Matt Barber attacks an educator for doing her job
Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel seems to be positioning himself as the go-to anti-gay spokesperson of the religious right.
I bet Peter LaBarbera would love that.
Several times, Barber has been throwing himself in the limelight to comment on things such as President Obama's embracing of lgbt rights and this recent situation in which he criticizes a Wisconsin English teacher's fight against homophobia:
According to LifeSiteNews.com, Sarah Arnold created the curriculum called "Exposing Hidden Homophobia" when she noticed what she calls "anti-gay undertone[s]" in student conversations. The regimen asked students to examine depictions of homosexuality in mass media, to view numerous homosexual-themed films, and read pro-homosexual books and novels. Arnold even issued questionnaires to the students that featured questions that are commonly asked of homosexuals but instead were given to heterosexuals, such as "When did you decide to become heterosexual?"
Nothing wrong with that, is there? Except of course in Barber's eyes:
Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel says the program is really intended to indoctrinate children into thinking that homosexual behavior is okay. "The term 'homophobia' is a made-up term, made up by homosexual activists, that has no scientific value, no clinical value whatsoever," he contends. "It's merely a propaganda term."
Barber, who has absolutely no training or expertise in this sort of thing, seems to think that he can prognosticate why Ms. Arnold chose to create the course. It's a part of the big homosexual agenda conspiracy, he says.
God forbid she, as an educator, notices how her students are saying ugly things with anti-gay undertones.
God forbid she, as an educator, takes steps to divert a potential situation in which a child is being bullied.
And God forbid, she, as an educator, takes proactive steps to prevent a potential situation in which violence may be the outcome.
All that seems to matter to Barber is that students can't be permitted to say ugly anti-gay words without recourse.
Friends, Barber typifies the lunacy and hysteria of the religious right.
A little note to Barber and company - everything that is pro-gay need not be taken as an attack or an assault on you or your beliefs. We occupy this nation too and we have a right to take steps to ensure safety in our homes and in our schools.
We have a right to protect our children.
And if an educator wants to help us with this, then that educator should be given a medal, rather than be made the central figure in a conspiracy theory sprung from a bad X-Files episode.
BTW - here is a better article regarding the situation.
Monday, January 26, 2009
AFA on Facebook - big deal
I am trying something new - posting at least three times a day rather than once a day. There will still be huge posts (how can I keep away from my friends in the anti-gay industry) but there will also be small posts which will include my take on lgbt issues.
So the American Family Association has gone and joined Facebook.
I know some of us want to either laugh or wring our hands over the new development.
Neither action is necessary. I say let them have their facebook page with their 30,000+members (yes I know that's a lot of folks).
There are so many other lgbt friendly facebook pages with good information about our community and about the lies of the religous right.
Rather than gripe about the AFA, let's make it a point to join these pro-lgbt facebook pages. Some of which are:
Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters - You really didn't think I wasn't going to include my page, did you? Soon to be adding a discussion board.
Good As You
Truth Wins Out
I know this isn't all of the groups. Never fear because I will give a near to complete listing at a later date.
I am trying something new - posting at least three times a day rather than once a day. There will still be huge posts (how can I keep away from my friends in the anti-gay industry) but there will also be small posts which will include my take on lgbt issues.
So the American Family Association has gone and joined Facebook.
I know some of us want to either laugh or wring our hands over the new development.
Neither action is necessary. I say let them have their facebook page with their 30,000+members (yes I know that's a lot of folks).
There are so many other lgbt friendly facebook pages with good information about our community and about the lies of the religous right.
Rather than gripe about the AFA, let's make it a point to join these pro-lgbt facebook pages. Some of which are:
Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters - You really didn't think I wasn't going to include my page, did you? Soon to be adding a discussion board.
Good As You
Truth Wins Out
I know this isn't all of the groups. Never fear because I will give a near to complete listing at a later date.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Remembering TVC's lies about hate crimes legislation
Last week, I emailed the Traditional Values Coalition about their usage of a Family Research Council study, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse .
The problem with this study, amongst other things, is that FRC removed it from its webpage because of "outdated sources."
Despite this, the study remains on TVC's webpage as a part of its Homosexual Urban Legends portion (rest assured, there are plenty of distortions there including citations from Paul Cameron, which I will talk about at a later time).
Including a discredited study is just par for the course when it comes to TVC.
This organization thinks nothing of using the words "she-males" and "crossdressers" as verbal weapons against the lgbt community. So why should a little bad study be a big deal?
That being the case, with hate crimes legislation possibly returning to Congress, a small controversy that erupted two years ago is important to remember.
