Complaints, In Perspective

Starring Zombieland's Emma Stone, Easy A is still more than a month away from release, and it's already provoking complaints.

Judging from the trailers, Easy A casts Stone as Olive Penderghast, a High School student who, as an act of compassion, pretends to loudly have sex with a gay classmate.

This attracts the wrath of Marianne (Amanda Bynes), the ringleader of an ultra-conservative band of religious students on campus. Marianne, believing herself to be morally superior by virtue of her Christianity, attempts to run Olive out of her school.

In response, Olive adopts the famed scarlet letter in order to scandalize her detractors.

The film has already provoked predictable complaints from the religious right that the film demonizes Christians.

The complaint is predictable, but not worthy of realistic consideration. If Christians object to the portrayal of morally-snobbish and stuck-up Christians, then it is up to them to challenge the excesses of such Christians.

The more interesting complaint actually comes from atheist circles, where some atheists are claiming that the film is subverting the red A they use as a symbol.

They seem to have forgotten that this symbol had been adopted as a condemnation of adultery and, more broadly, sexual promiscuity long before atheists adopted it as their symbol. Thus, if anything, it was atheists who suberted the symbol for their own purposes.

But the response of another atheist to the suggestion that the film risks subverting their symbol is very telling:

"We co-opted it because it was a symbol of religious persecution."

It's worth noting: modern atheists wanted to believe they were the victims of religious persecution, and so they willingly adopted a symbol of religious persecution as their own.

Easy A sends a stark reminder of what's wrong with the most conservative strains of Christianity. But it also serves as a reminder of what's wrong with the scarlet A-toting adherents of fundamentalist atheism.

Lady Gaga 1. Westboro Baptist Church Can Go Fuck Itself

Singer of terrible pop music finds something she can do right

If God's love were apportioned according to the distribution of musical talent, the Westboro Baptist Church would have had something right when they declared that God hates Lady Gaga.

But few proper-thinking Christians could have ever made that error.

For a group that has long convinced many that they basically choose their targets at random, singling out Lady Gaga seemed to confirm those suspicions. For her own part, Lady Gaga seems to have figured out the appropriate response.

In a message to her fans ahead of a show in St Louis, Missouri at which the WBC had promised to show up and protest, Gaga told her fans to simply ignore the group, whom she aptly described as "hate criminals":

"I would like to make my little monster fans aware of a protest being held outside the Monsterball in St Louis tonight. Although we have had protesters before, as well as fundamentalists at the show, this group of protesters are hate criminals and preach using lewd and violent language and imagery that I wish I protect you all from. Their message is of hatred and divisiveness, but inside at the Monsterball we preach love and unity.

My request to all little monsters and public authorites is to pay these hate criminals no mind. Do not interact with them, or try to fight, Do not respond to any of their provocation. Don’t waste your words, or feelings, no matter what you hear or see you are more fortunate and blessed than they are, and in your heart just pray for them. Although I respect and do not judge anyone for their personal views on any politics or religion, this group in particular to me, is violent and dangerous I wanted to make my fans aware of my views on how to approach, or rather not approach, these kinds of hate activists.

Be inspired to ignore their ignorant message, and feel gratitude in your heart that you are not burdened or addicted to hate, as they are."

Although the WBC demands attention -- and occasionally even warrants it -- the appropriate response to these hell-bound scumbags is really nothing more than sheer contempt. Nothing more, and nothing less.

While Lady Gaga couldn't write a decent song to save her career, at least dealing with the Westboro Baptist Church is one thing she can get right.

The Real Threat to Faith

Religious extremists, not questions, is a threat to religious faith

In a recent column on the Examiner website, Trina Hoaks wrote about the threat to faith that some religious believers think atheists pose.

As mentioned previously, to pretend that the questions and challenges posed by atheists to religion is a threat to religious faith is purely unfounded alarmism. If anything, faith needs these questions and challenges in order to remain relevant in a world that so often seems to contradict it.

This isn't, however, to say that religious faith doesn't face any threats at all.

Quite the contrary.

