'Gays and lesbians still within the church, seeking desperately to deny their sexuality and remain in the Christian collective, often suffer severe depression and blows to their self-esteem.'

I take this to mean gays want to be accepted and loved as gays by traditional religion. News flash: It ain't ever gonna happen. OK?

Clearly, religions that preach love of fellow man, especially love that derives from "God's" love of man, are hypocritical to the extent that they promote hate against gays or any other group. But it is naive of the author to believe that any traditional religions-not only Christian- will consider homosexualtiy moral or acceptable. The Bible, the Koran, and traditional Christian, Jewish and Muslim commentators all denonce homosexuality as immoral and unnatural. Adherents of the traditional strains are not going to be moved by the "it's not fair argument" any more than a clique at high school would include irratiionally or not every student at the school. Government can't and shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Non-government organziations like churches however are protected by the First Amendment to be as intolerant of outsiders as they like, short of violence and active harassment.

The author reveals his real desire however is not just to be let alone but to be "accepted" by religion, when he quotes his Divinity School professor who equates discrimination against gays with Nazism. The Nazis, though, essentially repressed everyone who wasn't a Nazi, including German heterosexual Christian dissenters. So the tired references to the Nazis as the gold standard of repression is unhelpful.

The fact is that "left wing" religious movements-Reconstructionist Jews, Unitarians, the leadership for the most part of the US Episcopal Church-do tolerate and encourage participation in congregagational life by gays. Inclusion is now a feature of the US religious left. That is not enough for the author, however. He wants to be loved by everybody and he wants everybody, doctirne notwithstanding, to include and encourage gay members and pride. The traditionalists however, are who they are, and they have the same right as gays to be mistaken, foolish or hypocritical. That does not make them Nazis anymore than it makes supporters of gay rights utopian Communists.

Until St Paul is excluded from Christian doctrine, or small groups of rabbinical panels lose their power to rule over the Orthodox Jewish community, homosexualilty will not be considered anything but sinful, reason aside. After all, religion is not based on reason, except for the numerically small sects like Unitarians, Reform Jews and other "liberal' religions. Fundementalism believes in irrational causes of problems and in irrational solutions. Bible-based religion is not science, and it doesn't pretend to be. It is tedious to see the author trying to make the Falwells into something they are not, as it is tedious to see "Christians" trying to make gays into someithing that they are not.

Thus, namecalling by gay supporters is no better than the shouts of small group of Christian thugs who use the slur "fag" against gays.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Until St Paul is excluded from Christian doctrine, or small groups of rabbinical panels lose their power to rule over the Orthodox Jewish community, homosexualilty will not be considered anything but sinful, reason aside."

I´m one of those people who consider themselves Christian without believing the idiocies and injustices that Paul preached. But of course, traditional Christians will call me a "backslider", that I have to take every word inside that book as the unquestionable Word of God(often using quotes from that book as "proof" and justification for that doctrine) I don´t. But I do believe in love, and that´s what I think Jesus is all about. So I consider myself a Christian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That simple statement and its obvious repercussions exposes their entire anti-Christian fake crusade for exactly what it is; a way to foster hatred and intolerance and profit off the power it provides. Exactly as the Nazis before them; same tactics, different targets.

Homosexuality has had NOTHING to do with the breakup of the family and marriage; on the contrary, quick and easy divorce, quicky temporary "marriages", and "til we fall out of lust" "marriages", preferably with as many kids as possible to add to the misery, DO. If ANYTHING has profaned the institution of marriage irreparably, it is this, not two men or two women willing to endure the ravages and hatred of 50% of bigoted anti-Christian Amerika just to be together and love each other legally.

But outlawing divorce would strike a little too close to these closet-cases and middle-aged kiddie porn addicts married to outright frigid shrews and they most definitely want the option to be able to dump them at any time for the next willing young pretty piece of ass willing to whore herself out to power and money.

So don't worry; they'll never outlaw divorce, and that only proves they don't give a Goddamn about marriage and the family; not really.

They only want a covenient target to pit their hatred and rage and impotence against.

Every last one of these bastards will answer to the god they worship directly for every bit of their evil, and I wouldn't want to be in their melting shoes for a trillion dollars when they discover that THEIR god was Lucifer all along and he starts EATING THEM.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a retired Continental Airlines captain who flew with gay pilots. I didn't care what their sexual orientation was, as long they operated my jetliner safely. Never did I work with a gay pilot who wasn't a good stick.

But more than that, I enjoyed their company. Generally speaking, gay pilots were interesting chaps. They appreciated the finer things of life, such as art, plays and literature, and most importantly, were not narrow-minded bigots like Christian rightwingers. I flew with a lot of those jerks as well.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These folks talk about men being the "leaders" of their household, because the Bible says so? Try changing the color of the walls in your kitchen, or forgetting to take out the trash, and see how that works out for you.

I say we let these guys try to take over the household, and let them hang themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The biblical injunction against homosexuality was written for one reason and one reason only. Gay sex won't result in children. It's a direct refutation of the "be fruitful and multiply" idea.

If Christians didn't have lots of children, they couldn't attain power in numbers. Some Catholics, Mormons and fundies still adhere to it. Google the "quiverfull" movement...it'll scare you to death.

The world population is bursting at the seams. We don't need any more people. But since the writers of the bible framed homosexuality as an abomination ( for their own purely practical reasons ) , the fundies of today support an injunction that has long outlived its usefulness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where are the "authorities" when HATE Crimes are committed? If buses carrying Jewish groups were spray painted with anti Jewish slogans, etc., it would be front page news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just another gift to society from Christianity and another illustration of the truth that religion, especially this vile American form of it, is a pox on humanity. So many people are deceived by the greatest lie ever told and believe just the opposite. They believe that the rest of us are prejudiced and just don't understand how good they really are.

I'll tell you what, Christians. Get your people to do ONE THING that non-Christian society agrees is worthwhile and I'll stop thinking of you as completely useless parasites. And no, telling other people not to lie and steal from the pulpit every Sunday while you lie and steal yourself doesn't count; neither does passing out Bibles and tracts.

The religious just keep arguing, "were good, really we are!” but all that we get from religion is problems like this one. We'll be the judge of whether you people are good for the rest of us or a disease. I vote disease.

Its time to stop pussyfooting with the people who disseminate this contagion and call them what they are. Good people don't treat other people like that, and Christians are not good people. Nobody but Christians say that they are.

Those of you who contribute money to them or advocate their program are just as guilty even if you don’t actively preach hate. You know (or should know) how your organization feels about gays and how it speaks about them and treats them, and yet you subsidize those people every week. This philosophy puts Christianity in the good company of other famous gay-haters: the Nazis and the Klan. Nice list.

Now, here’s where the Christians tell me how outraged they are that somebody would dare criticize Christianity. Too bad. I have no more tolerance left for such an organization or its members. If you support organized religion in America, then you are also supporting it’s jihads on liberalism and democracy in general, and gays in particular. Those who understand this do a disservice to the rest by giving the religious a pass because they don't know better and they appear to mean well. So what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Richard Dawkins asks "what's wrong with religion? Why be hostile?" in the book The God Delusion.