In 2007 when Congress was considering adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation, TVC sent out a bulletin claiming that this action will lead to pastors being arrested for preaching against homosexuality:
Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the bill. It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13.
Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana offered the important amendment on Freedom of Religion. “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.”
A number of Republicans spoke in support of it. But the Democrats Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Chairman John Conyers kept evading the issue.
Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”
Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.
The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”
And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”
However TVC distorted Gohmert's question. This is what he actually said (and it changes things considerably):
Mr. Gohmert: . . . And if I understood the gentleman's amendment—and I will put the question back to you—if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?
On its webpage, TVC now terses the exchange as such:
Furthermore, Representative Davis admitted during the markup that the legislation will not protect a pastor from prosecution under this bill. During the debate, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) forced Representative Davis to admit that if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation causes bodily injury to a person, that the sermon or teachings could be used in evidence against the minister.
In short, Rep. Davis has admitted that H.R. 1592 could be used to prosecute pastors for their sermons if they incite or are an “inducement” to violence. This threat applies to S. 1105.
For example, a pastor can be targeted for prosecution if his sermon somehow “induced” or “counseled” a member of his church to go out and commit bodily injury against a homosexual or a cross-dresser. Bodily injury can be something as simple as touching or brushing up against a homosexual protester. Under both H.R. 1592 and S. 1105, bodily injury is considered violence—and is prosecutable.
With enemies like this, it's going to be a looooong year.
Jeremy from Good As You has an excellent breakdown of what happened.
Last week, I emailed the Traditional Values Coalition about their usage of a Family Research Council study, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse .
The problem with this study, amongst other things, is that FRC removed it from its webpage because of "outdated sources."
Despite this, the study remains on TVC's webpage as a part of its Homosexual Urban Legends portion (rest assured, there are plenty of distortions there including citations from Paul Cameron, which I will talk about at a later time).
Including a discredited study is just par for the course when it comes to TVC.
This organization thinks nothing of using the words "she-males" and "crossdressers" as verbal weapons against the lgbt community. So why should a little bad study be a big deal?
That being the case, with hate crimes legislation possibly returning to Congress, a small controversy that erupted two years ago is important to remember.
In 2007 when Congress was considering adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation, TVC sent out a bulletin claiming that this action will lead to pastors being arrested for preaching against homosexuality:
Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the bill. It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13.
Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana offered the important amendment on Freedom of Religion. “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.”
A number of Republicans spoke in support of it. But the Democrats Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Chairman John Conyers kept evading the issue.
Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”
Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.
The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”
And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”
However TVC distorted Gohmert's question. This is what he actually said (and it changes things considerably):
Mr. Gohmert: . . . And if I understood the gentleman's amendment—and I will put the question back to you—if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?
On its webpage, TVC now terses the exchange as such:
Furthermore, Representative Davis admitted during the markup that the legislation will not protect a pastor from prosecution under this bill. During the debate, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) forced Representative Davis to admit that if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation causes bodily injury to a person, that the sermon or teachings could be used in evidence against the minister.
In short, Rep. Davis has admitted that H.R. 1592 could be used to prosecute pastors for their sermons if they incite or are an “inducement” to violence. This threat applies to S. 1105.
For example, a pastor can be targeted for prosecution if his sermon somehow “induced” or “counseled” a member of his church to go out and commit bodily injury against a homosexual or a cross-dresser. Bodily injury can be something as simple as touching or brushing up against a homosexual protester. Under both H.R. 1592 and S. 1105, bodily injury is considered violence—and is prosecutable.
With enemies like this, it's going to be a looooong year.
Jeremy from Good As You has an excellent breakdown of what happened.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
President Obama already helping the economy via One News Now
(strictly tongue in cheek, boys and girls)
No matter how many years go by or how you dress it up, hateful accusations remain the same
February 28, 1999
“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
January 22, 2009
The twin evils of homosexuality and abortion share a common foundation: the elevation of self over transcendent truth and God’s revealed will for men and women. Homosexual activists have been in the forefront of “defending” abortion centers - Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Just one comment - True Christians don't need to stoop so low.
(strictly tongue in cheek, boys and girls)
WANTED - AFRICAN-AMERICAN WRITERS
African-American writers wanted in order to lend credibility to a white-owned major online publication's frequent attacking of the Obama Administration.
Potential employees will be called upon to criticize President Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, various black leaders, and homosexuals.
Must have the ability to invoke Martin Luther King Jr.'s name or the African-American civil rights movement when criticizing homosexuals. Mastery of nonsensical phrases such as "equating sin with skin" or "the road to Selma shouldn't lead to Sodom" is a plus.
Potential employees will be forbidden to write about poverty, educational inequalities, or HIV/AIDS in the black community as this publication does not deem such issues as important to the African-American community.
