CPAC conference churning and so is my stomach
Right now as I speak, The Conservative Political Action Conference is underway.
This conference is where conservatives get together, plan, and generally complain about those "Godless liberals."
The following is basically the conference:
Blah blah blah, Jesus was a conservative, blah, blah, blah, liberals like to squeeze the Charmin and snatch tags off of matresses, blah, blah, blah, a gay man felt my ass while I was coming here.
Okay maybe I'm exaggerating a bit:
CPAC is expected to draw nearly 9,000 activists and college students from across the country, up from the record 7,000 who attended last year, when the main attractions were personal appearances by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the four remaining Republican presidential nomination hopefuls - former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
To get a good view of what these folks are going to talk about, I will present links from People for The American Way's Religious Right Watch.
Religious Right Watch deserves much kudos for having the high tolerance level to stand the nonsense going on at the CPAC conference (even though it has yet to add my blog to its list of links - hint, hint, hint).
Proceed at your own risk with barf bag in hand:
CPAC: Marriage Equality Will Create a Generation of Violent Criminals
CPAC: Obama's a Communist and a Foreigner, Bush was a "Pseduo-Socialist President"
CPAC: Carlson Attempts to Defend the New York Times, Gets Booed
CPAC: Bay Buchanan Calls DC Conservatives a Bunch of Sell-Outs
And from John Aravosis at Americablog:
Bush UN ambassador jokes about nuking Chicago since Obama is from there
Ah yes. Nothing like a good traditional family values gathering - that is if your family is the Sawney Beane clan or the Bloody Benders.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Concerned Women for America exploits scholarship program for the sake of fear and hyperbole
Some members of the religious right are especially unhappy with the Democratic party. They are claiming that a spending bill passed by the House will strip disadvantaged children of educational opportunities:
Disadvantaged children in the District of Columbia will be losing an educational lifeline if a new spending bill is passed on Capitol Hill. At the same time, abortionists and homosexual activists stand to gain from the Omnibus bill.
Dan Lips, a senior policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation, warns that the new Omnibus bill -- passed by the House on Wednesday essentially along party lines -- will terminate the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.
The article continues to brag on the attributes of the scholarship program and tells of attempts to stop its possible elimination.
Now the next part of the article is confusing:
Joining the ranks of groups opposed to the Omnibus spending bill is the Washington, DC-based group Concerned Women for America. The pro-life/pro-family organization notes that the bill includes a $7-million raise for Planned Parenthood, the non-profit, federally-funded abortion organization that makes a sizeable annual profit. In addition, says CWFA president Wendy Wright, it pumps $50 million into the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an agency she says is "intimately involved in the forced abortion, forced sterilization program in China."
The United Nations agency will receive the money regardless if it engages in coercive abortion activities. The pro-life activist cites several other objections to the legislation.
"This Omnibus bill would eliminate funding for school-choice programs that have helped to rescue children from dangerous and failing inner-city schools," says Wright. "[In addition] it has language that will reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, and it has funding for controversial 'school bullying' programs which in the past have promoted homosexual programs to children."
So does that mean CWA wants to save the scholarship program or is the organization using its possible demise for another attack on so-called Godless liberals, "homosexual activists," and "abortionists?":
In short, says Wright, the Omnibus bill is loaded with spending for "liberals bent on destroying American values."
You tell me.
Some members of the religious right are especially unhappy with the Democratic party. They are claiming that a spending bill passed by the House will strip disadvantaged children of educational opportunities:
Disadvantaged children in the District of Columbia will be losing an educational lifeline if a new spending bill is passed on Capitol Hill. At the same time, abortionists and homosexual activists stand to gain from the Omnibus bill.
Dan Lips, a senior policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation, warns that the new Omnibus bill -- passed by the House on Wednesday essentially along party lines -- will terminate the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.
The article continues to brag on the attributes of the scholarship program and tells of attempts to stop its possible elimination.
Now the next part of the article is confusing:
Joining the ranks of groups opposed to the Omnibus spending bill is the Washington, DC-based group Concerned Women for America. The pro-life/pro-family organization notes that the bill includes a $7-million raise for Planned Parenthood, the non-profit, federally-funded abortion organization that makes a sizeable annual profit. In addition, says CWFA president Wendy Wright, it pumps $50 million into the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an agency she says is "intimately involved in the forced abortion, forced sterilization program in China."
The United Nations agency will receive the money regardless if it engages in coercive abortion activities. The pro-life activist cites several other objections to the legislation.
"This Omnibus bill would eliminate funding for school-choice programs that have helped to rescue children from dangerous and failing inner-city schools," says Wright. "[In addition] it has language that will reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, and it has funding for controversial 'school bullying' programs which in the past have promoted homosexual programs to children."
So does that mean CWA wants to save the scholarship program or is the organization using its possible demise for another attack on so-called Godless liberals, "homosexual activists," and "abortionists?":
In short, says Wright, the Omnibus bill is loaded with spending for "liberals bent on destroying American values."