He points out, with a quote from George Carline, that the Religious Right "has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not wnat you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he had a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time ... But He loves you!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The British television documentary "The Root of All Evil" helps explain why some religions are so hostile. The full documentary can be viewed on YouTube.com, at the following links:
--
The Root of All Evil - The God Delusion (Part 1 of 2)
(48 minutes)
--

The Root of All Evil - The Virus of Faith (Part 2 of 2)
(43 minutes)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This author has little understanding of Christians and the motivations of Christians. All this mumbo jumbo about male power because Jesus was a male is not even a part of the Christian mind set. The Jews that knew Jesus and could listen to him teach did not follow him because he did not carry a sword. The savior they wanted would deliver them from the Romans. Jesus taught a different worldview. Jesus warned us that there would be many false churches. Jesus said that many would come to him in the end time and claim to have prophesized in his name and to have done good works in his name. Jesus would say unto them “I did not know you”. However I agree with the author that pagan Christians like Falwell are dangerous. There is nothing more dangerous than a pagan Christian doing God’s work. Promise a pagan twenty virgins or what ever floats their boat and they are capable of anything. This has more to do with people being human than Christian or Muslim. There is an inherent conflict between churches and Christians. Churches are required within Christian life to suffer the children to come unto Jesus. Churches are places to learn they are our schools. Unfortunately, church leaders are often more concerned with the wellbeing of the church than the faith of the members. It is hard for a church to survive if they teach the people to go into their closets and say the Lords prayer. A personal relationship between you and God enables you to follow the teachings of Jesus. So when a pagan like Falwell has the opportunity to create a false church he takes it. The deceivers are like the poor they will always be with us. We will hate Homo Joe to prove to God that this is the true church. Most false churches do this to some degree pick a sin and birds of a feather will flock together. This is a problem within the Christian community to solve. The Christian community will solve this. This is why Jesus came the first time; he came for the lost sheep.

Imagine this, Homo Joe is standing before God in the end time. God says to Joe, dam Joe you followed the teachings of Jesus as well as I expected any human being to do. However, since you’re a homo you got to be punished for all eternity. It is a good thing that Christians believe God dispenses grace and not God Falwell. We do unto others, as we would have them to unto us and we let God dispense grace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I read with sadness the vicious attack this writer has made against organized religion. But I have saw it so many times before here and other places that I have almost become accustomed to it.

I am not particularly alarmed by this hatefull article itself.

What follows does alarm me, It is the agenda of the communist party in 1963, unedited, it seems they succeded in most of thier agenda, but under what name?

You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. With the help of the ACLU (itself a communist organization from inception), most all of thier agendas have come to flourish
For the purposes of this discussion please read item 28.

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can you believe this crap? I thought all these people were dead. It's like finding a Japanese soldier still hiding on Guam. Oh well, at least time has rendered Ohio Patriot harmless -- except for his or her contributions to the Religious Right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Perhaps you could explain what you're getting at? This is not a "snipe," by the way. I am genuinely curious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What does a list of communist goals in the 1930s have to do with the author's essay on Christianity and rampant homophobia and discrimination against GBLTs? Comments like these should be removed. Do not eat up comments pages with irrelevant rants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your post is outstanding in its pure, unadulterated lameness. I suggest you go back to watching your Super 8 black-and-white anticommunist propaganda films from the early 60s and leave this board to people who want to express something other than lame propaganda reminiscent of the McCarthy era.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, should we go back to making being gay a crime and allowing parents to put their gay kids in mental hospitals and subjecting them to electroshock?

Is that what you want?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

Memorable quotes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good people and Chris Hedges-- May I invite you to take a look at how our culture and institutional religion generally recognizes and accepts human sexuality, be it female, male or homo. We are in denial that sexuality is as good and important function of our body as are the heart and brain. We exploit it, we destroy it with abuse and assault, forbid it, deny it, trash it. Until we accept the goodness of sexuality as an important and integral aspect of our humanity, we are in a sexual quagmire of hopeless darkness. My words come from experiencing horrific destruction of my humanity through emotional, physical and mental abuse of my sexuality. I grew up with this cloak of lies and denial and continue to fight and struggle with our human ecology of denial as I embrace for the first time the wonder of my sexuality now that I am well into the life of my seventh decade on earth. Slamming the Christian right will not do it; I invite each of us to take a deep breath and look within ourselves to decide how we can make a difference without. Then we can stand as mindful people of soul and spirit who honor, not desecrate, human sexuality. Soul, spirit and sexuality with the mind constitute the essence of being human created by God.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Notice the comment by solrev, above. Here is a religious "moderate" who explains that the religious right is merely an aberration; that the TRUE version of the Christian religion is not so bad. And therein lies the real problem: Many people insist on sticking to their version of irrational belief even when doing so blatantly empowers fascists and bigots.

Solrev tells us what Jesus REALLY said, as if those silly "gospels" -- tales cobbled together decades and centuries after Jesus' death, by people with many political, religious and cultural axes to grind, accurately reflect his words. (That's assuming Jesus existed at all; he might have been a legend like Robin Hood. In one "gospel" not included in the Bible he had magical powers and could fly!)

It's all so depressing. If we humans don't move beyond religion soon, it will be the end of all of us -- "moderates" and all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Link to this article:

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article purports to expose yet another sordid chapter of despicable behavior by the Christian Right in its attack on defenseless gay, lesbian, and transgender students. It’s an ugly picture and the author skillfully inflames our sense of righteous indignation effectively directing the focus of our rage in pointing a finger directly at the Christian Right and thundering: “They are to blame, for shame!”

But read this article again from the perspective that the article’s intent is to intensify the inflammation of our antipathy towards the Christian Right. A false flag attack, aimed not only at the Christian Right, but ALL Christians. Who was it, really, that spray-painted the buses? Without objective proof, the author claims to have the answer, and provides it. It was the Christian Right, obviously.

How do you know the author is telling the truth?

Ask yourself honestly. Do you know his word has currency anymore than that you “know” the government is telling the truth when it states uncategorically that 19 Arabs hijacked 4 planes on September 11th and somehow managed to bamboozle our $40 billion-a-year defense system? There is conclusive ‘proof’ in neither the former nor latter case.

Are there bigoted conservative Christians? Sure there are, and we see plenty of bigots in every segment of society, without exception. Can all conservative Christians be labeled bigots? Not in my opinion, anymore than can any other group be tarred with the same broad brush.

To me, this looks like yet another wedge issue –like so many others, whose sole purpose is to divide a people against itself. The technique is effective, and our society has unwittingly been paying a heavy price for its use for a very long time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

edith posted:
"Until St Paul is excluded from Christian doctrine, or small groups of rabbinical panels lose their power to rule over the Orthodox Jewish community, homosexualilty will not be considered anything but sinful, reason aside."

ZPaul posted:
"I´m one of those people who consider themselves Christian without believing the idiocies and injustices that Paul preached..."

The scenario Hedges describes is a worldview peculiar to the Christian Right America that is binary.

ZPaul and edith's view of Pauline writings is also binary. They have chosen to accept the so-called Christian Right's binary interpretation and dismissing it without bringing their own understanding of what Paul wrote and the context it was written. Sorry, but the writer known as Paul writes NOTHING about homosexuality or homosexual relationships and there is nothing to indicate he was against them. It is a mistake to believe that he saw women as second class and that they should behave accordingly.

Don't let the Christian Right shove you into a box like that!!! Get your own ideas about Biblical, Qu'ranic writings out of their cages! Open your minds! Free your hearts!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is exactly why there should be a clear line drawn between faith- any faith- and the government. There is an old joke about asking 4 Theologians what a passage means and getting 6 opinions.

