Facebook declares Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters 'abusive' and 'spammy'

I usually talk the exploits of the religious right but something happened on my blog this morning that's highly "interesting."

After writing my morning post, I went to place it on Facebook but got the following message:

This message contains blocked content that has previously been flagged as abusive or spammy. Let us know if you think this is an error.

It's been like this all day, leading me to ask is it conceivable that some folks aren't happy with what I am posting.

I wouldn't be surprised. It's been a "fun" week with the Family Research Council making a complete fool of itself and Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association competing for the jester's title.

Of course it could be anything from a Facebook glitch, to someone striking back because Glenn Beck got fired, to someone getting angry at the plain truth of my anti-religious right words.

I mean let's count down the five most potentially offensive things I have said recently:

5. In the piece Scott Lively has a vicious homophobic breakdown, I said the following:

I have a certain classification when it comes to homophobes I talk about.

Peter LaBarbera is fun to laugh at. Matt Barber is a useful idiot. Paul Cameron is stewing in a sauce of irrelevancy. Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown are fishes who soon will be hooked by their own carelessness. Peter Sprigg and Tony Perkins are bumbling fools.

But when it comes to Scott Lively, I think of crosses, garlic, and holy water.

4. In the post Sorry Newt, but the American Family Association IS a hate group, I said:

. . .if the American Family Association is a Christian organization, then God must have lowered his standards.

3. Then there this comment in the piece Family Research Council accidentally admits truth about hate group charges:

FRC is not as blatantly hateful as the Klan, but that makes the organization more dangerous. Under the veneer of respectability and morality, FRC either passes off junk science or presents social science in a wrong manner to deliberately smear the lgbt community and make us appear - inaccurately - as a public health risk and a threat to religious liberty.

2. And then there is the consistent way I always seem to pick on anti-gay spokesman Matt Barber (or as I call him, my pet). Hey! It's not my fault that he seems to always be talking about gay sex and then implying that God has led him to do such like he did in the post  Matt Barber - 'Homosexuals are picking on me!'

All I did was make the observation that if Barber obsesses about gay sex because of God, then God has a warped sense of humor.

1. Or it could have been my simple observation of those who took part in Peter LaBarbera's "Truth Academy" in the post Porno Pete LaBarbera's Hate Academy begins today

All I said was:

These are not Christian people. These are liars motivated by vicious homophobia and anti-gay animus so pathological that they probably should seek psychiatric care.

I mean come on, Facebook. Were these comments truly abusive?

It doesn't because I figured out a way to place my posts on Facebook regardless. Still just the idea that someone thinks my blog posts are "abusive" or "spammy" just boggles my mind.

And I'm just getting started, you daisy-headed freaks!

UPDATE - It looks like the Facebook no longer considers me "abusive" or "spammy" anymore. At least for now. LOL

Ark. court rules against anti-gay adoption law and other Thursday midday news briefs

Ark. court strikes down law barring gay adoptions - Awesome! Children have a right to a good home and this law prevented that.

Ssempa, Oyett Press Uganda’s Parliament on Anti-Homosexuality Bill - GO AWAY, MARTIN SSEMPA!

The Military's Secret Shame - Before the religious right has a chance to exploit this article about male-on-male rape in the military, check out this passage from it - "While many might assume the perpetrators of such assaults are closeted gay soldiers, military experts and outside researchers say assailants usually are heterosexual. Like in prisons and other predominantly male environments, male-on-male assault in the military, experts say, is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Assault victims, both male and female, are typically young and low-ranking; they are targeted for their vulnerability. "

Andrea Lafferty calls Wasserman Schultz 'a junkyard dog'; one of the nicest things Lafferty's said in years - Andrea Lafferty is definitely her father's daughter.

FAIR Education Act and Gender Nondiscrimination Act Pass Key California Legislative Committees - Ending the news briefs with really good news.

Republicans embarrass themselves at DADT hearings

This week, House Republicans held hearings over the implementation of DADT.

From what I understand, it didn't go well for them.

However, don't tell that to long-time anti-gay activist and Paul Cameron enabler Robert Knight. According to him, the hearings were a slam dunk:

Rep. Allen B. West (R-Florida) belled the cat neatly during a hearing last Friday on the military's breakneck pace in implementing the new lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) law.

Mr. West, whose 20-plus years in the U.S. Army included combat commands, noted that he and others at Fort Bragg had to endure "sensitivity training" in the 1990s. It didn't enhance the "warrior ethos," he recalled.

What became clear at the hearing of the House Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee chaired by Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) is that the Pentagon is forging into unknown territory, driven by political correctness, not military need.

Mr. Wilson, Mr. West and Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colorado) were openly skeptical about how honest the process has been. Mr. West noted that political correctness can prove costly, as when commanders ignored Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's plunge into radical Islam before the Fort Hood shootings. Likewise, people are afraid to share qualms over the LGBT law, Mr. West said.

I'll say one thing for Knight. What he doesn't have in truth, he makes up in creativity.

In reality, according to the site Equality Matters, the Republicans were hoping to use the hearings to find something - anything - that they could use to delay the repeal of DADT. And they couldn't find a thing:

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley said he saw "no issues or problems" with the repeal of DADT, which is expected to be completed by midsummer. "All is going well," Stanley said.

Republicans weren't pleased.

Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) attempted to make the case that under DADT gay and lesbian service members were being discharged for violating standards of conduct rather than for simply being gay and that training for repeal was costing the military too much money. He was rebuked, not once but twice, by Vice Admiral William E. Gortney, who testified that the majority of soldiers discharged under DADT had not violated standards of conduct and that training had only cost about $10,000, a minuscule amount considering the military's annual budget.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) tried to rehash the issue of troops showering together, criticizing Vice Admiral Gortney for "not being consistent" in his responses.

Extremely embarrassing to Republican efforts to derail the DADT repeal was the following exchange between Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) and  Vice Admiral William E. Gortney. Scott was trying to prove that gay soldiers had been discharged for violating standards of conduct rather than their sexual orientation.

Needless to say, he wasn't successful:

Transcript:

SCOTT: Did you discharge him from the service because he was gay or because he violated a standard of conduct?

GORTNEY: Because he was gay.

SCOTT: He did not violate a standard of conduct before he was dismissed?

GORTNEY: He did not.

SCOTT: That's not the answer I thought you would give to be honest with you, Admiral.

From what I understand there will be another hearing today. I'm hoping that Republicans will end up with more egg on their faces, while Knight will continue to sing their praises from whatever alternate universe he is viewing the hearings.