OneAngryCultist: Love Thy Neighbor

In a recent article on the Catholic Lane, retired schoolteacher and fellow, Seattle OCCUPY activist and writer Robert “Bob” Struble, Jr. writes about the ongoing problem of institutional child abuse. In his recent articles, Paterno, Pedophiles, Homosexuals, and Cowards; and Homosexuality/Pedophilia Correlation? Struble explores the recent Penn State sex abuse scandal in which assistant coach Jerry Sandusky had been found guilty of sexually assaulting or having inappropriate contact with at least eight underage boys as indicative of the moral decline of society due to the growing acceptance of homosexuality.

In the first article, Struble writes:

“Cultural commissars in the West urge citizens to worship at the altar of a much-touted triune ethic – tolerance, diversity and choice. This secular trinity militates against the influence of righteous indignation. It demands that people who express disgust at sexual sins be reprogrammed. Teach them to reconsider their negative attitudes. Show them that a tendency to look down on homosexual sex is wrong in itself. Brow beat them with the notion that such a critical attitude is condescending and judgmental.”

Putting aside any snarky reference I could make by invoking Matthew 7:1-5, there is a tendency in our culture to censor language that is perceived to be intolerant or that doesn’t respect the current values of diversity and choice and with good reason –this kind of language kills people!

 In a free society we do have the right to speak our minds, however the point at which this language and dialogue infringes upon the lives and liberty of others, I take serious concern.

In specific regards to Catholic social teaching, of which Mr. Struble should be well aware, sexual minorities, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Quoting the controversial archbishop of the airwaves, Fulton Sheen, Mr. Struble writes in agreement:

“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil…, a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment…. Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles.”

Immediately following, in his own words, Bob additionally calls for an end to, “the prevailing idolatry about inclusiveness. We need, rather, to exhibit the militancy and intolerance that Jesus modeled when he cleansed the temple.”

So, Bob, tell us what you really think about the teachings of Jesus who enjoins all Christians to, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk. 12:31). Thousands of Catholics struggle on a daily basis with deep-seated problems related to being faced with having to choose between being true to themselves or their faith – I for one think they are owed at least a modicum of tolerance.

In his second article, Bob attempts to make the case that the child abuse case at Penn state is not only a moral problem, with which I fully agree, but correlates homosexuality to pedophilia – clearly something I cannot endorse. Pedophilia cannot in any way be related to homosexuality.

Pedophilia, as defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems is “a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age” and has nothing to do whatsoever with homosexuality even in cases where the abused are of the same gender of the abused.

In essence, pedophilia is a profound psychological and emotional disorder that cannot be correlated in any way to homosexuality in which relationships formed between same-sex partners are most often consensual in nature, as with heterosexual relationships, and based on positive regard for partners and are not typified by power-dynamic disparity as in the case of pedophilia.

Continuing, Bob predicts:

“That if social mores continue their downward trajectory, and society reaches such a level that NAMBLA’s agenda gets mainlined into the culture (as was its equivalent in ancient Greece and Rome); then the social climate will be about as libertine as we read about in pagan antiquity, when there was not much about pedophilia that scandalized people… 

At that point, homosexuals and homosexualists (their heterosexual backers) will not be compelled to conjure up so much anger or indignation whenever someone associates them with pedophilia. To the extent that all sex is considered good sex, no stigmatizing of deviant sexuality will exert enough social suasion to make people feel guilty about sexual relations with children.”

With all due respect, Bob, NAMBLA represents a socially deviant organization that I can guarantee the majority of the LGBTQI community along with the rest of society views with equal disdain as you yourself hold. Also, as something of a lay-historian myself, I’m profoundly disappointed in Bob’s anachronistic reading into the fall of ancient Rome which most historians now assess as being due to extreme economic pressures brought about by territorial expansionism and not about sexual excess and moral denigration. 

Historically speaking, same-sex attraction as understood in the ancient world was understood differently than it is today. While the cultural practice of pederastry as practiced to a small extant in Ancient Greece and Rome may be to some extant equitable with hebephilia – a related but different disorder from pedophilia and something against which Paul rails in Romans – there are cultural contexts which separate making such a drastic comparison to NAMBLA.