You tell me.
Janet Porter's pathetic attempt to connect hate crimes legislation and ENDA
From Pam's House Blend and Tips Q comes news that one of my favorite religious right spokespeople, Janet Folger-Porter, has gone on a tear about the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or “ENDA” is “hate crimes” – or more accurately, “thought crimes” – for the workplace. It means the “ENDA” freedom of speech, the “ENDA” freedom of religion, the “ENDA” freedom of association and the “ENDA” freedom of conscience.
And like pretty much all religious right spokespeople, Porter provides "examples" of cases in which people's freedoms have been "trampled" by us "evil homosexuals."
All of her examples are vague rehashing of actual events - so vague that we don't know the truth behind the cases. And a lot of them are from foreign countries - you know, countries that don't have our Constitution, laws or legal system.
One of Porter's examples that come from the United States has to do with the Ocean Grove Pavilion controversy:
. . . the Christian Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey, which was found “guilty of discrimination” for standing by their beliefs instead of renting their facilities to a homosexual couple who wanted to use the Christian camp for their same-sex union in March 2007.
Of course Porter is being highly deceptive about this situation. I will let Tips-Q tell you why:
Janet sort of forgets that the gay couple wanted to rent an oceanfront pavilion that is owned by the Christian organization but is open to the public. Indeed, as part of their zoning law variance, the organization entered into a written agreement to comply with New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws.
Another example caught my eye:
The 16-year-olds who were charged with felonies in Chicago for handing out flyers that criticized homosexuality . . .
Just like in the case of Ocean Grove, Porter leaves out crucial details:
Two female 16-year-old Crystal Lake South High School students face hate-crime charges after allegedly plastering their high school's halls and distributing anti-gay fliers directed towards a fellow student in the school's parking lot.
. . . McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi told Windy City Times that despite arguments being made by many locals about the right to free speech, what the two girls did is clearly a hate crime.'They had the intent to alarm and disturb another, and they were successful in that,' Bianchi said. 'In alarming and disturbing, they also committed a hate crime. Their words ... were directed against a specific individual of a certain sexual orientation.'
Bianchi would not comment on the exact wording of the flier because it is evidence. However, other sources quote those who have viewed the flier as containing a picture of the male student kissing another male, with the wording 'God hates fags.'
The hate crimes charges were dropped because the two girls pleaded to lesser charges. For Porter to attempt to make them poster children for "gay oppression" is beyond the pale.
I'm more concerned about the target of their vendetta.
If Porter was any type of Christian, she would have been too instead of attempting to distort the case to suit her agenda.
From Pam's House Blend and Tips Q comes news that one of my favorite religious right spokespeople, Janet Folger-Porter, has gone on a tear about the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or “ENDA” is “hate crimes” – or more accurately, “thought crimes” – for the workplace. It means the “ENDA” freedom of speech, the “ENDA” freedom of religion, the “ENDA” freedom of association and the “ENDA” freedom of conscience.
And like pretty much all religious right spokespeople, Porter provides "examples" of cases in which people's freedoms have been "trampled" by us "evil homosexuals."
All of her examples are vague rehashing of actual events - so vague that we don't know the truth behind the cases. And a lot of them are from foreign countries - you know, countries that don't have our Constitution, laws or legal system.
One of Porter's examples that come from the United States has to do with the Ocean Grove Pavilion controversy:
. . . the Christian Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey, which was found “guilty of discrimination” for standing by their beliefs instead of renting their facilities to a homosexual couple who wanted to use the Christian camp for their same-sex union in March 2007.
Of course Porter is being highly deceptive about this situation. I will let Tips-Q tell you why:
Janet sort of forgets that the gay couple wanted to rent an oceanfront pavilion that is owned by the Christian organization but is open to the public. Indeed, as part of their zoning law variance, the organization entered into a written agreement to comply with New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws.
Another example caught my eye:
The 16-year-olds who were charged with felonies in Chicago for handing out flyers that criticized homosexuality . . .
Just like in the case of Ocean Grove, Porter leaves out crucial details:
Two female 16-year-old Crystal Lake South High School students face hate-crime charges after allegedly plastering their high school's halls and distributing anti-gay fliers directed towards a fellow student in the school's parking lot.
. . . McHenry County State's Attorney Lou Bianchi told Windy City Times that despite arguments being made by many locals about the right to free speech, what the two girls did is clearly a hate crime.'They had the intent to alarm and disturb another, and they were successful in that,' Bianchi said. 'In alarming and disturbing, they also committed a hate crime. Their words ... were directed against a specific individual of a certain sexual orientation.'
Bianchi would not comment on the exact wording of the flier because it is evidence. However, other sources quote those who have viewed the flier as containing a picture of the male student kissing another male, with the wording 'God hates fags.'
The hate crimes charges were dropped because the two girls pleaded to lesser charges. For Porter to attempt to make them poster children for "gay oppression" is beyond the pale.
I'm more concerned about the target of their vendetta.