Faith is personal and private and should be as free as possible up to the point that it intrudes upon that of others or advocates actions dangerous to public safety or other's rights. What the NeoCon Evangelicals have forgotten is that mixing the government with any faith group will eventually corrupt the group more than they will ever influence the government.

As a Christian, I have a message for all who claim also be followers:
We live in a highly and increasingly diverse nation and world that practices a wide range of faiths and beliefs. Respect and tolerance of everyone else's choices in a secular state is the only way such a country and world can live in peace. The Christian faith is, among other things, predicated upon the concept that God has given each person the freewill choice to accept or reject the good news. Knowing this, you should be able to abide by the fact that others have views of faith and morality different from your own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anthropocentrism (Greek άνθρωπος, anthropos, "man, human being", κέντρον, kentron, "center") is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of regarding the existence and/or concerns of human beings as the central fact of the universe. This is similar, but not identical, to the practice of relating all that happens in the universe to the human experience. To clarify, the first position concludes that the fact of human existence is the point of universal existence; the latter merely compares all activity to that of humanity, without making any teleological conclusions.

"Seek not to cut the root of phenomena, but to cut the root of the mind. If you have to cross a field covered with thorns, and you try to cover the field with leather, you won't succeed. It is far simpler to cover your feet with leather."
~Sogyal Rinpoche, Tibetan Buddhist master

People are always looking outwards, at people and things around them. They look at this hall, for example, and say, “Oh, it’s so big!” Actually it’s not big at all. Whether or not it seems big, depends on your perception of it. In fact this hall is just the size it is, neither big nor small. But people run after their feelings all the time. They are so busy looking around and having opinions about what they see that they have no time to look at themselves.
~Ajahn Chah

"Try to be mindful, and let things take their natural course. Then your mind will become still in any surroundings, like a clear forest pool. All kinds of wonderful, rare animals will come to drink at the pool, and you will clearly see the nature of all things. You will see many strange and wonderful things come and go, but you will be still. This is the happiness of the Buddha."
~Ajahn Chah

"Real isn't how you are made," said the Skin Horse. "It's a thing that happens to you. When someone loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real."
~ from the “Velveteen Rabbit,” Margery Williams (1922)

“It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
~Krishnamurti

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change things build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
--Buckminster Fuller

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is not the problem. This is something my philosophy professor called "bad religion", which is not actually religion at all. These people are bigots, they promote hate, and violence. If you look at religion itself, in this case Christianity, it preaches love, forgiveness, charity, judge not lest ye be judged. This bigotry movement does not actually have anything to do with Christianity. It is bad religion because it is twisting and perverting Christianity to justify their bigotry.

It's actually pretty easy to tell religion and bad religion apart. As another poster said, someone in your family is probably religious. Do these family members act like nice people, or do they behave like Nazis? If they are nice people, then they probably practice an actual religion. If they act similar to Nazis, they are followers of bad religion.

Getting rid of religion is not going stop people from being bigots. They would find other means of deception to justify hatred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Organized religion incites people. In it's name humans eagerly torture and murder each other. It's been going on for centures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the war in Iraq continues much longer with the horrendous death tolls it will not be much longer before "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" will be seen as leaving untapped the large reservoir of recruits needed to fill the gaps in the "surge". It is amazing that the military wants to recruit convicted felons and yet does not seem to want American patriots who just happen to be gay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contrary to some of the posted comments intolerance is a large part of religious dogma. As a child, in the 1950’s I was indoctrinated into Christianity, but soon found myself being ostracized for questioning some of the bigotry I saw. I had been told that Jesus was loving, tolerant and charitable, but saw little of these qualities practiced among members of most churches. The main trait that seems to dominate religions, Christianity, Judaism & Islam, is ignorance. While it doesn’t affect all practitioners of all religions it is the predominant dogma in the Bible and the Koran. It appears that the more secular nations have less intolerance and are less likely to fulfill the Sinclair Lewis line “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. Prophetic words for today – Sinclair Lewis died in 1953

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My mantra, "Tax the churches." That will put a stop to a lot of this crap, at least on a shoestring level, which is where some of the worst bigotry is spewed in the little storefront mom and pop operations. But it will also cramp the style of the biggies, too, who do more than their fair share of spreading hate and dissent around. Religion is nothing more than a political lobby for hatred and stupidity. I absolutely don't understand why the "moderate" christers don't stand up and say "enough." It's giving all "believers" a bad name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a sorry, bloodstained, misery filled history some organized religions-especially christianity have! What monumental ignorance and gullibility the American people have! Any philosophy based on fear and ignorance, and the perpetuation thereof, would in most ordinary circumstances, be given a wide berth. Not by us! Oh, no; we hold the charlatans on the bully pulpit up as demigods while debasing ourselves by listening to their poisonous hokum and repeating it as if it were the literal TRUTH, when even a casual scrutiny would reveal the falsehood of the blathers and the TRUE motive of its purveyers. It appears we're entering another Dark Age here in the USA, while the rest of the civilized world has left its evils behind. It's too sad for mere words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is unfair to judge the letters written to the early churches by Saul of Tarsus (aka the Apostle Paul) without taking into consideration his intended audience.

“Except for these chains..”

When Paul spoke to unbelievers like King Agrippa, he limited his discourse to his conversation experience on the road to Damascus. Plus he only spoke about his faith WHEN ASKED TO DO SO by Agrippa.

When Paul finished, Agrippa famously quipped that in a short time Paul would seek to convert him. Paul’s response: Yes indeed, he hoped that Agrippa would “become as we are, except for these chains.”

When Paul spoke to Jews in the synagogues, he spoke as a Jew (“a Pharisee of Pharisees”), reading from the Torah and offering an interpretation of the reading, much as Jesus did (“today in your hearing this scripture is fulfilled.”) His fellow Jews didn’t like his interpretation of the Torah, and repeatedly sought his death.

But when Paul wrote to the churches he had founded in Corinth, Ephesus and Thessalonica, he tailored his letters to the specific needs of these churches. For example, the church at Corinth needed discipline because a member of the congregation was sleeping with his step-mother.

The letters of Paul preached to the choir, instructing believers in the doctrines of their faith and teaching them how to live the Christian life – which they had freely chosen.

The problem with the church today is that Paul’s example has been turned on its ear. Instead of following Paul’s example with King Agrippa and waiting to be asked, believers corner nonbelievers and demand that they “turn or burn, fly or fry.” Instead of limiting their discourse to their own personal testimony of conversion, they cast judgment on nonbelievers and quote passages from Paul’s letters that were intended ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAD FREELY CHOSEN TO FOLLOW CHRIST.

But when they are alone with other believers they also do the opposite of what Paul taught and spend all their time congratulating each other about their conversion experiences – the very personal testimonies that they’re supposed to be sharing with nonbelievers. Said congratulations include such messages as “Gee I’m glad I’m not going to hell like all those homosexuals, adulterers, murderers and thieves.”

This situation gets exponentially worse when such judgmental behavior gets exploited by self-serving politicians and Machiavellian hacks like Carl Rove. Believers would do well to remember the advice of their Messiah on these matters: remove the log from your own eye before judging the splinter in your brother’s eye. Or even better, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

What a believer freely chooses to do is between him and his God. Try to keep it there, brother. Set a good example and the nonbelievers in your life might just get curious and ask you about your faith. How they choose to respond is none of your business, it is between them and God. They are responsible to God for their behavior, not to you.