Potential employees will be forbidden to say the words "Hurricane Katrina" and "President Bush" in the same sentence or paragraph.
Potential employees will be forbidden to bring up the names Bayard Rustin, Countee Cullen, Barbara Jordan, Lorraine Hansberry, or any other name refuting the position that African-Americans and homosexuals are two eternally separate entities.
NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY
Just a lack of personal integrity.
Send resume to One News Now care of the American Family Association.
No matter how many years go by or how you dress it up, hateful accusations remain the same
February 28, 1999
“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
January 22, 2009
The twin evils of homosexuality and abortion share a common foundation: the elevation of self over transcendent truth and God’s revealed will for men and women. Homosexual activists have been in the forefront of “defending” abortion centers - Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Just one comment - True Christians don't need to stoop so low.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Matt Barber demonstrates religious right dogma - when in doubt, lie like hell
I knew it would happen.
The wolves are now chasing President Obama over his embracing of the lgbt community. Obama's adminstration posted a list of lgbt goals on the official White House webpage so now one of our favorite anti-gay spokespeople, Matt Barber, has gone apoplectic. Let's look at his ramblings, shall we?
Obama Begins Full Court Press on Extremist Homosexual Agenda within Minutes of Taking Oath of Office: Barber
Gotta love the semantics there. Not the usual tired phrase "gay agenda." Barber goes full tilt with "extremist homosexual agenda."
The title demonstrates that Barber doesn't want gay rights to be discussed with logic and reasoning. He just goes for the jugular.
And it gets better:
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton – the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;
So I guess all of those statewide amendments the religious right pushed and continue to push were for naught. Don't tell that to the Mormons.
Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights – denied other Americans – based on changeable sexual behaviors;
That entire sentence is a huge lie. Hate crimes legislation already exists in cases of race and religion and the legislation in general covers everyone. The argument here is whether or not to add sexual orientation to it. And that phrase about "cross dressers" was just wrong and designed to invoke fear. Well at least he didn't say "she-males." I guess he leaves that phrase for Lou Sheldon and the Traditional Values Coalition.
Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law;
Another lie. Churches and other religious groups are exempt from ENDA. But notice how Barber phrases it - business owners (religious or otherwise). This means that Barber believes that even in the most mundane settings (i.e. a fast food restaurant), the business owner can say that he is a Christian and can therefore deny someone the opportunity to work solely based on their sexual orientation. That's simply not right. A business owner should not be able to discriminate in the case of sexual orientation just as he or she should not be able to discriminate in the case of race, gender, or religion (which ironically is an accurate changeable behavior).
Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”
Yet another lie. LGBT homes do not create motherless and fatherless homes. I think a quick view of the American foster care system will attest to that. And no studies say that lgbt homes create sexually confused youngsters (except for the studies that are carefully manipulated by Barber and company). Accurate studies actually say that lgbt homes are as loving and fulfilling for children as heterosexual homes. I guess Barber feels that children in lgbt foster homes should be taken out of the home even if they bond with the foster parents, such as the recent case in Florida. It's sad how these so-called pro-family groups and spokespeole have reduced the care of children into some type of competition. All homes that provide love and support to children should be accepted.
It's apparent that through his wailing, Barber is trying to designate himself as a credible religious right voice.
At least he has got the first rule of religious right organization dogma down pat - when in doubt, lie like hell.
I knew it would happen.
The wolves are now chasing President Obama over his embracing of the lgbt community. Obama's adminstration posted a list of lgbt goals on the official White House webpage so now one of our favorite anti-gay spokespeople, Matt Barber, has gone apoplectic. Let's look at his ramblings, shall we?
Obama Begins Full Court Press on Extremist Homosexual Agenda within Minutes of Taking Oath of Office: Barber
Gotta love the semantics there. Not the usual tired phrase "gay agenda." Barber goes full tilt with "extremist homosexual agenda."
The title demonstrates that Barber doesn't want gay rights to be discussed with logic and reasoning. He just goes for the jugular.
And it gets better:
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton – the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;
So I guess all of those statewide amendments the religious right pushed and continue to push were for naught. Don't tell that to the Mormons.
Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights – denied other Americans – based on changeable sexual behaviors;
That entire sentence is a huge lie. Hate crimes legislation already exists in cases of race and religion and the legislation in general covers everyone. The argument here is whether or not to add sexual orientation to it. And that phrase about "cross dressers" was just wrong and designed to invoke fear. Well at least he didn't say "she-males." I guess he leaves that phrase for Lou Sheldon and the Traditional Values Coalition.
Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law;
Another lie. Churches and other religious groups are exempt from ENDA. But notice how Barber phrases it - business owners (religious or otherwise). This means that Barber believes that even in the most mundane settings (i.e. a fast food restaurant), the business owner can say that he is a Christian and can therefore deny someone the opportunity to work solely based on their sexual orientation. That's simply not right. A business owner should not be able to discriminate in the case of sexual orientation just as he or she should not be able to discriminate in the case of race, gender, or religion (which ironically is an accurate changeable behavior).
Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”
Yet another lie. LGBT homes do not create motherless and fatherless homes. I think a quick view of the American foster care system will attest to that. And no studies say that lgbt homes create sexually confused youngsters (except for the studies that are carefully manipulated by Barber and company). Accurate studies actually say that lgbt homes are as loving and fulfilling for children as heterosexual homes. I guess Barber feels that children in lgbt foster homes should be taken out of the home even if they bond with the foster parents, such as the recent case in Florida. It's sad how these so-called pro-family groups and spokespeole have reduced the care of children into some type of competition. All homes that provide love and support to children should be accepted.
It's apparent that through his wailing, Barber is trying to designate himself as a credible religious right voice.
At least he has got the first rule of religious right organization dogma down pat - when in doubt, lie like hell.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Speaking of hats
Okay this isn't lgbt themed (tomorrow I get back to work) but it's fun nonetheless.
Stop picking at the hat Aretha wore at Obama's inauguration!!!
Truth be known, I think she was trying to be historical.
The type of hat she wore reminds me of the one gospel legend Mahalia Jackson wore during the 1963 March on Washington. Mahalia is seen sitting in the second picture. The woman standing up is long time civil rights activist Dorothy Height. And her hat is interesting too.
Okay this isn't lgbt themed (tomorrow I get back to work) but it's fun nonetheless.
Stop picking at the hat Aretha wore at Obama's inauguration!!!
Truth be known, I think she was trying to be historical.
The type of hat she wore reminds me of the one gospel legend Mahalia Jackson wore during the 1963 March on Washington. Mahalia is seen sitting in the second picture. The woman standing up is long time civil rights activist Dorothy Height. And her hat is interesting too.
Obama gets inaugurated and the wolves come out
President Obama hasn't even begun to get used to being called by that name yet before the wolves strike. Check out this bit:
Obama & Chief Justice Flub Oath of Office
From the comments section of this piece, there are a lot of sour grapes. Some people need to see a psychiatrist about their anti-Obama obsession.
I guess we will hear long platitudes about how Obama can't speak without a teleprompter or how its symbolic of what his term of office will be from such places as Free Republic, Red State, One News Now, Michelle Malkin, and the usual people and places of right wing hysteria.
I don't care who flubbed the line. The fact that some people will most likely dwell on that portion of the inauguration says a lot about how the tone of discourse has been lowered in this country. This idea of picking an advantage, no matter how small or how petty is pathetic. Not only that, it is a slap in the face to the spirit of unity that we all should embrace at least for this one day.
McCain lost. Obama won. He is a full United States citizen who ran a brilliant campaign and won the office of the presidency fair and square.
I cringe to think that I can expect a lawsuit courtesy of World Net Daily, Janet Folger Porter, Alan Keyes, or some other fringe freak (I tried not name call but these people are getting on my nerves) claiming that since "Obama flubbed the oath, it renders him ineligible to serve as president."
Get over it people. Just get over it and enjoy the day.
President Obama hasn't even begun to get used to being called by that name yet before the wolves strike. Check out this bit:
Obama & Chief Justice Flub Oath of Office
From the comments section of this piece, there are a lot of sour grapes. Some people need to see a psychiatrist about their anti-Obama obsession.
I guess we will hear long platitudes about how Obama can't speak without a teleprompter or how its symbolic of what his term of office will be from such places as Free Republic, Red State, One News Now, Michelle Malkin, and the usual people and places of right wing hysteria.
I don't care who flubbed the line. The fact that some people will most likely dwell on that portion of the inauguration says a lot about how the tone of discourse has been lowered in this country. This idea of picking an advantage, no matter how small or how petty is pathetic. Not only that, it is a slap in the face to the spirit of unity that we all should embrace at least for this one day.
McCain lost. Obama won. He is a full United States citizen who ran a brilliant campaign and won the office of the presidency fair and square.
I cringe to think that I can expect a lawsuit courtesy of World Net Daily, Janet Folger Porter, Alan Keyes, or some other fringe freak (I tried not name call but these people are getting on my nerves) claiming that since "Obama flubbed the oath, it renders him ineligible to serve as president."
Get over it people. Just get over it and enjoy the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)