These two articles fail to pass biblical and intellectual standards of editorial excellence and are indicative of a small-mindedness that should not be confused with the great academic and loving religious values present in Catholicism, instead they appear to regurgitate the same old “gays are bad because the pope says so” arguments that contribute to a strong social stigmatization of the Church.

I humbly, yet frankly, ask the author to look deeper into the issues at stake as well as inform himself better on the Spirit of the Gospel as opposed to the letter of the law and enjoin him to make a sincere and loving inventory based on love of his sisters and brothers and cease depriving what he likely would not appreciate having deprived himself – the right to love their partners as themselves.

In Dedication to Ss. Sergius and Bacchus
(Aren't they cute?!)

Sally Kern: Gays Are Worse Than Terrorists

The 10th anniversary of 9/11 is tomorrow, meaning the usual jokers are taking the opportunity to amp up the crazy in the usual hateful rhetoric and feverish claims about terrorism.

While 9/11 is typically the time for right-wing nutjobs to claim that Sharia law is taking over American government and advocate for the senseless slaughter of Muslims, Sally Kern has instead decided to use what has become a sacred day of remembrance for many Americans to bash LGBT Americans.  In a radio interview with Peter LeBarbara (the head of the SPLC certified hate group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality), Kern claimed that gays are far worse than terrorists by comparison.  Why?  HIV:

You know if you just look at it in practical terms, which has destroyed and ended the life of more people? Terrorism attack here in America or HIV/​AIDS? In the last twenty years, fifteen to twenty years, we’ve had maybe three terrorist attacks on our soil with a little over 5,000 people regrettably losing their lives. In the same time frame, there have been hundreds of thousands who have died because of having AIDS. So which one’s the biggest threat? And you know, every day our young people, adults too, but especially our young people, are bombarded at school, in movies, in music, on TV, in the mall, in magazines, they’re bombarded with ‘homosexuality is normal and natural.’ It’s something they have to deal with every day. Fortunately we don’t have to deal with a terrorist attack every day, and that’s what I mean.
…
It’s more dangerous, and yes I think that it’s also more dangerous because it will tear down the moral fiber of this nation. We were founded as a nation upon the principles of religion and morality, if we take those out from under our society we will lose what has made us a great nation, we will no longer be a virtuous people, which we see happening already. And without virtue this nation will not survive.

Of course, terrorists choose to kill and maim, while gay folk do not choose to "murder" people with HIV, so her statement is not only guilty of the worst sort of propagandist assertions, but is entirely nonsensical to the topic at hand.   Sadly, we've come to expect this level of crazy from Kern, who in 2009 created and signed the "Proclamation for Morality," a document that blames all the economic ills on our country not on Wall Street, but instead consensual relationships between gay adults. 

I found this story on Facebook, ironically right next to another 9/11 story.  The story of Mark Bingham is a sad one, but tells of an American hero who intervened in on flight United 93 on that day, preventing possibly thousands of more deaths by storming the cockpit with other passengers and crashing the plane which had been intended to strike yet another target.  Mark Bingham was gay.  Was he worse than a terrorist? 

Or what about FDNY chaplain Mychal Judge, who died while giving last rites to a firefighter during the fall of the Twin Towers?  He was the first recorded victim of 9/11 and was gay.  Is he worse than a terrorist?

Dear Sally: I know you are really trying to drum up publicity for your new book about the horrible liberals who victimize you, "The Stoning of Sally Kern," but if you really gave a shit about what happened 10 years ago, you would stop slandering the good names of these and other American heroes who were, incidentally, gay.  While they are dead and probably don't care, you dishonor the memories others have on them and worse?  You dishonor yourself with such despicable rhetoric. 

Conservative Columnist: Allowing Poor People To Vote Is Un-American

Finally!  A member of the opposition finally says what's on every conservative's mind: we shouldn't let poor people vote because they will vote for candidates that support social programs.

The recent war on the right to vote at the hands of Tea Party-backed candidates and their cronies has reached a fever pitch in the past two years, with several states passing restrictive voter registration laws aimed at making it harder for poor and ethnic Americans to vote.  Much of this revolves on the necessity of presenting a photo ID at the polls, something many Americans below the poverty line simply don't have.

Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin passed one of these laws, and then proceeded to attempt the shutdown of many urban DMVs, making it well-nigh impossible for the economically depressed urban (and mostly Democratic) populations from getting the IDs necessary to vote.  Happily, he was thwarted at his efforts and those DMV offices remained open, but the fact remains that GOP leadership is attempting to disenfranchise liberal voters.

Until now, the party line for the anti-voting movement in conservative circles has been that these attempts are part of an effort to control voter's fraud.  Keep in mind, of course, that it's statistically more likely for an American to be killed by a lightning strike than to commit voter fraud.

 This guy thinks that poor people shouldn't vote.  I think he's a grade-A asshole.

Now, finally, one man admits the truth: conservatives believe allowing poor people to vote will enable candidates to "redistribute wealth"-- or as I like to call it, "funding vital and necessary social programs for the financially disadvantaged"-- and that, friends, is UN-AMERICAN.  Matthew Vadum, writing for American Thinker:

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

A decade before the Motor-Voter law that required states to register voters at welfare offices was enacted, NAACP official Joe Madison explained the political economy of voter registration drives.

"When people are standing in line to get cheese and butter or unemployment compensation, you don't have to tell them how to vote," said Madison, now a radio talk show host in Washington, D.C. "They know how to vote."

And let me tell you why: If they don't have those social programs, they don't get to eat.  Of course the poor know how to vote.  In a time when a massive sentiment of shared sacrifice-- true shared sacrifice, where the rich pay the same taxes that the middle class does-- is sweeping the nation, how can the poor not vote for candidates who will ensure that Social Security, food benefits, Medicare and other social programs continue operating.  It is vital that they vote, or else their interests will not be recognized.  

Until America decides the same thing that Belo Horizonte, a city in Brazil, decided (namely, that food is not a commodity, but a human right), the social programs we have that keep people fed and give them access to health care are necessary for the survival of the poor. 

On a personal note, I must confess that I am biased on this topic.  I myself am quite poor.  I receive food stamps every month.  I receive the HIV medication that I need to live because of state and federally funded health insurance.  I am planning on starting school in the fall, and when I do so it's because I will be accessing government benefits that will pay my tuition.  This blog?  I don't get paid, other than the small donations my readers make to the PayPal donation button.  When I vote, I vote for candidates who will responsibly make sure that the money my country collects in taxes will be used for the benefit of of those that need help, to include myself.

And Mr. Vadum?  You want to take away my ability to vote?  I dare you to try and take it from me.  There is no more sacred right in this country of ours, and I, and the financially depressed millions of Americans, will fight to maintain that right with every fiber of our being.

So thank you, Mr. Vadum, for finally saying what we knew the conservatives were thinking all along.  Thank you for telling the truth!  My suggestion, for you, however, is to pay your damn taxes and not screw with my ability to cast a ballot.  It's probably better for you in the long run.

Coughlan Comments On Phil Hinkle

I reported on Phil Hinkle, the anti-gay Indiana politician soliciting some hot piece of man-action on Craigslist, a little over a week ago.  One of my YouTube favorites, Dick Coughlan, has some things to say on the subject of bigoted closet queers and straight pride parades:




Plus he's really hot.  That is all.

This Lady Was Told She Was An Abomination And Got A Lot Of Money For It

Meet Amber Yust.  This young trans woman, far from making history, was following the legal, routine procedure to change her driver's license to reflect her true gender when she received a disturbing letter from the employee processing her request.

Thomas Demartini, instead of doing his job and filing her paperwork, instead failed to perform his duties by taking her application, noting her address, and sending her a personal letter filled with warnings that she was an abomination and that she would burn in hell for her perversion:

Yust, a 23-year-old software engineer, went to the DMV's Fell Street office in October to record her new name and gender on her driver's license. She said Demartini expressed no objection while processing her application. 

But four days later, she said, she got a letter from Demartini that warned her of eternal damnation and referred her to the website of a fundamentalist church, the Most Holy Family Monastery. Yust said she received a DVD from the church the same day, predicting hellfire for anyone "possessed by demons" of homosexuality. 

Her lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, accused the DMV of violating her privacy and civil rights by disclosing personal information.