If Porter was any type of Christian, she would have been too instead of attempting to distort the case to suit her agenda.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday news briefs
Where Are the Black Gay Men? - from the article: "Two weeks ago individuals and organizations across the nation marked National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. Judging by many of the articles, press releases and events commemorating the day, however, you might never guess that the highest percentage of new HIV infections in 2006 was among black gay men.
Why, even on a day dedicated to black AIDS awareness, do black gay men remain a footnote?"
Those are my sentiment exactly
Buttars Has a Friend in Matt Barber - Well at least Chris Buttars has one friend. It's kinda sad when even Peter LaBarbera won't defend your anti-gay words. But never fear, Matt Barber will be a friend to homophobes the world over.
Perkins Contemplating Primary Challenge to Vitter - Great. Jason vs. Freddy part 2.
Bobby Jindal Response Panned By Pundits, Republicans And Democrats Alike - I tried watching Bobby Jindal last night in an attempt to be fair but I couldn't finish. It was a disaster. And let's face it - him mentioning Hurricane Katrina as proof of government ineptness is like the Pittsburgh Steeler quarterback throwing an interception twice to the same Dallas Cowboy player in Superbowl XXX.
Schultheis: HIV testing for pregnant moms rewards ‘sexual promiscuity’ - First Renfroe, now this. Have Colorado legislators lost their damned minds?
Where Are the Black Gay Men? - from the article: "Two weeks ago individuals and organizations across the nation marked National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. Judging by many of the articles, press releases and events commemorating the day, however, you might never guess that the highest percentage of new HIV infections in 2006 was among black gay men.
Why, even on a day dedicated to black AIDS awareness, do black gay men remain a footnote?"
Those are my sentiment exactly
Buttars Has a Friend in Matt Barber - Well at least Chris Buttars has one friend. It's kinda sad when even Peter LaBarbera won't defend your anti-gay words. But never fear, Matt Barber will be a friend to homophobes the world over.
Perkins Contemplating Primary Challenge to Vitter - Great. Jason vs. Freddy part 2.
Bobby Jindal Response Panned By Pundits, Republicans And Democrats Alike - I tried watching Bobby Jindal last night in an attempt to be fair but I couldn't finish. It was a disaster. And let's face it - him mentioning Hurricane Katrina as proof of government ineptness is like the Pittsburgh Steeler quarterback throwing an interception twice to the same Dallas Cowboy player in Superbowl XXX.
Schultheis: HIV testing for pregnant moms rewards ‘sexual promiscuity’ - First Renfroe, now this. Have Colorado legislators lost their damned minds?
Another state legislator, another show of 'Biblical' disrespect
The Chris Buttars situation continues to cause controversy in Utah.
And the religious right continues to be silent about it.
Which is totally opposite of their behavior last year in the case of Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern. When Kern made and defended her comments comparing gays to terrorists, the religious right all but made her a patron saint, including having a huge rally for her in the Oklahoma State House.
Whether it be the stark nature of Buttars's comments or the fact that he is a Mormon rather than an "evangelical Christian," the religious right hasn't given him the time of day.
But now comes a situation where I dare them to sink their sanctimonius teeth in:
On the floor of the State Senate, right-wing Senator Scott Renfroe (R-Greeley) actually referred to gay and lesbian people as an "abomination" and an "offense to God."
It gets worse:
Renfroe equated gay and lesbian people with murderers and quoted the Book of Leviticus suggesting that gay people should be put to death.
He also said that women were created to be "helpers" for men, quoting the Book of Genesis.
Renfroe was referring to Senate Bill 88, a bill that would extend healthcare coverage to the same-sex partners of state employees. SB 88 is about healthcare. It's about gaining some measure of equality for gay and lesbian state employees. And regardless of how people like James Dobson and Scott Renfroe feel about gay people, their shameless hate-mongering has no place in public debate and we should reject them completely.
Now I could say that Renfroe's absolutely stupid comments proves that the opponents of gay marriage lie when they say their position is only to clarify the "fact" that marriage is between one man and one woman.
In so many cases, they have used the anti-gay marriage laws to keep gay couples from job benefits, healthcare benefits, and adopting children.
But I would be preaching to the choir and highlighting something that has been said on much better blogs than this one.
I really want to commend Renfroe for saying it all. Usually when someone cites Leviticus while making the statement that homosexuality is against God's will and that we should listen to "God's word," they leave that part out about death.
If there's anything I hate, it's a lukewarm Christian.
At any rate, just as in the case of Buttars, I don't suspect that there will be any call to make Renfroe the new icon of gay "intolerance."
For one thing, his speech was nasty. I don't think anyone in their right mind would try and spin his words as simple Christian truth.
Of course we are talking about the religious right so I reserve the right to take back my "right mind" statement.
But secondly, and most importantly, how many times must this sort of thing happen?
The routine of religious right groups is to portray themselves and their supporters as innocent upholders of moral values who are beset by "intolerant radical homosexual activists."
