for married couples". He gave my son a regular planner.

Posted by: The other David | May 25, 2007 11:35 PM

David -

To be clear, I firmly believe that it is your job, not the schools, to teach your children as you will. At the least, they should have informed you as to what they were passing out to the kids, so you could object to it in advance, instead of after. I think insulating kids is a bad idea, but that is a parents perogative and I do not believe that the state has a right to take that away. That said, it is also not the states responsability to do the insulating, nor is it societies - that responsability is yours.

Posted by: DuWayne | May 26, 2007 12:02 AM

Ed wrote: "This is simply wrong. The first amendment applies not only to Congress but to all government agencies as well as to all state and local government agencies through 14th amendment incorporation. Not particularly relevant here though."

Sorry Ed, but if the Constitution said Congress then the Constitution said Congress. There really can be no argument here. In particular, the First Amendment does not bring in the states. Congress is not part of the governance of the states. The states created Congress. That is why we have state Constitutions. Yeh, I know, the SCOCUS interprets that the 14th Amendment supersedes all states rights. I don't believe the states felt that way at the time when three out of four of them were ratifying it. Even with the carpetbaggers twisting the arms of the South making them ratify, the overwhelming consensus was that the 14th was only to rectify black rights. Perhaps it is time to rethink that one and repeal it?

Ed wrote: You're mistaken. There is no such limitation on the first amendment, no qualifier for what particular type of speech is protected. This is the same incredibly stupid argument that Robert Bork made, one of the many reasons why he was rejected by the court. Are you really going to suggest that the first amendment does not protect against a government ban on literary speech? Or scientific speech? Or satirical speech?

You know Ed, I thought I was going to have to research the Federalist papers to find the meaning of "speech" in terms of the 1st Amendment but you saved me the trouble. If Robert Bork says the intent was to limit only political speech in a political setting then it must be true. He is smarter than either of us. Gee, next thing you will be telling me is that I have the freedom of speech to tell my flight attendant that I want to blow up the plane. I can't have my cake and eat it too can I. Are we to disagree on the intent of the word "Congress"?

And the main reason Bork was rejected was simply because he "looked evil". Few knew any of his cases, and so he was easily picked to death by types like you because he had no defenders. The media did their part as well of course.

Posted by: The Other David | May 26, 2007 1:51 AM

The bottom line is Falwell used religion to spread his bigotry. Bill Maher was correct in pointing that out. Falwell was far from Christian in my opinion.

As for the Catholic Church, I was raised Catholic and left the Catholic Church 10 years ago. I left because my teen daughters asked me, "Mom, why do we belong to a church that allows its 'moral leaders' to abuse children and not prosecute them?" I had no answer for my children.

It is time for accountability in our government and in our organized religion.

Posted by: Melissa | May 26, 2007 2:19 AM

Your posters are Calvinists? It is not just Mr. Donohue who you guys have called every derogatory statement one can pull from out of his sleeve.

Ah, that's not an anti-Catholic bias you're detecting there...that would be the anti-jackass bias.

Posted by: Gretchen | May 26, 2007 2:48 AM

One rather significant nit, Ed. From your post

A comedian who often mocks religious figures mocked a religious figure; go figure.

Actually, Maher was mocking Falwell as a political figure (and a business figure) posing as a religious figure, not as a religious figure per se. It should be recognized that Falwell helped to bridge the divide between (some) religious figures and political figures, but it should be kept in mind that Falwell himself voluntarily put himself into the political sphere. And it is from the standpoint of Falwell's political and business activities that Maher was mocking him.

And it is important to recognize that. That Falwell wrapped his politican and business activities in religious garb is irrelevant.

Posted by: raj | May 26, 2007 7:59 AM

"Fact is that the only group the Constitution commands to allow others a Freedom of Speech is Congress who writes our laws. The only group who must allow for freedom of religion is also Congress. To talk of speech or religion in fundamental freedoms terminology in any other context, is well, as most of you may say, ignorant."

Have you read the Constitution? Hate to break it to you, but I'm guessing you haven't since the first three words of it make your argument useless: "We the people...." The Constitution didn't come from Congress, a judge, a president, or a King -- it came from and is a contract with all of the American PEOPLE. That's kind of the major point of our entire government: power doesn't come from the states or Congress. It comes from the people.

Further, the entire point of the Bill of Rights was to further LIMIT the power of the federal government. That certainly makes the most sense you see: we limited the federal government by giving only the freedoms contained to the federal government.

I'm sure there's more I could comment on, but enough stupidity was contained in there to make me flip.

Posted by: Callandor | May 26, 2007 6:29 PM

>Then again, maybe God really is a man and he's okay with
>lipstick lesbians but finds gay men a threat to his
>masculinity.

I used this line of reasoning - that if AIDs is God's scourge on homosexuals, He must really love lesbians as they're one of the lowest infected groups out there thus God really is a man cuz most men I know looooove lesbians - on a member of Fred Phelps' church (the guy who has the godhatesfags.com website). It was his grandson in fact. Sonny-boy turned out to be not much of a deep thinker and couldn't come up with a response to that other than to damn me to hell.

Posted by: TlalocW | May 31, 2007 11:33 AM

Kenneth Fair: amen to that

ps. there is no God so the amen was meant to be ironic ;)

pps. John is a dipstick

ppps. Donahue is a fat fascist wankstain (damn, there goes the alliteration)

Posted by: Jacques | May 31, 2007 1:27 PM

If anything Maher has more guts calling out a local crazy who's followers have a demonstrated history of local violence (abortion bombings, the pipe bombs at Falwell's funeral etc).

Posted by: feckless | May 31, 2007 3:35 PM

David said: People of religion are trying to set an example for their children for a lifestyle that they believe best suits the continuation of his family and in the larger sense, society.

And I take it the "non-religious" don't? You act like we are a bunch of unethical drug users! And yet you are the one going on about how prejudiced society is against your religion? How about dropping your little myths against the rest of us?

I know you must enjoy ramming your self-righteousness up the asses of the non-religion, but don't assume you are a better person because you happen to be "religious."

Posted by: Sarah | June 1, 2007 7:22 AM