Don’t be a patsy for the Carl Roves of the world, who wouldn’t know how to be their brother’s keeper if their lives depended on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a Christian, I find it absolutely unacceptable to be intolerant of my fellow humans based on something so meaningless as sexuality. The church is to accept all people. Jesus dined with societies most hated individuals. He did not turn people away, he accepted them as they were and loved them. Today's Christian right is not Christian - they are using the name of what is supposed to be a loving and tolerant religious doctrine to justify their own domination over those who cannot stand up to them. It disgusts me. It is unfair to everyone, and especially other Christians like me who have to work very hard to counter the Christian right as being definitive of our beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

some people will follow evil "so-called" Christian ministers to their death. Remember Jim Jones..."The People's Temple"?? A tragic commentary on human nature. Those cult followers were deceived as are many today.

People who write or shout hate-filled messages are NOT Christians in the true sense of the word. There are many Christians who are not affiliated with organized religion for that and other reasons. If you do not believe you have a free will. Just be fair and do not group all Christian people of faith together with the Christian Right.

PBS ran the movie "Elmer Gantry" not long ago and it was an excellent review of how people are led astray.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You do understand that the majority position on homosexuality isnt religious based inside the religious community.

According to the Bible a sin is a sin is a sin
and Judging others is a sin
so theoretically Judging a homosexual person is as bad as being a homosexual

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've known I was gay since I was 10, and been out since I was 16, and even in just those twelve years, the progress has been tremendous. There wasn't even the idea of gay marriage, but now it's legal in one state and many countries, with other states looking to follow up. When I was in high school, if I'd tried to start a gay/straight alliance, I probably would have been killed, and I say that without exaggeration. Now GSAs are enough of a force that people are trying to push them out in Utah, and the courts are going to put down that effort. Hell, until recently, states were still allowed to have sodomy laws, but by the time the Supreme Court struck those down, all but a handful of states had repealed them anyhow. In another twenty years, gay marriage will be legal in every state, and people will look back on the time when we couldn't get married in this country in the same way that we look back on bans on interracial marriage now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author spews the ignorance and hate he claims to abohr.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please not this correction to my piece.
Only one (the Eastbound bus) of the two buses went to Sioux Center, Iowa. The bus was spray painted with "God does not love gay feary fucks." A piece of cardboard contained other anti-gay remarks. The Eastbound bus had 26 riders. The others were on the Westbound bus. Thanks. Chris Hedges

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Opinions vs. Facts

The driving principle, the basic premise of the Constitution of the United States is that all citizens are created equal and therefore all must be treated equally under the law. We know that from time to time, far too often, throughout this country's history, this basic premise has been sidestepped. The most egregious examples, slavery, suppression of women, Jim Crow laws and interference with the cultural and religious beliefs of Native Americans and Mormons, are well-known to all. Whenever that basic premise has been set aside, all kinds of horrors and abuses have resulted.
These abominations to the Constitutional were perpetrated mainly because of Christian religious beliefs. (There have been others; for instance, putting Native Americans, Japanese-Americans and now Muslim-Americans in internment camps, but that discussion is best left for another time.) Though almost all were declared constitutional by Supreme Court decisions at the time, unequivocally, all are unconstitutional and they are unconstitutional because they are writ throughout from religious biases. For proof, first, they clearly ignored the universal equality premise; second, they were swayed by religious pressure; third, it's further proof that biases have swayed Supreme Court judges because subsequent judges have ruled that the laws supporting slavery, suppression of women and Jim Crow laws were, indeed, unconstitutional; and fourth, political leaders have apologized for the abominations of slavery and Native American and Japanese-American abuses. Unfortunately, they are still holding out, to one degree or another, on the unconstitutional interference with the Mormon Church's religious beliefs regarding plural marriages. Of course, the Mormon Church caved in to political pressure and agreed to outlaw the practice. The abuses of Muslim-Americans are rationalized as political necessities, but from the flames of the Christian right, it seems that, once again, religious opinions have infused the laws and litigation surrounding these issues.
The major reason for ignoring the constitutional guarantees of the equality clause in all these examples is that the movers and shakers and the grassroots, all accepted OPINIONS on which to base their unconstitutional legislation and litigation, instead of basing them on the FACTS of the law. The opinions that infused those unconstitutional laws were based on Christian beliefs in the biblical edicts that condoned or mandated those views. But beliefs, no matter how strongly held, are opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. And our Constitution guarantees that you may hold any opinion you wish, but the laws that evolve from the Constitution of this country are supposed to be based on verifiable, concrete facts.
It's is a major tactic in debate and argumentation to parse any statements as to whether they are fact, fiction or opinion. It's a dirty tactic in debate and argumentation to base an argument in fear. Most of our political leaders seem to believe that using fear is a good tactic. In a sense, it is, because so many people fall for it. But, still, it is a dirty tactic and most of the time it is rooted in exaggerations or outright lies. Most likely you know who uses this tactic ninety-nine percent of the time (that's an exaggeration and/or a fiction because I don't know if it's true, I only believe it is and want to believe it is). (Continues in next post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chris Hedges' posting points out many opinions that homophobes use to support their desire to marginalize homosexuals. All the following citations are opinions and only opinions:
*Tolerance of "alternative lifestyles" is eroding the American family.
*"Same-sex attraction" as a disease that can be cured.
*All sexual love that is not heterosexual is an abomination in the eyes of God.
*Gays and lesbians, like other enemies of Christ, are not fully human.
*Gays and lesbians, like other enemies of Christ, are "unnatural."
*Preachers in the movement argue that if America does not act soon to eradicate
homosexual behavior, God will punish the nation.
*Male leaders, who cannot be questioned and claim to speak for God, are in control and all
others must follow.
*Any lifestyle outside the traditional model of male and female is a threat to this
hierarchical male power structure.
*Women who do not depend on men for their identity and their sexuality, who live outside
a male power relationship, challenge this pervasive cult of masculinity, as do men who find tenderness and love with other men as equals.
*The lifestyle of gays and lesbians is intolerable to the Christian right because its existence
is a threat to the movement's chain of command, one they insist was ordained by
God.

All of these opinions are easily countered simple by asking the same question judges and law-makers should ask any time a law is proposed: "Where are your verifiable, concrete facts that go to prove that your argument is more than just opinion?" Lacking that proof, the proposed or challenged law should be thrown out.

For example: "Tolerance of "alternative lifestyles" is eroding the American family." Where is the proof? If anything is offered as proof, is it verifiable? Can't be, because I am in an American family, we all tolerate "alternate lifestyles. We are not eroded. I know many American families who fall into this same grouping. (One might also ask if "alternate lifestyles" are eroding European families. Asian families. What weakness plagues presumably Christian American families if they can be so easily eroded? Or is it that only Christian American families can detect erosion? Is erosion only in the eye of the beholder?

Is it concrete? Where are the statistics that show "alternate lifestyles" are eroding the American family? As Linda Chavez, former Executive Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, says:
"[O]ver the last 25 years, we have become increasingly tolerant of sexually permissive behavior. But that tolerance has had consequences. We face epidemics in sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancies, abortions, illegitimacy, rape, and sexual abuse. Marriage rates are on the decline, and divorce is on the increase, especially among younger couples."