But in the cases of Buttars, Renfroe, and even Kern, it hasn't been the gay community who have started the fight - it's been the "Christian" politicians.
I don't care what your biblical or world view is of homosexuality, no community should have to be put up with being called terrorists or disrespected in any form.
Gays are not criminals, so you cannot compare us to murderers. Gays are not mentally sick so you cannot compare us to alcoholics.
We are thriving, successful members of the American community and as such, we have every right demand respect from our leaders and politicians even if they disagree with what they think our so-called lifestyle entails.
If the religious right continues to defend every politician who attacks the gay community, how long will it be before this country stops buying into their phony claims of innocence and finally realizes that they are inciting the problem?
After all, you can't continue to clutch the pearls in shock when you are the ones doing the shocking.
The Chris Buttars situation continues to cause controversy in Utah.
And the religious right continues to be silent about it.
Which is totally opposite of their behavior last year in the case of Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern. When Kern made and defended her comments comparing gays to terrorists, the religious right all but made her a patron saint, including having a huge rally for her in the Oklahoma State House.
Whether it be the stark nature of Buttars's comments or the fact that he is a Mormon rather than an "evangelical Christian," the religious right hasn't given him the time of day.
But now comes a situation where I dare them to sink their sanctimonius teeth in:
On the floor of the State Senate, right-wing Senator Scott Renfroe (R-Greeley) actually referred to gay and lesbian people as an "abomination" and an "offense to God."
It gets worse:
Renfroe equated gay and lesbian people with murderers and quoted the Book of Leviticus suggesting that gay people should be put to death.
He also said that women were created to be "helpers" for men, quoting the Book of Genesis.
Renfroe was referring to Senate Bill 88, a bill that would extend healthcare coverage to the same-sex partners of state employees. SB 88 is about healthcare. It's about gaining some measure of equality for gay and lesbian state employees. And regardless of how people like James Dobson and Scott Renfroe feel about gay people, their shameless hate-mongering has no place in public debate and we should reject them completely.
Now I could say that Renfroe's absolutely stupid comments proves that the opponents of gay marriage lie when they say their position is only to clarify the "fact" that marriage is between one man and one woman.
In so many cases, they have used the anti-gay marriage laws to keep gay couples from job benefits, healthcare benefits, and adopting children.
But I would be preaching to the choir and highlighting something that has been said on much better blogs than this one.
I really want to commend Renfroe for saying it all. Usually when someone cites Leviticus while making the statement that homosexuality is against God's will and that we should listen to "God's word," they leave that part out about death.
If there's anything I hate, it's a lukewarm Christian.
At any rate, just as in the case of Buttars, I don't suspect that there will be any call to make Renfroe the new icon of gay "intolerance."
For one thing, his speech was nasty. I don't think anyone in their right mind would try and spin his words as simple Christian truth.
Of course we are talking about the religious right so I reserve the right to take back my "right mind" statement.
But secondly, and most importantly, how many times must this sort of thing happen?
The routine of religious right groups is to portray themselves and their supporters as innocent upholders of moral values who are beset by "intolerant radical homosexual activists."
But in the cases of Buttars, Renfroe, and even Kern, it hasn't been the gay community who have started the fight - it's been the "Christian" politicians.
I don't care what your biblical or world view is of homosexuality, no community should have to be put up with being called terrorists or disrespected in any form.
Gays are not criminals, so you cannot compare us to murderers. Gays are not mentally sick so you cannot compare us to alcoholics.
We are thriving, successful members of the American community and as such, we have every right demand respect from our leaders and politicians even if they disagree with what they think our so-called lifestyle entails.
If the religious right continues to defend every politician who attacks the gay community, how long will it be before this country stops buying into their phony claims of innocence and finally realizes that they are inciting the problem?
After all, you can't continue to clutch the pearls in shock when you are the ones doing the shocking.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Editor's note - This is the only post I will write today because I am sidelined with a nasty fever. Enjoy the post, respond if you deem it necessary, and by all means, check out last night's post on the definition of bigotry.
Anger over Milk's Oscar wins yields ignorance and evasion
I am disappointed.
When Milk won two Oscars (Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor), I knew some members of the religious right would register their disappointment and anger.
But I didn't realize how pathetic some of this anger would be.
Ted Baehr of Movieguide has written a piece attempting to scold Hollywood for its Oscar picks.
First of all, who is Ted Baehr and what is Movieguide?
If you type in http://www.movieguide.com/, you will come to a legitimate Hollywood site.
That's not Baehr's Movieguide. The address for his site is http://www.movieguide.org/
Not that I am accusing Baehr of attempting to piggyback credibility on a legitimate site or anything.
According to Wikipedia:
Baehr began publishing MOVIEGUIDE as a biweekly magazine of movie reviews "from a biblical perspective" aimed at helping parents use informed judgment when deciding what entertainment products are suitable for their families' enjoyment. Movieguide's reviews address not only specific portrayals of sex, violence, and profanity, but also address the "worldview" implicit in a movie's theme.