Ironically, however, the threats to religious faith most often aren't posed by those who don't believe. Rather, the most dangerous threats to religious faith are often posed by those who profess to believe.

Consider the ever-controversial Westboro Baptist Church.

In their most recent outrage, the WBC will picket Moore High School in Moore, Oklahoma. In a press release on their Church webpage/homophobic hate site, the WBC declares "We will picket your really large high school because you Southern hypocrites keep lying to the children." It continues, "God has cursed you, with your parents' lies. Now God is rejecting your filthy raging lies violent brats."

The press release also claims that "God hates Moore High School", and labels all the students as "sluts".

Naturally, the parents of children attending the school are opposed to Church's presence.

"I don't have anything against them protesting. We live in America they're allowed to protest," Andrea Smith admitted. "I have a problem when it takes away my child's right to go to school without being harassed. Predators aren't allowed within so many yards of the school. Speeding is illegal around the school. Everything you can think of is illegal around the school. So, why should they be allowed to spread their filth around the school?"

Whatever the Westboro Baptist Church hopes to accomplish with this protest is largely known to themselves alone. But it's almost certain that they won't convince any of the students at Moore High School won't be converted to their perverse version of Christianity.

It isn't hard to imagine that, should someone be told that God hates them, they won't want much to do with that God.

Even more disturbing is the notion that God not only hates the people who've committed whatever grave sin has been committed at Moore High School -- knowing the WBC, it could be anything from teaching anything even remotely resembling tolerance of homosexuality to eating meat on Friday -- but also hates innocent bystanders.

The vast majority of Christians are taught that God loves them. The Westboro Baptist Church, however, preaches a much different message: not necessarily that God loves them, but rather that God hates everyone else.

As truthful as it is, to describe the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate cult has become something of a cliche.

Nothing contradicts the notion of a benevolent God then the insistence that God hates nearly anyone and everyone a particular Church disagrees with -- which just so happens to include you if you aren't a member of that Church.

If anything, the WBC is a reminder that holy scriptures are often the word of man, not necessarily the word of God. Even the word of God as translated by man can't help but reflect the personal biases of its translator.

In the case of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, that particular bias is purely evident: hatred. Not God's hatred, but Phelps'.

A thinking believer can understand this very quickly. A non-thinking or anti-thinking believer, like any member of Phelps' congregation, is much less likely to be able to tell the difference.

Fortunately, the WBC isn't attracting many converts. Of all the members of the church, most of the members are related to Phelps.

What is of greater concern is what Phelps is doing to the idea of religious faith. By insisting that the one, true faith is rightfully the domain of hateful and vindictive people, it isn't at all surprising that people like Phelps send many people running as far away from religious faith as they can get.

They, not atheists, are the real threat to religious faith.

Survival of the Fittest (Faith)

Weak faith is not worth preserving

In a column appearing on the Examiner website, atheist examiner Trina Hoaks addresses the notion that atheism somehow poses a threat to religious faith.

"There does seem to be an awareness that atheism is here to stay and that its numbers seem to be growing," Hoaks writes. "This is in stark contrast to the mood not too long ago. Some religious leaders and writers supposed that atheism would fizzle out, or at least that is what they expressed. Whether they really believe it or not is debatable."

Hoaks goes on to write about an episode of Focus on the Family in which Dr James Dobson and Dr Albert Mohler discussed how to combat the "new atheism".

In the program, Mohler insisted that "the 'New Atheists' are 'dangerous' and a 'threat'."

This, of course, begs an important question: a threat to whom, precisely?

The argument often raised about the "new atheists" is that they're dangerous to religious faith: essentially, that the challenges of these atheists may cause religious believers to question, or even abandon, their faith.

The self-appointed representatives of atheism are a formidable lot. Richard Dawkins is a skillful speaker and writer, as are Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

But to anyone who does themselves the intellectual service of periodically pondering their faith, they are no threat.

Day to day life should challenge the faith of any believer. One doesn't need to look far to find suffering or injustice. Particularly, the belief in a benevolent, intervening and even retributive God can be difficult to maintain in the face of a clearly imperfect world.

