Posts Tagged ‘homophobia’

In responding to Pope Francis’ statement with respect to homosexuality, Oklahoma House District 91 candidate for state representative Scott Esk has made one of the most vile assertions possible. Mr Esk quoted the Hebrew Bible as condoning the stoning to death of homosexuals. When asked to clarify his position he stated:

“I think we would be totally in the right to do it… That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.” “If men wink at such perversions, God may have no choice than to judge such nations with calamities.”

This is a very direct statement and we should acknowledge Mr. Esk for being honest about his position – all be that position inhumane, despicable, and morally reprehensible. He was honest and, because of that, it’s crystal clear that he should not get a single vote, should not be representing anything within the United Stated government, and should surely not EVER use the word “libertarian” in speaking about himself.

To be clear: The 1978 Libertarian Party platform clearly states the libertarian position on governmental sex discrimination: “No individual rights should be denied or abridged by the laws of the United States or any state or locality on account of sex, race, color, creed, age, national origin, or sexual preference.”

If one can’t discriminate due to sexual preference then how the hell could one possibly murder someone for it!!! This may be some horrible fringe view from the bowels of the Tea Party. But is certainly is not only against “some parts of Libertarianism” but it forsakes the very foundation of Libertarianism by removing it’s cornerstone of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

How dare this man call himself “largely Libertarian” when he takes the most vile, liberty-averse, position that any sentient being could possibly take! Being willing to kill people for behaviors that have no effect on you cancels out every other Libertarian value. Saying that we would “be totally in the right” to stone gays is not only an abhorrent interpretation of the Hebrew bible but it is as evil as you can be. To a Libertarian, there are NO acts between consenting adults that constitute “things that are worthy of death“.

Mr. Esk: In the US constitution LIFE comes even before liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You should be deeply ashamed for holding such a mind-numblingly intolerant view, especially while having the balls to call yourself “pro-life”. This is 2014 not 4000 BCE and if you are pro-death when it comes to people who happen to differ in sexual preference from yourself then you are surely not pro-life. You are simply a bible thumping fringe hypocrite who has no place in American government.

If you know anyone in Oklahoma House District 91, I strongly urge you to encourage them to avoid Scott Esk. He does not represent American, he does not represent the fine tradition of Libertarian discourse, he should NOT represent Oklahoma.

 

There are 2 things that make me angrier than almost anything else in the entire universe. They are disrespecting military personnel killed in the line of duty and expressing anything other than outrage at the killing of children.  I do not understand the Westboro Baptist Church’s stance on homosexuality but, I suppose I could accept that their view differs from mine. What I can not respect, will not sanction, and believe to be among the most evil acts known to humanity is the ridiculous picketing that they do at military funerals and that they threatened to do at the funerals of the children murdered in Connecticut, just over a week ago. These people are the absolute embodiment of evil. If I believed in a “hell”, I would want them sent there en masse. Since I don’t, the best I can do is to help eradicate them. What all of us can do toward than end is to sign the “We The People” petition at whitehouse.gov and to have them declared, by the US government, as an utter menace to our way of life. In reality, they are within their first amendment rights to say and do what they do. That is the downside of a free society. None the less, we need millions of people to stand against their divisive, hateful, reprehensible, and evil ways. So, to all my followers, I want to urge you to stand for unity; diversity; unconditional respect for human life; and, if you believe in a God, a God who is benevolent. Join me in standing against the evil of the Westboro Baptist Church and their insanity.

Sign the petition here –  http://wh.gov/RI5h

A while back I complained about Rick Perry and stated my opinion that he should be disqualified as a Presidential candidate. My expressed opinion was that anyone who wants to create a Christian theocracy out of the United States of America is not qualified for the post of chief defender of the American Constitution. I believe that and I will be glad when the possibility of a Perry presidency is behind us. I wish him well but I hope he’ll soon go back to Texas to quietly wait for we Jews to get to Jerusalem and be incinerated so that he can have his happy everlasting life with Jesus and Michelle Bachmann.

Now, it’s time to shed some light on the next potential all-controlling theocrat. It’s time for us to understand why Rick Santorum would be an even more dangerous president than would Perry. It’s time to ask whether the fabric of American society could survive the onslaught of a hyper-theocratic, homophobic, anti-intellectual nut.

I actually think we could survive; but only because we have 2 other government branches that could potentially still give a damn about liberty, compassion, acceptance, diversity, and human rights. Now, you know I have to think that Santorum is dangerous when I’m even willing to accept the remote possibility that Congress and the Court could mitigate his utter devotion to radical Christian hegemony. Well… I do. I do think he is the most dangerous of the remaining candidates. To understand why, lets’ look at what he has said along with my (admittedly biased) interpretation of what those statements mean.

He does not care about alleviating suffering because he views it as positive: “Suffering, if you’re a Christian, suffering is a part of life. And it’s not a bad thing, it is an essential thing in life … There are all different ways to suffer. One way to suffer is through lack of food and shelter and there’s another way to suffer which is lack of dignity and hope and there’s all sorts of ways that people suffer and it’s not just tangible, it’s also intangible and we have to consider both.”

He is blatantly intolerant of anyone who questions his version of Christianity: “The American Left hates Christendom. They hate Western civilization.”