In other words, Baehr's scolding is going to be a hatchet job perpetrated by a phony pro-values group attempting to be credible while putting its biases on the front shelf.
And that's what it is:
Hollywood Denounces God and Applauds Pedophilia at the Oscars
The Academy Awards showed its support for sexual perversions last night at its annual Oscar ceremony.
And, the Academy wrongly painted the Entertainment Industry as a bunch of Commie rats, as it applauded Communist sympathizer Sean Penn’s gleeful greeting after winning an award for portraying an assassinated homosexual leader, “You Commie, homo-loving sons of guns!”
For the record, what Penn said was strictly tongue-in-cheek. That's why the audience applauded - it was a funny line.
At the beginning of the show, host Hugh Jackman described the message of MILK as, “It’s okay to be gay.”
Of course, Jesus Christ believes otherwise.
“Haven’t you read,” he says in Matthew 19:4-6, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So, they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not tear apart.”
Actually, Jesus never said a word about being gay. You won't find anything in the Bible proving so.
But then Baehr really gets cooking with his "how dare Hollywood show filth-flarn-filth" whine:
The movie industry also gave an Oscar to Kate Winslet for playing an illiterate escaped Nazi war criminal and pedophile who repeatedly seduces a 15-year-old boy.
Even though she played a pedophile, Hollywood decided that Kate Winslet finally deserved to get an Oscar for her performance in THE READER.
Gee I don't know. Maybe they gave her the Oscar because it was a good performance. Baehr makes it seem that Hollywood is honoring her for playing a pedophile rather than creating an excellent portrayal.
Baehr continues the criticism with an attack on Meryl Streep:
The attack on biblical values continued as Meryl Streep was praised for portraying a strict Catholic nun who struggles with herself and the fact that modern times are passing her by.
How is this an attack on Biblical values? Showing a nun who is concerned with modern times? I guess in Baehr's world, only nuns like those portrayed in The Story of Bernadette and Come to the Stable should warrant Oscar nominations.
But the next part is where Baehr trips up. And it's always where these so-called pro-family types make their biggest errors - when they manipulate the data to suit their point of view. Baehr contends that based on his group's figures, films with lgbt or "anti-Christian" (his words) content are not as successful as films with what he calls "very strong Christian worldviews."
. . . statistics show that movies with very strong Christian worldviews like PRINCE CASPIAN and FIREPROOF averaged $43.5 million at the box office while movies with very strong atheist or anti-Christian worldviews like Maher’s RELIGULOUS averaged only $11.2 million and movies with very strong pro-homosexual content like MILK averaged even worse, only $6.3 million.
In fact, the more homosexual content a movie had, the less it earned at the box office, according to MOVIEGUIDE®’s Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry, which examined the Top 250 English-language movies at the box office:
First of all, what constitutes "very strong pro-homosexual content?"
Secondly, Baehr's contention about the "more homosexual content a movie had, the less it earned at the box office" is ridiculous because it does not take into account the movie's budget, how many screens it is shown on, or reviews.
Baehr is clearly channeling Paul Cameron here.
Also, RELIGULOUS is a documentary and documentaries usually do not get a much push or are shown on as many screens as movies like Prince Caspian.
But RELIGULOUS was a successful documentary - It's budget was $2,500,000. It made $11,478,638 - which constitutes a profit.
Milk has only been in wide release since January. Before then, it was in limited release. It's budget was $15 million and it has already made $28,853,456. Most likely this will increase.
Baehr is being highly deceptive by including Prince Caspian in the mix because it was a big budget studio feature in wide release from its first day at the box office.
The worldwide total for Prince Caspian was $419,649,113 but its budget was $225 million.
The other "positive" movie, Fireproof, was pushed heavily by religious right groups such as Focus on the Family and Christian groups (the two sets of groups are not similar).
On a budget of $500,000, it made $33,351,975.
But Fireproof's success still does not prove Baehr's theory, especially when one takes into account just how much Prince Caspian figures into his numbers.
By the way, Iron Man and the Dark Knight made more money than all of these films combined.
I wonder if Baehr would label them as movies with "strong Christian worldviews."
But the bottom line is Baehr's piece is poorly done.
And unfortunately, so damn typical of the religious right.
Anger over Milk's Oscar wins yields ignorance and evasion
I am disappointed.
When Milk won two Oscars (Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor), I knew some members of the religious right would register their disappointment and anger.
But I didn't realize how pathetic some of this anger would be.
Ted Baehr of Movieguide has written a piece attempting to scold Hollywood for its Oscar picks.
First of all, who is Ted Baehr and what is Movieguide?
If you type in http://www.movieguide.com/, you will come to a legitimate Hollywood site.
That's not Baehr's Movieguide. The address for his site is http://www.movieguide.org/
Not that I am accusing Baehr of attempting to piggyback credibility on a legitimate site or anything.