All of this is based on the OPINION that there is a direct, concrete, verifiable causal link between homosexual tolerance and her fearful list of "consequences." The only verifiable link here is that Chavez hopes her fear tactics will link the belief mechanisms of the majority of people with her enumerated consequences. Also, the fact that the Christian-based American Family Association quotes her on their pages tends to lead one to the possibility of another fact: Her tenure on the Commission was based on religious principles at odds with the legal principles she was bound to uphold. (continued in next post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But Chris Hedges employs some similar methods and I'd like to encourage him to edit his works with a more critical eye. Here's a sample. Hedges cites the Rev. Mel White, in what it seems is an example of a fearful outcome of further homophobic legislation: ”Right now, we have to leave the state of Virginia, because of the law that says we can't have any agreements, or any contracts, or any powers of attorney that represent marriage. So every gay person who has a business here lives in fear."

It may be true that "every gay person who has a business here [in Virginia] lives in fear," but not every business contract a gay person may enter "represents marriage." I grant that this is a minor point, but nevertheless, this argument is a fear-based appeal to garner support for the point of view Hedges has expressed.

Anyway, the point is somewhat moot: "Even though same-sex couples can't get married in Virginia, they can live together in a situation that's comparable to marriage in the eyes of the law, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday."

(See http://www.insurancejournal.com/
news/east/2007/03/01/77321.htm).

I would rather keep all of us who equal rights to focus on the real key to our overcoming those arguments from the Christian right (or anywhere else for that matter), i.e., the three constitutional points regarding the premise that all men are equal and, therefore entitled to equal treatment before the law and separation of church and state biases placed into law. The latter would include the legal imperative that only facts, not traditions or opinions be the sole basis for legislation and litigation in the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyway, the point is somewhat moot: "Even though same-sex couples can't get married in Virginia, they can live together in a situation that's comparable to marriage in the eyes of the law, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday (Sorry. This should add, Feb. 27, 2007)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately, both sides are doing the same thing to each other. The fact is, everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

The church will have to fall before change can occur. I believe it will because to change their view is to close their bibles and think for themselves.

Are we near the end? Armageddon?

Yes, its happening. It has to otherwise that book is wrong. Which means everything they believe is wrong and everything they think is wrong- They will never just accept it- which is why we will continue to suffer- because they out number us by quite a substantial margin.

"What luck for rulers, that men do not think."
~ Adolf Hitler

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves. "
~Dresden James

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. "
~Dresden James

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~ Benjamin Franklin, 1759

I cut and pasted those quotes because they are quite interesting to say the least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I appreciate this article as a Christian with radical (dare I say liberal) political views. True Christians must rise up and speak out against the bigotry and pro-war views of the Religious Right. We must take Jesus back from those who have co-opted him to fit into their neo-conservative political views.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Think about it. Today, Gays. Tomorrow, the sick ( both physical and mental). Next, some minority. What will your reaction be when they come for YOU? Don't forget George Santayana's comment about history. Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You've managed to get right to the point of the matter. Great article. This religion thing always has been and always will be based on abusive, cock-waving power structures dripping with bigotry and cruelty towards anyone outside of their power-base.

If you can fit a cigarette-paper between these rancid Christian Fundamentalists and the most out-of-control, hairy-arsed Islamist Jihadis I'd like to see how it's done.

I missed. however, any mention of the projected role to be played by the Christian Fascists' private militia, Blackwater, in the suppression of the population should the lunatics ever get close enough to the levers of constitutional power. Americans should be very, very afraid of the unaccountable power given these mercenaries by their GOP enablers.

Just before the Fundamentalists impose their Theocratic Junta on mainland USA they will screw every last concession out of the Constitution to impose their 'right' to bear arms and form private Militias, just before they rip up that Constitution and subject you to a terror which only the Taliban could appreciate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first two decades or so of my life were spent in that universe he aptly describes. All the poo-pooers commenting here in an effort to stroke themselves into thinking Hedges view is extreme will unfortunately find out soon enough he's got it right. I've been yelling "fire" for years about this uniquely 'Merikaan Xtian Nationalist Cult based on more than two decades of personal experience living among these lunatics (I have the shrink-bills and PTSD to prove it). Ask any ex-Xtian about their experience moving out of the cult... these Xtian whackjobs can pull oppressive, coercive, even physically harmful crap on a person that'll scare the daylights outta the most anal poo-pooer. It's not just Hedges talking about this, it's SPLC, David Neiwert (an expert journalism on white supremacy and eliminationism in the U.S.A.), and a whole slew of others who get it.

But of course, like all human communities, there are always some people who just need to actually get burned before they'll accept that there is indeed a fire burning all around them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think the main stream KKK movement in the early 20th century was a little more dangerous than the religious right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is there really any point to staging protests at places like Dordt? They're religious schools. You'll get kicked out for having sex with ANYONE - I know, because I went to one such school. You can, in fact, be "gay" and go to a Christian college - you just can't have sex. The same if you're hetero.

My own personal religious convictions are not particularly orthodox, and I'm more than willing to dismiss large parts of the Bible as writings that are so far removed from our time and place as to be incomprehensible at best, outright crap at worst. That said, people have the right to belong to religious groups with particular moral beliefs. Roman Catholics think I'm a sinner because I use birth control - fine. I have no interest in attending St. Michael's College or joining Opus Dei. Catholics can believe any stupid thing they want as long as I don't have to deal with it. Jews, likewise, can maintain their religious tradition based on snipping baby penises and eschewing pork. I have no interest in attending Hebrew school or scheduling a brisk for myself.

I'm sure most readers of AlterNet think that any religious restriction on sex is outdated and oppressive. Good for you. But no one is forcing you to go to Dordt. Nobody wants to go to Christian colleges except for Christians. If you want to protest something meaningful, protest the offices or a religious right outfit like Focus on the Family or the Traditional Values Coalition. And while you're at it, don't just protest their policies on gays, but protest the way they've deceived people into voting for Republicans who destroy the family with their economic policies.

I'm all for protesting against violence and economic discrimination. But protesting Christian colleges is just silly. There is such a thing as freedom of assembly and freedom of association in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hedges is at it again with his tirades against the Arch Conservative Radical Christian Right.
First a qualifier: I am not a Christian, I am an Agnostic. But this article is such a pack of lies, I feel required to defend Christianity. First let us note that the overwhelming agreed upon position of mainstream Christianity with respect to the issue of homosexuality is that they "Love the Sinner, but hate the Sin." No Christian, or Jewish groups that I am aware of actually seek to discriminate against homosexuals as people. As a matter of fact this would be against God's teaching since all people are "Children of God." That does not however mean that all actions by His much beloved children are acceptable to God.
Under the Constitution of the USA, Christians have a right to believe this. To deny them this right by any dissenting group is to do exactly what Hedges accuses christians of doing.
Hedges says: "The Christian Right has begun begun to strip Gays and Lesbians of their Constitutional Rights..." Really?...It is a violation of federal law and therefore a felony to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation...perhaps Hedges needs to spend more time in the company of Attorneys than misinforming Alternet readers.
He continues that Christianity avers same gender "sexual love." For someone that has spent two years writing about Christianity, he apparently knows very little about the belief...
Christians disavow all forms of "sexual love," feeling that it is ephermal, fleeting and transitory by its very nature. People fall in and out of love all the time. Christian dogma purports that morality, friendship, respect for those around you and filial love--the love of families is far more powerful and constant and keeps families together and whole than merely how often you can get your rocks off and whether you can "fuck like a porn star."
Hedges sounds like he is either drunk or on cocaine. He mentions for example:
"The images of Jesus often show him with "thick muscles." "...hmmm.. er... you mean like Arnold Schwarzenegger muscles?...not in the last 2,000 years--unless you've been hanging out in too many gay bars lately pal...or perhaps well defined?...well Jesus was a blue collar worker--a carpenter--so what do you want--some politically correct spindly computer geeky muscles?...Aw com'mon Chris, take a cold shower...please... you'll feel better.
And let's not forget his definition of Christianity as "the cult of hypermasculinity." --as opposed to what?...the incredible femininity of " Bull Dykes" or the neutral gender stereotyping of "Black-Leather-Clad-Hot-Cocked-Biker-Boys????" Oh yeah, these two images really make me think VICTIM--you ignorant Moron!!!!
The rest of the article is too infantile to comment further...but you all get the idea that this is an incredible hatchet job of the worse kind and even Hedges is capable of doing better than this ridiculous, sophmoric grammar-school quality piece of pseudo Journalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

think about it. If you are homosexual and out, you are telling the world that your sexual preference is more important than what your family and society think of you in order to be in a relationship that sexually fulfills you.