So not only did he fail to do his job, he attacked her personally, then released her personal information to a church in order to send her their schlock.

The story has a "happy" ending, as she sued Demartini and the DMV and won $55,000 from both of them.  Unfortunately, the majority of the settlement appears to be on the shoulders of the State of California, with only $15,000 of that coming from Demartino.

This should be a word of warning to certain clerks who are refusing to do their job due to their religious beliefs.  If you feel you can't do a job, you shouldn't be in that job.  It's not your place, when you work for the government, to refuse to perform the basic operations of that government.  Really?  You're not a hero for your religion.  You're just guilty of dereliction of duty.  

Ian Awesome On Hivster

For my play-by-play on the reactions from the left and right on New York Marriage equality, click on over to Hivster to read my latest.

[Hivster]

OneAngryAlly: Keep Your Laws Off My Ovaries!

Today, everyone's favorite appallingly conservative Midwest governor Scott Walker is set to approve Wisconsin's new budget, which contains $1 million in cuts to Planned Parenthood. With this action, Wisconsin will join Indiana (also led by a favorite appallingly conservative Midwest governor), Kansas, and North Carolina in entirely ending state funding of the organization.

Despite the fact that anywhere from less than one percent to three percent of said funding is used for abortions, pro-life supporters rejoiced at the news, just one more blow to working-class Wisconsin. Less than one percent. Yup, all those baby-killin' liberals over at Planned Parenthood do is provide abortions. 100% of the time.

As a resident of a rural Midwestern state, one of the most heartbreaking parts about this story involves the clinics which stand to lose the most. The more metropolitan clinics (in Madison, the capital, for instance) will still be able to provide many services, as they receive funding from federal sources and elsewhere. No, the clinics receiving the primary impact of the state cuts are in small communities like Shawano and Wisconsin Rapids. If these outposts are anything like the Planned Parenthood clinic in my small community, they already have little to offer the low-income residents of the area. Now, these women will have nowhere to go for basic health care.

I recently needed to visit my local Planned Parenthood, in rural Ohio, another state where such funding is in limbo. When I called, early on a Monday morning, to make an appointment, I was told that the next available slot was the following Monday afternoon. And why? Was this because the clinic was absolutely jam-packed over the upcoming week? Oh, no. They only have the ability to have the doctor in one day a week, and in fact were closing five hours early on the day I spoke to the receptionist. There is no other option in my community, and I was forced to wait a week. Fortunately, my life was not in danger, but it was still not the most pleasant week of my life. Hey, Scott Walker, and pro-life douchebags! These clinics are already barely hanging on by a thread, and womens' health is at stake! What I do with my ladyparts is none of your business!

Now, I know that many of you faithful readers do not have to worry about parenthood or planning for it, but this is an issue that affects everyone. I can spend all day telling you guys about the services Planned Parenthood does provide - annual exams, contraception, education, a safe place, just for starters - and I'm sure that we all at some point have benefited from these.

Instead, I will leave you with another example that outrages me beyond all belief; I guess we can be grateful that this practice does not still exist. North Carolina legislators are currently debating paying a settlement to women who endured forced sterilization at the hands of the state as recently as the 1970s. The justification given? The woman interviewed, a 14-year-old rape victim, was "promiscuous." Fortunately, the state is considering a payment (a paltry $20,000); however, North Carolina's heavily conservative, hateful legislature will probably vote it down.

This sort of garbage absolutely turns my stomach. How advanced are we as a society when we still have to debate womens' basic rights? Womens' health affects everybody, everybody.

Read more about North Carolina's eugenics program.

Bristol Palin's First Time: Rape?

There are few things that I will not joke about. I can generally twist any situation into a crack about poop or dick size, and it's a magical ability I make use of often. There are two things, however, that are a huge no-go for me: violent assault and rape. I have been assaulted physically at least twice in my lifetime, once for my sexuality and once from a lover, so I can only imagine the devastating psychological effects that can stem from sexual attacks.

I was lucky in my assault instances: in one my attackers were half-hearted and I sustained not much other than a lump in the head, while in the other, my ex probably couldn't have beaten up a package of vanilla pudding, much less a decorated war vet.