According to Wikipedia:
Baehr began publishing MOVIEGUIDE as a biweekly magazine of movie reviews "from a biblical perspective" aimed at helping parents use informed judgment when deciding what entertainment products are suitable for their families' enjoyment. Movieguide's reviews address not only specific portrayals of sex, violence, and profanity, but also address the "worldview" implicit in a movie's theme.
In other words, Baehr's scolding is going to be a hatchet job perpetrated by a phony pro-values group attempting to be credible while putting its biases on the front shelf.
And that's what it is:
Hollywood Denounces God and Applauds Pedophilia at the Oscars
The Academy Awards showed its support for sexual perversions last night at its annual Oscar ceremony.
And, the Academy wrongly painted the Entertainment Industry as a bunch of Commie rats, as it applauded Communist sympathizer Sean Penn’s gleeful greeting after winning an award for portraying an assassinated homosexual leader, “You Commie, homo-loving sons of guns!”
For the record, what Penn said was strictly tongue-in-cheek. That's why the audience applauded - it was a funny line.
At the beginning of the show, host Hugh Jackman described the message of MILK as, “It’s okay to be gay.”
Of course, Jesus Christ believes otherwise.
“Haven’t you read,” he says in Matthew 19:4-6, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So, they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not tear apart.”
Actually, Jesus never said a word about being gay. You won't find anything in the Bible proving so.
But then Baehr really gets cooking with his "how dare Hollywood show filth-flarn-filth" whine:
The movie industry also gave an Oscar to Kate Winslet for playing an illiterate escaped Nazi war criminal and pedophile who repeatedly seduces a 15-year-old boy.
Even though she played a pedophile, Hollywood decided that Kate Winslet finally deserved to get an Oscar for her performance in THE READER.
Gee I don't know. Maybe they gave her the Oscar because it was a good performance. Baehr makes it seem that Hollywood is honoring her for playing a pedophile rather than creating an excellent portrayal.
Baehr continues the criticism with an attack on Meryl Streep:
The attack on biblical values continued as Meryl Streep was praised for portraying a strict Catholic nun who struggles with herself and the fact that modern times are passing her by.
How is this an attack on Biblical values? Showing a nun who is concerned with modern times? I guess in Baehr's world, only nuns like those portrayed in The Story of Bernadette and Come to the Stable should warrant Oscar nominations.
But the next part is where Baehr trips up. And it's always where these so-called pro-family types make their biggest errors - when they manipulate the data to suit their point of view. Baehr contends that based on his group's figures, films with lgbt or "anti-Christian" (his words) content are not as successful as films with what he calls "very strong Christian worldviews."
. . . statistics show that movies with very strong Christian worldviews like PRINCE CASPIAN and FIREPROOF averaged $43.5 million at the box office while movies with very strong atheist or anti-Christian worldviews like Maher’s RELIGULOUS averaged only $11.2 million and movies with very strong pro-homosexual content like MILK averaged even worse, only $6.3 million.
In fact, the more homosexual content a movie had, the less it earned at the box office, according to MOVIEGUIDE®’s Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry, which examined the Top 250 English-language movies at the box office:
First of all, what constitutes "very strong pro-homosexual content?"
Secondly, Baehr's contention about the "more homosexual content a movie had, the less it earned at the box office" is ridiculous because it does not take into account the movie's budget, how many screens it is shown on, or reviews.
Baehr is clearly channeling Paul Cameron here.
Also, RELIGULOUS is a documentary and documentaries usually do not get a much push or are shown on as many screens as movies like Prince Caspian.
But RELIGULOUS was a successful documentary - It's budget was $2,500,000. It made $11,478,638 - which constitutes a profit.
Milk has only been in wide release since January. Before then, it was in limited release. It's budget was $15 million and it has already made $28,853,456. Most likely this will increase.
Baehr is being highly deceptive by including Prince Caspian in the mix because it was a big budget studio feature in wide release from its first day at the box office.
The worldwide total for Prince Caspian was $419,649,113 but its budget was $225 million.
The other "positive" movie, Fireproof, was pushed heavily by religious right groups such as Focus on the Family and Christian groups (the two sets of groups are not similar).
On a budget of $500,000, it made $33,351,975.
But Fireproof's success still does not prove Baehr's theory, especially when one takes into account just how much Prince Caspian figures into his numbers.
By the way, Iron Man and the Dark Knight made more money than all of these films combined.
I wonder if Baehr would label them as movies with "strong Christian worldviews."
But the bottom line is Baehr's piece is poorly done.
And unfortunately, so damn typical of the religious right.
Monday, February 23, 2009
We call them bigots because they act like bigots
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has been on my mind lately. Mainly because of this comment he made last week:
In recent years, registering opposition to the homosexual agenda has become almost impossible. Political correctness has replaced open and energetic debate. Those who dare to disagree with the homosexual agenda are labeled “haters,” and “bigots,” and are censured by their peers. "
Or as Peter LaBarbera put today in an attack on Georgia Log Cabin Republican head James Ensley:
Once again, the hypocrisy of the claims of homosexual groups’ commitments to tolerance is laid bare in all its ugliness in Mr. Ensley’s letter . He has charged Mr. LaBarbera and anyone else who shares the orthodox Christian, mainstream, historical view of homosexual behavior as immoral with being bigoted, anti-American, anti-Christian, fringe, radical, extremist domestic terrorist.