He thinks that he can rewrite the well established, undisputed history of violence by Christians against Jews and Muslims throughout the Crusades. Even the Catholic Church, that carried out the Crusades, does not deny their religiously motivated violence!: “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical.”

He approves of government intervention into personal lives: “The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.”

He approves of government intervention into our personal cultural decisions: “They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture”.

He is an anti-intellectual creationist: “What we should be teaching are the problems and holes and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution.”

He cares nothing about the stewardship of the planet: “Drill everywhere… There is no such thing as global warming.”

He approves of government prohibiting contraception and, thus, laws based on a religious groups belief system: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. ”

He thinks that the cause of all of America’s financial problems is abortion: “The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don’t have enough workers to support the retirees. A third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion.”

He is homophobic: “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.”

He is homophobic again: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

And… did I mention… He is homophobic?: (Well okay… only if you think that comparing homosexuality to homeland security is a bigoted analogy [you decide]) “You can say I’m a hater. But I would argue I’m a lover. I’m a lover of traditional families and of the right of children to have a mother and father. I would argue that the future of America hangs in the balance, because the future of the family hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”

So, here’s the deal:

If we elect Rick Santorum to the office of the President, we will have put the least rational, most radical, theocrat in American Presidential history into the driver’s seat for a country in turmoil. He will be against everything the Left stands for, most of the things the Right stands for, and anything that does not comport with his singularly fanatical brand of widespread government interference into our lives.

There may well be people in this country who want America to be the Christian version of an undemocratic, fascist, theocracy. I am not one of them and, frankly, I think that very few people are. But, what voters need to understand is this: If your answer to the question “Who do you want for President?” is “Rick Santorum” then you have effectively endorsed someone who want’s exactly that. It is anti-American, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-rational, racist, homophobic, anti-constitutional, and closed-minded.

All of those are the exact opposite of the traits that made America great and we can’t afford to let it continue.

Today, on his Radio Program “Focal Point”, the spokesman for the American Family Association, Bryan Fischer, said that gays and lesbians are a risk to US security.  Mr. Fischer twists a tiny bit of research into such a knot that it becomes both devoid of context and intrinsically nonsensical to make it seem that anyone who does not conform of his idea of sexually “correct” is inherently mentally ill. But, why should this surprise us when Mr. Fischer is also the nut who said that repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is “treasonous” because it leaves us with “with a military comprised of nothing but sexual deviants.” But let’s leave the stupid, irrational blabber aside so that we can look at some of Mr. Fischer’s even stupider, irrational blabber.

What could be stupider than to say that gays are intrinsically mentally ill? Well…. how about this:

“… to me it would not be a loving thing for God to say to Christopher Hitchens ‘you spent your entire life defying me, you’re still defying me. You died in defiance; you still are in defiance as you stand before me. You don’t want anything to do with me. You don’t want anything to do with my son. You don’t want anything to do with my Gospel. You don’t want anything to do with the word of God. You don’t want anything to do with other people that are followers of me.’ It would not be a loving thing to compel someone like Christopher Hitchens to spend the rest of eternity in a place that he hated; a place that he does not want to be; a place that he has no desire to be; a place that he has spent all of his life resisting, condemning, avoiding, refusing to embrace. To me, that’s not love, that would be a form of cruelty.”

But, wait. There is no context here. If I stop now, I’ll be accused of some stupid, irrational blabber of my own since I too will be dismissing context. So, I won’t stop. I’ll offer the requisite context.

The extended quotation I just provided was a summary of Mr. Fischer’s contention that “if the Scriptures mean anything” then Christopher Hitchens is now in Hell; and he’s there because God LOVES’s him“. First, Mr. Fischer, the “Scriptures” in your sentence means nothing more than “YOUR interpretation of the Christian scriptures”. The whole book you call the “old testament” is the “Hebrew Bible”, which never discusses “Hell” because “Hell” is a Christian concept. We Jews love the miracle of humanity too much to even have a concept of “Hell”. So it’s not “The” Scriptures. It’s your interpretation of scripture. But that is not what disgusts me about the line of “reasoning” (or shall we call it. “anti-reasoning”) you offer.

What I detest is your definition of “love”. If you define the word “love” to mean “allowing someone to be forever tortured in a mythical land of eternal torment” then you don’t define the word the way any dictionary does. You can’t just take a word and change its meaning to suit yourself. You have taken the word “love” and turned it into the word ‘hate”. That is not how language works. You see, you are not describing a loving, benevolent Being. You are describing a hateful one. And, here’s the rub: God is not the purveyor of hate. YOU are. You teach hatred toward gays (12/19/11); you teach hatred toward Mormons and Muslims (12/7/11); you teach hatred toward people who use words you dislike (11/29/11); you teach hatred toward Liberals (10/31/11); and now you are teaching hatred toward atheism, reason, intellectual honesty, and integrity in attacking Christopher Hitchens even as we mourn his death.

The best I can tell, Mr. Fischer, is that, if you are the representative of the American Family Association, then they should re-name themselves the “American Hatred Association”. Or maybe not. Maybe I can just do what you do with the word “love”. I can just change the word “Family” to mean “Hatred” and we’ll be all done!