For those here who are homosexual, is it possible to love someone of the opposite sex without having a sexual relationship with the person?

If not then it really is about sex, plain and simple and for human beings, who are social by nature, the spectre of being shunned by society tells the rest of us that sexual fulfillment is really, really important to you. Moreso than for most of us.

That is the basis for homophobia. That being in a life relationship where sexual fulfillment is the most important aspect of the relationship itself is scary.

Unbridled sexual activity is costly to the collective. Illigitimacy, disease, rape.. those of us who play nice have to pony up and pay for those who don't. So yes, we try to legislate morality (or lack of) to the extent that it costs us money.

Gay marriage is the moral equivalent of the broken window theory of urban decay. Sure, it doesn't effect *MY* life now but a few years down the road Nambla might use gay marriage laws to break down consent laws, particularly among older teens. Don't laugh, 30 years ago gay sex was illegal. Who knows what the next 30 will bring?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author of the article isn't saying anything new: basically, religious zealots are bigots and fearful of anything "off", "different", or "deviant". He's right to add, however, that exclusion (or "second-class citizenship) if taken to its logical conclusion may be death. That said...

I might disagree that gays lining up to get married was possibly the best idea. Sorry, but I think we need to get rid of state-sanctioned marriage FOR EVERYONE because it allows the state to control property and it penalizes/stigmatizes single people (who, if memory serves, make up the majority of the contributors to the US economy). I think the fact that gays are wanting marriage, wanting to join the army (to shot Iraqis?!?), wanting to be seen as "just like everyone else" shows just how backwards and confused the Gay Rights Movement is. After all, assimilation has hardly worked for African Americans...but then, we do have a black Secretary of State...which led us into war (Iraq)...is this progress???...

(Um, sorry, ranting.)

A final thought: if gays and lesbians want to get real equality they need to be more aggressive and more willing to beat the life out of someone if insulted/challanged/threatened. Sorry, but people understand the fist/force better than they do the flower, and I've long since abandoned the idea that Puritan America will embrace the "other" (gay, black, whatever) of its own accord. I say, lose the friendly image and let them know that no, we're not "just like you" and we're "not to be fucked with else there will be consequences."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm here to back them up!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Force people to have to think for themselves, to be educated and to keep their thoughts about god to themselves.

Sure, let people believe in any god/s they want, but they are NOT to be public about it OR be allowed to use their beliefs in the public sphere for ANY REASON AT ALL.

Ban religion from schools, turn religious buildings into shelters for the homeless.

Don't like it? Move countries.

(Let's see some people stick THAT in their pipe and smoke it...) ;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Authur Evans made a similar argument in his book, "Witchcraft and the Gay Community." In it, he draws parallels between how the church oppressed non-believers throughout history, the reasons for this oppression, and the similarities with how Christians treat the GLBT community today. I recommend this book highly for anyone interested in this topic, and I'm wondering if others have heard of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"willing to endure the ravages and hatred of 50% of bigoted anti-Christian Amerika just to be together and love each other legally."

Christians just make sh*t up, don't they. Like the above 'statistic'. He makes this claim, just like the one that his god lives somewhere in outer space, that his son is alive somewhere, and that a bad guy named satan thwarts the will of their totally all powerful god - yet somehow has NO WAY of stopping him.

50% you say? 50? No, I'm so sorry. The stats are that the VAST MAJORITY of this country claims to be Christian. On the order of 90+%. You pulled that 50 number right out of your a**. See what belief does to your mind? It turns it into mush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't look now but high and mighty heterosexuality is turning

Earth into Hell! Spawn 'til you die, motherfucker! Human extinction will

be well deserved by all these idiots with their endless brats!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In a 1993 document entitled "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church," the Vatican condemned fundamentalism. But now the Vatican is growing its own version of fundamentalism.

The Many Forms of Fundamentalism

"Catholic fundamentalists are more likely to be called 'traditionalists,' and today the Vatican is their sponsor. Instead of reading the Bible uncritically, in search of 'ready answers to the problems of life,' they read papal statements that way, finding in encyclicals the 'false certitude' that the Vatican warns biblical literalists against."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The Christian right believes the decline of male prowess has caused the decline of America, which has led to weakness and moral decay."

Was it Marx and Engels (or Lenin and Trotsky) who noted that a society's treatment of women is a sign of how free it is? That evangelical politics and it's anti-sex propaganda plays such a big role in the US indicates how important women hating is to American political rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the Klan? What about the massacres of entire towns of black people? What about the neoliberals of the 60's who set the terms for the slaughter of a couple million Veitnamese? What about the neocons (largely right-wing Jewish supporters of Israel) who have led us into the deaths of several thousand troops and many tens of thousands of Iraqis, and the corruption of our Constitution? the Christian Right, for all its blather, is amazingly ineffective at achieving its goals outside of its own enclaves of support. Hedges has on previous occasions conflated megachurches (mostly centrist, with some sadly anti-gay leanings) and the Dobsons et al, who are waning in influence in the US church. Exactly what could be more favorable to these extremists than the current White House, and until recently GOP control of both houses of Congress? Yet they have delivered so little for their followers.
I am in agreement with Hedges about the repellent nature of the Christian right's ideology. Where I disagree is with his apparent belief (shared by many posters here) that there is an imminent danger of theocracy in the US. This is delusional. The US is mercantile, heterogenous, undisciplined, focused on technology and hedonism, utterly unwilling to sacrifice for a cause. Support for gay rights (and other progressive values) is on a steady upswing, especially among the young. Yes, let's refute the hideous hatred of these highly un-Christian groups. But Hedges and others are helping them by ascribing to them far more power and prominence than they actually posess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They did finally get to Winston Smith, after all...he thought 2 + 2 = 5 and loved Big Brother. The thought of being physically and psychologically tortured until I believed in god, Jesus and all that nonsense is almost funny until I remember that if these fools gain power, a Holy Spirit Concentration Camp is probably coming to an open space near you and me!

On the bright side, maybe they won't kill or torture atheists and non-christians, just take our homes and jobs away and force us to perform slave labor instead. I wonder how it will turn out...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am shocked and amazed at how the author of this article has taken an extreme example of anti-gay sentiment and broadly placed it upon all conservatives. All Christians want to kill homosexuals? I would love to see the evidence that he has for his claims. His claims are equal to saying that because some Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims are terrorists. It is not a valid argument.