Some are not so lucky, however, and their scars last forever. That's why I get so outraged when people threaten violence over political ideals, or when people bandy about the idea of rape under dubious circumstances.

Case in point:

Bristol Palin is alleging in her new book that Levi Johnston, in order to take her virginity, got her drunk and practically raped her in a tent on a camping trip. This allegation, of course, comes years after her impregnation, engagement, breakup, reconciliation, and final (I hope) breakup with the father of her child. Many people are calling bullshit, saying that it is only too easy for a young mother to claim she maintained abstinence until the Big Bad Wolf came and stole her basket of goodies.

I'm not going to go that far. While I do kind of have a hard-on for Levi, I believe that any woman that claims she has been raped should be treated humanely and fairly. I will not dismiss out of hand a woman that alleges she was the victim of sexual crime. If she was intoxicated through the machinations of a would-be rapist and then forced to have sex against her will, fuck that guy. Clap him in irons and bring him to justice.

This is important, though: she is not trying to bring him to justice. She is merely insinuating that it is rape, making a mint off the book, and exonerating herself for any extramarital misdeeds she may have committed. Thus I urge her: Bristol Palin! If you were raped, please seek help, contact the police, and bring your aggressor to justice.

If not? Then you are the worst kind of shitbag. Sex crime is no laughing matter, and any person who accuses someone of rape unjustly dishonors survivors of violent crime.

Chris Crocker: Gay on Gay Hatred Exists

Chris "Leave Britney Alone" Crocker is back and for once I didn't want to scream listening to him talk.

In this YouTube reappearance, Crocker lambasts the tension between feminine and masculine gays as discrimination and urges "straight-acting" gay men to come out to the world. 




This is a topic which hits home with me.  I'm fairly obvious as a gay man and always have been.  Like Crocker, people told me I was gay before I even knew what it was.  People within the gay community can and still do tease me because of some of my effeminate behaviors, and it's this kind of internalized homophobia that can make things very uncomfortable for people like me. 

It's not just in gay situations that this crops up, of course.  I feel uncomfortable visiting certain parts of town late at night because I'm easily identified as gay, and I get exceedingly tired of being called "girlfriend" by straight women.  No, I don't do hair, and no!  I don't care about your wardrobe.  I don't drink Cosmos (whisky, please!) and I couldn't care less about Lady Gaga.  So please, be cognizant of the possible misconceptions you may be placing on a person based on the effeminacy of their behavior.  You're honestly putting them in a box and probably against their will, and who wants to sell someone short like that?

OneAngryCultist: Fundie Atheists Aren't Funny

If you’re like me – or even if you’re not like me – chances are that you have friends that run the spiritual gamut from religulous to irreligious. In this great country of ours, with the protections of the Constitution that "… shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" you can rest safely knowing that your right to theism or atheism is protected equally and, with the added bonus of freedom of speech, you can talk about it all you want or not at all. Lately, however, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend among some atheist groups where advertisements even as innocuous as the one below seem to be acting a little hostile toward those of religious persuasions.



Now, I have no problem with atheism – it’s just not a personal path for me; likewise I would hope that my atheist friends would share the same respect and we’d all just agree to disagree on this particular matter. This trend, however, is really obnoxious for the same reason that Xtian ™ and other religious propaganda is obnoxious – it perpetuates an “us versus them” mentality and presupposes one paradigm is somehow superior to the other, thus creating a culture of exclusion as opposed to dialogue.

There are some people who just happen to be atheist or “apatheist” who I greatly enjoy reading about or watching on TV such as Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Stephen Fry and many others. With the exception of the Fry, I will say that Dawkins takes his anti-religion stance a little far and Maher, while I can respect his comedy does jump to some pretty interesting conclusions about the nature of religion and religiosity. Equally, there are some religious people I greatly look up to who happen to be religious but also go a little far in their dismissal of atheism and non-theism.

So, why am I angry – well, douchebaggery such as that exhibited in these signs is just stupid and doesn’t help the case for atheism or atheist groups at all and really casts a negative light on them in a culture where atheism is a minority belief and held by many to be somehow suspect. If people want to get together for rational discussion, by all means do it and I’ll support it but for those on any side that somehow decide their paradigm is superior to my own or another’s; well STFU and get over yourself.

Thanks.