jump to navigation

Mentioning Rape, Sodomites and Perversion in the Title of a Pamphlet… Must Be the Right-Wing! September 27, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in anti-gay activists, hate speech, lgbt Issues, religion distorted, right-wing lies.

At the extreme-right Value Voters Summit put on by the Family Research Council, attacking same-sex marriage became a favorite past-time. Instead of these “Christians” discussing ways to help impoverished Americans, extend access to healthcare or improve public schools, they pretend banning same-sex marriage is the most crucial issue facing the nation.

At the summit, volunteers from Wellington Boone Ministries handed out pamphlets that accurately depict how these “compassionate” Christians view gay and lesbian people. The pamphlet, titled “The Rape of the Civil Rights Movement: How Sodomites are Using Civil Rights Rhetoric to Advance Their Preference for Sexual Perversion,” blames the difficulties of being gay or lesbian on their “desire for sex”.

The pamphlet is a disgusting mixture of obvious lies, distortions and gross exaggerations. Here are just a few examples:

A lie:

What blacks have gone through to gain their freedom relates to their culture and race. What gays are dealing with is a result of their behavioral preference and desire for sex.

The first sentence is true. The second sentence is absurd. Despite what anti-gay leaders claim, the vast majority of peer-reviewed research shows a combination of factors potentially cause homosexuality, but that it is most definitely not a choice. Also, I guarantee you a gay man has no more desire for sex than the average straight man.

Another lie:

Sodomites are people who willfully break the laws of God and the laws of the land… The legal term “sodomy”, which includes the illegal, perverted behavior of same-sex relationships, including oral and anal sex, comes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19.

We could debate for years whether God condemns homosexuality, but sodomy is most definitely legal in the United States. In the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v Texas, the court overturned all sodomy laws because of the right to privacy. The authors of this pamphlet know that… they just have no problem being dishonest.

Although I could continue to point out other lies, we will move on.

An obvious distortion:

Sodomy causes the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and natural and spirtual uncleanness that result in sickness, disease, and death.

Technically, yes, sodomy can result in spreading sexually transmitted diseases. But, heterosexual sex also spreads sexually transmitted diseases. It may be easy to single out gay people, but I know plenty of heterosexuals who ended up with STDs and it sure wasn’t from gay sex. As for “natural uncleanness”… no more unclean than any other sex act.

Gross Exaggeration:

If you followed same-sex marriage to its logical conclusion, it would bring an end to our society as we know it. It would mean the annihilation of the human race.

Unless these crazies believe gay people have the power to infect everyone else on the planet, this argument is idiotic. I probably don’t need to further explain why it is so.

Who knew you could fit so much bullshit in a two-page pamphlet? Ridiculous statements like the ones above show how weak and ignorant the arguments condemning gay people truly are. If they are forced to realize religion shouldn’t play a role in government recognition of marriage, the right-wingers have absolutely no legitimate arguments for banning it (although I know the ones they will attempt to regurgitate at you).

You can download a PDF of the Wellington Boone Ministries pamphlet here (once page opens, “download button is near the bottom of the screen.)

Read More About the Summit and the “Ministry”:

Think Progress: “‘Values Voter Summit’ Features Attack on ‘Faggots,’ Claim That Gay Rights Movement Inspired ‘From The Pit Of Hell Itself’”

Andrew Sullivan: Christianism Watch


The Right-Wing’s Defense of Mel Gibson August 4, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in entertainment, hate speech, religion.
1 comment so far

The whole Mel Gibson affair has been an ugly display of how many Americans rationalize bigotry and refuse to understand the impact of hateful speech. The worst offense, of course, was Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic comments the night he was arrested for drunk driving. We have heard his apology and every individual may choose whether or not to accept it. For me, it is hard to accept an apology for anti-Semitic comments when it is quite obvious that Mel Gibson himself still harbors his anti-Jewish beliefs… a public relations disaster cannot reverse a lifetime of prejudice towards a particular group.

What has disturbed me almost as much as the Mel Gibson episode itself is the right-wing response to the incident. When Rep. Patrick Kennedy was caught driving drunk in Washington DC, Fox News and the right-wing had an absolute field day. They had every right to criticize the congressman for risking the lives of others by driving under the influence, but you would expect them to be equally as angry when Mel Gibson was pulled over while sloshed. Instead, we have seen a consistent right-wing defense of Mel Gibson, including a defense of his anti-Semitic tirade and attempt to resist arrest.

On the August 2 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity attempts to compare the outrage over Patrick Kennedy’s arrest to the outrage over Mel Gibson’s arrest. Of course, he mentions his appreciation for Gibson’s honesty about his nighttime adventure and criticizes Kennedy for not “telling the truth” when he was pulled over. Hannity somehow comes to the conclusion that Kennedy’s incident was much more offensive than Gibson’s, ignoring the fact that Kennedy had a peaceful arrest while Gibson verbally attacked a Jewish officer:

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: All right. Now I want to ask you, when Patrick Kennedy crashed his car into a barrier, saying to police at 3 in the morning he was going for a vote and was taken home by police, I said, “I want him to get help.” I said, “But what he didn’t do at the time was admit the truth.”


HANNITY: Gibson, I want him to get help.

COULTER: Right. He has a little sketchy-wetchy (ph) problem.

HANNITY: He’s drinking. He says these things.


HANNITY: But he came on and admitted it, profoundly apologized. After he gets help, he plans to make good. It seems it’s not going to be accepted by people. Should it be?

COULTER: Sure. Of course. What people do when they’re drunk, especially someone with a problem, as Gibson apparently has, I mean, obviously it’s a different standard. He didn’t, you know, drive a woman off a bridge and, you know, he’s not trying to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee either.