Speaking of evidence...
1) Does the author have evidence for his claims that Christians grafittied the buses? No evidence was ever submitted. Merely because the name "God" was used does not mean that Christians did it.
2) The author claims that Christians are imposing themselves upon the homosexual community. His own article debunks his theory. He stated that the buses were travelling around the country to impose themselves upon college campuses that have chosen to not endorse homosexuality. Those institutions are allowed by law to decide who can enter into the campuses. His example of the Citadel barring entrance is an ad hoch attack against that institution. The Citadel bars any intrusion, whatsoever onto its campus.
3) The authors equation of Christians and Nazis is so ridiculous that it is laughable. Some Christians called Hitler the anti-Christ; on that basis alone, the comparison is ridiculous. Hitler wanted the state to be the god of Germany; he only allowed churches that taught his version of the social gospel.

This attempted assault upon Christianity is so weak and logically flawed that I had expected most liberals to reject his arguments. His virulent attacks have served to bring out the most hatred and violent attitudes that I have yet seen in this website. Hatred has no place in debate and reason. Almost every post has included some type of hatred toward other human beings. The First Amendment allows dislike of a belief but does not allow the verbal assault of or statements desiring physical harm upon a person for their beliefs.

Please refrain from foolish statements in replies. I love to engage in dialogue, but I have no time for hateful ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone here in Toronto knows gay people who have moved here to escape the insane, paranoid, dominator psychopaths from down south. Keep it up! If you've ever read "The Creative Economy" by John Howkins you will know that where the gays go, prosperity follows. Another nail in the coffin of Bush and his Fourth Reich! America is going to crash very hard, talk about karma!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, gay rights are civil rights and civil rights must be accorded to all regardless of any categorization. But why single out and act the subservient role of minority; to act as lightening rod.

I remember thinking in the street parades in Denver Colroado in the 1968 war protest, the Lavender Power float promoting its own agenda independent of the war demonstration and it had the flavor of energy rip off. We are in a war now and that needs to be the focus, and just as the feminist movement defers to the greater evil today. The G/L, etc. movement needs to do the same. It is obvious when so many Republican gays are outed who are fascists, they are part of a cross section of the population and have little to do with political manifestation. Sexual orientation does not recapitulate political orientation. If this is mere sentiment then gays, clean your own house first. It is a cruel stereotypical myth that gays are liberals. Lets not legitimize the Republican fascist machine by acting out the Republican stereotype of Gay. (like moving to Canada?) It is time to mainstream just like schizophrenics and soccer moms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The ONE international crime that ravaged blood-soaked Europe, but had not been committed here, was religious war. That changed in 2002. (Anyone who thinks that GWB's "crusade" is not a war against Islam probably thinks there were WMDs in Iraq.)

The ONE social crime the US had not ('til now) officially endorsed is religious persecution. We practiced the cruelist form of slavery ever known, we inflicted genocide on the native peoples, but just as we had never before launched a religious war, we have never written religious intolerance into our laws.

Now, the "religious right" tells US that our laws must be changed to conform to their debased and corrupted version of "Christianity." And the public applauds in large numbers.

The idea of KARMA is not just a Hindu doctrine, it is a universal law -- as inescapable as gravity. The clearest expression of it that I have ever found was provided by (the oft-maligned) St. Paul, who said, while expounding the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7 (KJV)

We are sowing ourselves a grim harvest. The reaping is as inevitable as sunrise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every city where gays and lesbians are attacked should compile a LIST OF NAMES of flagrant anti-gay/lesbian so-called 'christians' and publish this list and deseminate this list as 'The Real Social Deviants'
No explanation - just a list of names and hopefully addresses and the label - socially deviant. Post that on the streets leading to their churches. Post the list in the grocery store bulletin board. No explanation - just 'Social Deviants': George So and So, Mildred so and so, Rita right-winger, etc.

Give them a taste of their own medicine. They ARE the real social deviants. We, on the left, MUST use the power of NAMING NAMES and putting people's 'positions' out in front of the public eye. The same for pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. Get their NAMES out into the public arena and these roaches will run for cover, these vampires will run from exposure to light.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One reason those of the Christian Right make such an outcry against the gays is because by their very existence the gays send the message that the church has failed in its mission to have a positive influence on society, thus also sending the message to the Christian Right that all their 'good works' agendas are redundant, and nobody likes to be told that what they're doing is redundant. So this partly explains the anger the so-called 'Christian Right' have for the gays (and for the abortionists, and for the enviornmentalist extremists, and for anyone they disagree with).

Chris Hedges in his article titled 'When They Came For The Homosexuals' said that most of the fundamentalist Christian Right has been emasculated by the churches; he's right but there's more to it than just that; most of the males of the so-called 'Christian Right' are emasculated not only by the top down control priestclass arrangement of the system church, but also (and mostly) by allowing their women to wear the pants in their marriages, encouraging them to do so even. So, the first thing an emasculated male does is to try to find ways to reinforce his own self perception of being masculine, usually by doing macho things, or by becoming powerful in some outward way, but also by trying to find ways to have control over others, all as a compensation for the emasculation he feels (which is usually extremely unsettling emotionally and mentally, albeit mostly on a subconscious level). And the greater the emasculation the greater the need to compensate for it, which explains the impetus behind a guy like James Dobson who has the demeanor of the quintessential wimp and who speaks with an old woman's voice inflection, and who is on an insatiable mission to gain power and influence.

There is a Christian principle that says "What you judge you become" (which is a loose paraphrase of Romans 2:1), and in accordance with that principle what the so-called 'Christian Right' have succeeded in doing to themselves by judging the gays is to have given rights to the spirit controlling the gays to rebound onto them to produce in them the same thing, which in this case is an aberrant sexual style, only in the opposite extreme, and equally bizarre. And the inner awareness of it sets up a subconscious need to compensate for it, and to develop a method of compensation, an ideology, which includes its own defensive posture, accompanied by a need to try to force the ideology on everyone else (with the new converts being further proof that the ideology is 'sound doctrine'). And this is not to mention the spirit driving the ploy, who seeks to use the so-called 'Christian Right' as pawns for him to use to extend his range of control, whose mission is to turn male into female, and vice versa; to create a society with males who are soft and wimpy (and subservient to their women), and with females who are tough and deviod of feminine warmth, and who see nothing unnatural about wearing the pants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is disgusting is that the religious right are quick to beat people over the head with the same book they don't even have the guts to read or obey. Has it ever occurred to you that gays, abortion and the like are tests from God and you people who advocate God have failed miserably? It seems even those pesky Ten Commandments are beneath you people to follow. Have you not heard the old saying, "Mind your OWN business?" We are all sinners, even moreso the religious right. I have never needed a "middle man" to talk to God, nor follow HIS laws! It seems Satan has infiltrated these churches (and the White House) big time and no one seems to notice or even care. The only one who can judge us for our sins is God and you people who judge are not GOD!
Oh and in case you think I am just another godless Democrat, I give loyalty to no party. Our government is about the people of this country, as a whole, not political party loyalty. Democrats are not godless, they just do not believe in forcing their religion down other people's throats. You know, freedom of religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is precisely the SAME LEVEL of dim consciousness and havior as the fundamentalist Muslims ("Isalmo-fascists"), it is plain for anyone with clear eyes and a rational modern mind to see. Same deep fascist structure and belief system(s) with different surface features ("Christianity" and "Islam").

The same polarized black-and-white, us vs. them, authoritarian, dogmatic, no independent thinking allowed,, cult of masculinity, denigration of the feminine and devaluation of women, etc. etc.