This tendency to feign innocence and claim victimhood is a common tactic of religious right groups and their supporters. “Why are we being attacked when we are simply expressing our Biblical opposition to the radical homosexual agenda.” “It’s the homosexual activists who are intolerant. They attack everyone who oppose their agenda by calling them ‘haters’ or ‘bigots.’”
In his attack on Ensley, LaBarbera included a column from fake lgbt expert Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Council. What was interesting about it was this part:
The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines a bigot as a person who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral. Moreover, “prejudice” refers to “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.”
So apparently LaBarbera, Higgins and Buttars think that they and others who share their beliefs about gays are unfairly being called bigots?
Well rather than a long expository on why this is not correct, allow me to let these folks speak for themselves. Using the definition of bigot laid about by the Webster dictionary (by way of Higgins), what do you think?:
Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit. And to freshen their ranks they must recruit the youth of America." - Anita Bryant from a 1970s Save Our Children statement
For the sake of our children and society, we must OPPOSE the spread of homosexual activity! Just as we must oppose murder, stealing, and adultery!" says one such recent fundraising letter. "Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, the only way for them to 'breed' is to RECRUIT! And who are their targets for recruitment? Children!" - American Family Association direct mail appeal
"[O]ur poor boys on the front lines will have to face two different enemies, one from the front and one from the rear." - the late Jerry Falwell On President Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on gays in the military.
And speaking of calling people Nazis:
'Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals. That's just a true statement.' He added, 'The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions' leads to 'totalitarianism,' 'Nazism,' and 'communism.' " - Alan Keyes , People for the American Way, "Hostile Climate," 1997, p.26.
“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” - Robert Knight, Reclaiming America For Christ Conference, “Homosexuality” panel, February 28, 1999
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm.” - discredited researcher Paul Cameron, Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999
The “alphas” in homosexual relationships, be they men or women, are many times recruiting younger partners. A vast percentage of those who enter the homosexual life do so after having been sexually initiated by an older person of their sex—be it consensual or not—it usually has the feel of enticement or seduction. - Town Hall columnist Kevin McCullough, The ‘Gay’ Truth, May 30, 2003
"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." - Jimmy Swaggart in a September 2004 evangelism television broadcast
“You really think that a pool of people (homosexuals) where 45% of them eat feces from the rear end of another male is “normal”? If you do, you are frankly nuts. A lifestyle where one of their past times is buying gerbils and hamsters from the pet store and cramming them up
their rears in an activity called feltching? - Mecklenberg County Board Commissioner Bill James, 2005
“The newest thing in Chicago, it’s becoming a trend, and you’re gonna find this hard to believe . . . sex with infants . . . It’s not enough that they have . . . you know when you engage in perversion, and homosexuality is perversion, we don’t hate the gays mind you, we don’t hate them, we hate what they’re doing . . . pretty soon that perversion is like addiction,
it’s not enough, so you need to graduate to something else. You need to move on. So now they’re having sex with animals, a small group that’s getting bigger, sex with infants, sex in the street in Chicago out in the open, it’s just getting more and more perverted.” - former Renew America columnist Guy Adams, August 2, 2006
“Sodomites and perverted ones,” - Traditional Values Coalition head Lou Sheldon when asked at a 2006 conference what designation should “Christians” use to describe gays.
“God hates soft men” and “God hates effeminate men. . . If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.” - Rev. Ken Hutcheron, 2008
“What is the morals of a gay person? You can’t answer that because anything goes . . . “They’re probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of.” - Utah State Senator Chris Buttars, 2009
And one more from our friend LaBarbera. Since he likes to complain about being called names, check what he said last year about the Gay Mens Health Crisis receiving federal funding (bold emphasis added by me):
"One of the recipients was the Gay Men's Health Crisis [Center]," notes LaBarbera. "[The Crisis Center] is a typical, radical, homosexual activist/AIDS organization that opposes abstinence and supports homosexual funding and subsidizing -- effectively, promotion of homosexual sex acts."
Bear in mind that I haven’t even touched the constant use of discredited studies ala Paul Cameron or the distortion of legitimates studies by LaBarbera and others on his side of this so-called cultural war.
But I will say this: seems to me that if something walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it should wear the designation of being a duck without argument.
Hat tip to the Southern Poverty Law Center and Wired Strategies.
Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has been on my mind lately. Mainly because of this comment he made last week:
In recent years, registering opposition to the homosexual agenda has become almost impossible. Political correctness has replaced open and energetic debate. Those who dare to disagree with the homosexual agenda are labeled “haters,” and “bigots,” and are censured by their peers. "
Or as Peter LaBarbera put today in an attack on Georgia Log Cabin Republican head James Ensley:
Once again, the hypocrisy of the claims of homosexual groups’ commitments to tolerance is laid bare in all its ugliness in Mr. Ensley’s letter . He has charged Mr. LaBarbera and anyone else who shares the orthodox Christian, mainstream, historical view of homosexual behavior as immoral with being bigoted, anti-American, anti-Christian, fringe, radical, extremist domestic terrorist.