HANNITY: By the way, and he didn’t go home that night, and he admitted the truth. It seems to be a big difference. That doesn’t matter.

COULTER: And meanwhile, what he says, blind drunk is what Cindy Sheehan says. Stone cold sober. And according to Maureen Dowd, she has absolute moral authority. So how about talking to all of these Democrat supporters who talk like Gibson does when he’s drunk?

HANNITY: All right. Let me ask you this. Is it always going to be…

COULTER: And that isn’t exaggeration, by the way.

HANNITY: No, no. But is there always going to be a double standard when it comes to conservatives, what they say, liberals what they say, liberals, as you mentioned, a bridge incident. Liberals have always forgiven and forgotten.


HANNITY: I honestly want Patrick Kennedy to get help. I’ve known a lot of people that have had alcohol or drug problems. And I said so at the time. But you’ve got to be straight with us.

The mind-numbing banter between Coulter and Hannity was a not-so-eloquent attempt to avoid why Americans are angry with Mel Gibson. I have barely heard any criticism of Gibson because he was drunk driving… people are angry over his anti-Semitic comments. What is this bullshit about honesty and finding the nearest Alcoholics Anonymous? People are not criticizing Gibson for the disease of alcoholism, he is being criticized because of another disease that he chooses to keep: bigotry.

Leaving Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity’s recently-found desire to help those who are struggling and moving on to Brent Bozell, president of the annoyingly conservative Media Research Center. Bozell quickly mentions in one line (five words long) that Gibson’s comments were “disgraceful”. He then proceeds to ignore Mel Gibson’s prejudice and instead attacks those who are offended by hearing the anti-Semitic remarks:

The paparazzi news media can’t get enough of this story, and some, like ABC’s Diane Sawyer, can barely conceal their glee. The hard news covered, here comes the analysis, with this-man-will-never-get-another-job-in-this- town reports everywhere you turn, fueled by the likes of Arianna Huffington, who has denounced Gibson’s “odious racism”… The first thing Mel Gibson and everyone else should do is ignore people like these. They are hypocrites.

Apparently, Bozell’s advice to Mel Gibson is to “ignore” people who are criticizing him for his anti-Semitic comments. Bozell then goes on to attack the media and others for not criticizing actor Ian McKellen when he accused the Catholic Church of “misleading us all the time” and that “the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction”. Although these comments are offensive to many and probably shouldn’t have been said, there is a big difference between McKellen’s statements and Mel Gibson’s remarks. Most importantly, Ian McKellen is an openly gay man who has spent his entire life listening to the Catholic Church condemn him for who he is. The Vatican and anti-gay activists use the Bible to call gay people “immoral”, “deviant” and “hell-bound”. McKellen was not initiating the attack, he was responding (appropriately or not) to attacks on his humanity and ability to live as he chooses. What has the Jewish community ever done to Mel Gibson to evoke such an attack?

Bozell continues his condemnation of television shows and movies that he perceives to be anti-Catholic. Fair enough, but we are talking about entertainment and fiction, not true hatred spewed out of a drunken man’s mouth. Bozell needs to remember that television is not reality, and Mel Gibson’s comments were all too real for many Americans.

Mel Gibson should be forgiven, but not because of a statement released by his public relations guy. He needs to prove to the Jewish community and other communities he has offended in the past that he is not only sorry for speaking like a bigot, but he is sorry for being one. He needs to admit who he is and prove that he is working to overcome his intense prejudices.

Until then, he can get drunk with Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Brent Bozell, because his Hollywood friends may be dwindling.

Mel Gibson’s History of Anti-Jewish and Anti-Gay Remarks August 1, 2006

Posted by newsfittopost in entertainment, hate speech.

As most know already, actor Mel Gibson was pulled over in Los Angeles for drunk driving. During the arrest, he spewed out his half-hidden opinion of Jewish people: “F….. Jews. The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.”

Sober and somewhat composed, Mel Gibson has now released a statement apologizing for his anti-Semitic comments. Of course, he is claiming his love for Jewish people of all sorts and tries to pass it off as a drunken incident:

There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark. I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested on a DUI charge…

The tenets of what I profess to believe necessitate that I exercise charity and tolerance as a way of life. Every human being is God’s child, and if I wish to honor my God I have to honor his children. But please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith.

Despite the “heart-warming” statement most likely written by his public relations guy, the truth is that Mel Gibson is a bigot and a hateful person. He has a history of making deeply offensive remarks about Jews, gay people and anyone who dares to critique one of his films.

Remember Gibson’s statement, “Hatred of any kind goes against my faith,” as you read some of these Gibson classics:

  • The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation criticizes Mel Gibson for anti-gay comments and asks for an apology. Gibson: “I’ll apologize when hell freezes over. They can f- — – off.”
  • Gibson refuses to disagree with his father’s belief that the Holocaust never happened. When asked about his belief, he artfully avoids a direct answer.
  • After New York Times columnist Frank Rich warns that Gibson’s movie Passion of the Christ could fuel anti-Semitism, Gibson responds: “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog.”
  • Gibson tells a Spanish newspaper he worries people think he is gay because he is an actor: “They take it up the ass. This is only for taking a shit [pointing to his butt]… But with this look, who’s going to think I’m gay? It would be hard to take me for someone like that. Do I sound like a homosexual? Do I talk like them? Do I move like them? What happens is when you’re an actor, they stick that label on you.”

Mel Gibson sure sounds like quite the humanitarian. He is way past “three strikes and you’re out”. The extreme right-wing has already come to his defense, using its vast resources to defend his bigoted comments. Right-wing organizations love to lambast Hollywood for being too liberal or too tolerant, but it appears as if they have found a friend in Mel Gibson. Not too surprising I suppose.