It's called the mythic-membership level of consciousness and it's medieval, pre-modern, and dangerous, whether in the Middle East or in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In a case of "be careful what you ask for," here's a response to the recent suggestion by a fundamentalist minister that gays should be eliminated in the womb.

Mohler's Slippery Slope

"...in Mohler's desire to root out homosexuality, he fails to consider an equally compelling question: If a biological or genetic basis for religious belief is discovered, would it also be morally acceptable to create a hormonal patch to eliminate fundamentalists, such as Mohler himself? Before you dismiss this question as hypothetical or academic, consider that research into the origins of spirituality is a robust field of inquiry. There are currently about a dozen studies that show shared personality traits among religious people, suggesting a genetic or biological basis."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It saddens me to read Mr. Hedges article and many of the responses posted here, partly because there is some truth to them, and partly because there is so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Christians in general. As a Christian I disagree with much that goes on in the political "Christian Right." I do not believe that the church of Jesus Christ should seek to gain worldly power and enforce Biblical morality and laws upon people in a kind of "power over" manner. Jesus Christ himself did the opposite. He came under people, lifted them up out of their darkness, served them, loved them and showed them a new and living way. People tried to come and make him a king by force, but he walked away. He refused to get involved in the politics of his day, instead demonstrating the transforming power of the kingdom of God through his love, good deeds, and ultimate sacrifice. The religious leaders of his day called him a "glutton and winebibber, a friend of sinners." He could often be found in the homes of corrupt tax collectors who were known for their robbery and greed, and regularly ate and fellowshipped with prositutes and all manner of "outcasts." The church of Jesus Christ needs to abandon its pursuit of political power and devote itself to serving and loving those that are despised by their fellow men, as did our Lord.
That being said, Christians firmly believe that homosexuality is a sin, but only one among many. Sin is more than a set of behaviors labelled "sin." It is a spiritual condition of separation and alienation from the life of God, of which particular "sins" are but the symptoms. It is our belief as Christians that sin however it manifests itself needs to be recognized, repented of, forgiven, and cleansed by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ in order to be restored to unhindered fellowship with a loving and holy God. If a person does not want to hear that, or chooses to reject what we say about it, fine. That is their choice and right as a free-willed human being. While it grieves me, it does not cause hatred, rejection, or judgement to rise in my heart towards that person. I still love and respect you as a human being, and I cannot, will not, force anything on you, you make your own choice. When I hear people on here screaming that Christians want to eradicate homosexuals and any others who do not believe or act like them, my heart breaks! That is simply not true! I believe there is much misunderstanding, and the "Christian Right" bears much of the responsibility, for it is still seeking to enforce a standard on people through laws and "power over" methods, and for its often insensitive rhetoric. These methods do nothing to transform a person, only place burdens on them that we ourselves do not want to touch. No true Christian would condone or tolerate such hateful acts as what happened to Matthew Shephard (spelling?) or that happens all too often to others....(continued on next post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speaking out on what we consider sin whether it is homosexuality, divorce, fornication, adultery, hate, ANYTHING is our responsibility as followers of Jesus Christ, and a matter of free speech but that does not mean we "desire to eradicate" or "hate" or "beat" the people we are confronting. That is just silly and absurd, and I believe it is a reaction by people who are comfortable and don't want their way of life challenged. Just because I disagree with someone's lifestyle, does not mean that I hate them! It is simplistic and unfair to connect violent and hateful acts with Christians who simply speak out against homosexuality. We speak out against the behavior and the sin that God hates, not the human being whom God loves. The Christians only enemies are those written of by the apostle Paul when he explicitly stated that "we are not wrestling with flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere" (Ephesians 6:12,AMP). It is these forces that hold the world hostage, pitting us against one another, fueling the fear, hatred, greed, and lust for power that drives this present age. It is these forces that are the enemies of God, not our fellow human beings who are wandering in the present darkness and who need God. I would love to discuss this further with anyone interested, in a spirit of mutual respect and decent conversation. I don't want to argue, and I'm not trying to win any debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Monotheism. Gathic Zoroastrians, for example, are tolerant of homosexuality. The problem seems to arise once a religion has tasted power. Homosexuals, by their nature, are a small group & generally liberal in political orientation & they are therefore seen as a challenge to the power structures within states including the religious ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..........certain wise and moderate people advise not throwing tha baby out with the bath water, that is, don't throw the good moderate Christians out along with the evil fundies. In my usual spirit of moderation, I say throw out the whole fucking thing, because religion has done more harm than good, by far. I admire St. Peter's Basilica and the B-minor mass as much as anyone, but we're talking millions of lives here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...........especially fundamentalist ones, but I don't mind that (I can be pretty intolerant myself) nearly so much as the more Christian-fundie a person is, the more gung-ho he/she is about capital punishment, guns, and war. Interesting, right? THAT shows the true unique nature of the "Jesus" lovers. By the way, ol' JC would shit all over them, with relish (not to mix metaphors).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You do quite well in the use of hyperbole, emotional phrases, buzzwords, and especialy manipulation. However, when it comes to fact or reality, you're so far off i just feel sad for you. In fact i fail to see why that was even printed since it does nothing to inform or educate, the only purpose seems to be inflamatory. But you did say you spent 2 years writing "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." Apparantly one should not expect objectivity from you.

I am completely nonpolitical. I really hate the phrase "the christian right". For 2 reasons: 1) i have no idea who you're talking about. 2) The word "christian" is defined as "those who follow the teachings of Jesus the Christ". In the book of Acts the disciples of Christ were first called "Christians". They didn't invent the word, it's how other people referred to them. I don't care who calls themself what -you can walk into McDonald's and call yourself a hamburger but that doesn't make you one. That doesn't mean we have to buy into it too. I would expect professional writers and editors to understand this. I'm just so sick and tired of people misrepresenting themselves, as well as those who write about them adding to that 'cause of their own prejudices.

And this: "real men dominate by force" thing? What is up with that? Do you know what the last miracle was, that Jesus did before He died? It was healing one of the people who arrested him, Peter was trying to protect Jesus and he was rebuked for using violence. What happened to the concept of research? What happened to the idea of: learning what it is you're writing about? Why do i need to point these things out? "Well this group of people says_____, even though Jesus said____" (In point of fact, Jesus taught not to seek having power over other people. Which He was offered, and refused.)

Yes homosexuality is a sin. So is sleeping around. So is stealing $20. Look it up. People who want to get all worked up over this, are working out their own agenda -much as you are in this piece you wrote. There is no degree of sin before God; A is not worse than B. That's an idea propagated by man. God does things simpler: there's sin and there's salvation. And you get to choose either. So does everyone else.

Ironicly, while you chose to write a piece about hate, what comes across most clearly is that which you harbour in your own heart.


Poet

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was raised in a town out west that was about ninety percent Mormon--not a town you would think would be too friendly toward people who are gay, but I had a really eye-opening experience when I was in high school (around ten years ago). One of my closest friends (who had already come out to me) decided it was time to come out to everyone. He came out on stage at a drama club talent award night in front of many students and their parents. I was so proud of him! I was also so proud of the people in my town because they applauded him. They treated him so well, no one said or did anything cruel or intollerant. They loved and accepted him for who he was--a brave and tallented young man. These people were religious, and belonged to a religion that doesn't accept homosexuality, but they weren't bigotted. They were very open-minded and loving. I can never say that religion causes intollerance. It just hasn't been my experience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not gay hating, not for those of us who understand the ability to share truth while realizing the meaning of the word 'respect'.

www.familyresearchinst.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]