This tendency to feign innocence and claim victimhood is a common tactic of religious right groups and their supporters. “Why are we being attacked when we are simply expressing our Biblical opposition to the radical homosexual agenda.” “It’s the homosexual activists who are intolerant. They attack everyone who oppose their agenda by calling them ‘haters’ or ‘bigots.’”
In his attack on Ensley, LaBarbera included a column from fake lgbt expert Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Council. What was interesting about it was this part:
The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines a bigot as a person who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Clearly, there is a distinction between bigotry and moral views. Bigotry cannot simply refer to holding opinions or being in possession of moral precepts, for if it did, everyone but sociopaths would have to be considered bigots because everyone but sociopaths holds certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral. Moreover, “prejudice” refers to “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.”
So apparently LaBarbera, Higgins and Buttars think that they and others who share their beliefs about gays are unfairly being called bigots?
Well rather than a long expository on why this is not correct, allow me to let these folks speak for themselves. Using the definition of bigot laid about by the Webster dictionary (by way of Higgins), what do you think?:
Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit. And to freshen their ranks they must recruit the youth of America." - Anita Bryant from a 1970s Save Our Children statement
For the sake of our children and society, we must OPPOSE the spread of homosexual activity! Just as we must oppose murder, stealing, and adultery!" says one such recent fundraising letter. "Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, the only way for them to 'breed' is to RECRUIT! And who are their targets for recruitment? Children!" - American Family Association direct mail appeal
"[O]ur poor boys on the front lines will have to face two different enemies, one from the front and one from the rear." - the late Jerry Falwell On President Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on gays in the military.
And speaking of calling people Nazis:
'Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals. That's just a true statement.' He added, 'The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions' leads to 'totalitarianism,' 'Nazism,' and 'communism.' " - Alan Keyes , People for the American Way, "Hostile Climate," 1997, p.26.
“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” - Robert Knight, Reclaiming America For Christ Conference, “Homosexuality” panel, February 28, 1999
“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get—and that is what homosexuality seems to be—then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm.” - discredited researcher Paul Cameron, Rolling Stone, March, 18, 1999
The “alphas” in homosexual relationships, be they men or women, are many times recruiting younger partners. A vast percentage of those who enter the homosexual life do so after having been sexually initiated by an older person of their sex—be it consensual or not—it usually has the feel of enticement or seduction. - Town Hall columnist Kevin McCullough, The ‘Gay’ Truth, May 30, 2003
"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." - Jimmy Swaggart in a September 2004 evangelism television broadcast
“You really think that a pool of people (homosexuals) where 45% of them eat feces from the rear end of another male is “normal”? If you do, you are frankly nuts. A lifestyle where one of their past times is buying gerbils and hamsters from the pet store and cramming them up
their rears in an activity called feltching? - Mecklenberg County Board Commissioner Bill James, 2005
“The newest thing in Chicago, it’s becoming a trend, and you’re gonna find this hard to believe . . . sex with infants . . . It’s not enough that they have . . . you know when you engage in perversion, and homosexuality is perversion, we don’t hate the gays mind you, we don’t hate them, we hate what they’re doing . . . pretty soon that perversion is like addiction,
it’s not enough, so you need to graduate to something else. You need to move on. So now they’re having sex with animals, a small group that’s getting bigger, sex with infants, sex in the street in Chicago out in the open, it’s just getting more and more perverted.” - former Renew America columnist Guy Adams, August 2, 2006
“Sodomites and perverted ones,” - Traditional Values Coalition head Lou Sheldon when asked at a 2006 conference what designation should “Christians” use to describe gays.
“God hates soft men” and “God hates effeminate men. . . If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.” - Rev. Ken Hutcheron, 2008
“What is the morals of a gay person? You can’t answer that because anything goes . . . “They’re probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of.” - Utah State Senator Chris Buttars, 2009
And one more from our friend LaBarbera. Since he likes to complain about being called names, check what he said last year about the Gay Mens Health Crisis receiving federal funding (bold emphasis added by me):
"One of the recipients was the Gay Men's Health Crisis [Center]," notes LaBarbera. "[The Crisis Center] is a typical, radical, homosexual activist/AIDS organization that opposes abstinence and supports homosexual funding and subsidizing -- effectively, promotion of homosexual sex acts."
Bear in mind that I haven’t even touched the constant use of discredited studies ala Paul Cameron or the distortion of legitimates studies by LaBarbera and others on his side of this so-called cultural war.
But I will say this: seems to me that if something walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it should wear the designation of being a duck without argument.
Hat tip to the Southern Poverty Law Center and Wired Strategies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)