In the face of such a revelation, it's only natural for a rational person to question how deeply they believe in such a being, and why. A thinking person's faith should be flexible enough to be situated within the world as it is. It shouldn't rely on the world being as one wishes it to be.

If one's faith is strong and their reasons for belief well-founded, their faith should survive nearly any challenge. If it isn't, then their faith likely wasn't worth preserving in the first place.

In the world of religious faith, as in the world of nature, survival is largely preserved for the fittest.

The answer to the imaginary "threat" posed by the "new atheism" isn't to censor or silence their messages, as some extreme individuals such as Charles McVety and Britain's Stephen Green seem to have called for.

Rather, the answer is for thinking believers, just as Dawkins has called upon atheists, to speak up and challenge atheism's most aggressive proselytizers on their own intellectual ground.

Sometimes it can certainly be difficult to decide how to best do this.

Religious thinkers haven't always been up to the task. For example some, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort chiefly among them, have attempted to challenge atheisms' canonization of the Theory of Evolution by attempting to refute it. A wiser strategy would be to challenge the purported right of atheists to canonize it as their version of holy scripture.

They must contend with any intellectual environment that proves hostile to religion. Hoaks writes that Mohler insists 'intellectual intimidation' "is taking place in colleges across the nation and that parents need to arm their children against this kind of 'religious persecution'. He also said that atheists persecute the young and high school students through intellectual intimidation."

There are some who seek to foment an intellectual environment hostile to religious belief. These individuals should be revealed for what they are. Many of them, such as PZ Myers, will do so on their own if ever placed within an academic environment in which they face any faint trace of disagreement.

They, like Dawkins et al, are no threat to religious belief; although they should be challenged nonetheless.

The path religious believers choose to follow isn't an easy one. They must find a way to adapt the concept of God to the real world. They must learn to tell the word of God from the word of man. Most importantly, they must have the courage to live according to their convictions, regardless of whatever the detractors of religion would tell them.

If religious believers cannot do this, then perhaps it really is time for religion to go bravely into the dark night.

But atheism's most vigorous proselytizers may be in for a surprise. There are many religious believers who are prepared to take on this challenge.

All they need to do now is stand up and challenge their detractors.

Memo to Charles McVety: Fuckin' Relax

Canadian Christian Coalition leader overreacts to atheist bus ads

In the wake of an advertising campaign launched in Britain in which buses are carrying a pro-atheist message, atheists here in Canada have launched a similar campaign of their own.

In Toronto, the Freethought Association of Canada is set to release its own wave of "There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" adverts on City of Toronto buses.

The Canadian Christian Coalition's Charles McVety (who leads the organization, along with a slew of other Christian-oriented groups) doesn't like it.

"They're attack ads," McVety complained, "saying we worry and saying that we are not happy. That is an offensive statement."

McVety's complaints are reminiscent of complaints by Britain's Stephen Green, who complained that the British ads violated advertising standards.

Fortunately, just as Green's reaction to the ads wasn't representative of the British response to them, nor is McVety's reaction to the Canadian campaign.

"If it evokes a discussion around religion and discussions around issues of faith, that's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's done respectfully," noted Neil MacCarthy, the Archiocese of Toronto.

In Britain, Theos, a Christian think tank actually donated a (very) modest sum of money to the British campaign.

There's a good reason why the response to these ads should not be, and fortunately has not been, as uniformly hostile as those of Charles McVety and Stephen Green: the ads themselves are extremely non-threatening.

The ads state that there is probably no God. They don't say anything for certain. If the ads asserted that the Bible is crap, as PZ Myers recently did, that would be one thing. That would actually qualify as an "attack ad" as McVety has tried to label these ads (although that alone wouldn't be enough reason to try to bar them from being run).

And while one may wonder about the irony of the Freethought Association of Canada running ads that at least seem to tell people what to think about God (that God "probably" doesn't exist), and running ads that so blatantly copy the British campaign, there's very little offensive about these ads.

Neil MacCarthy is right. These ads will serve a valuable purpose if they convince people to think about whether or not they believe God exists and, more importantly, why.

The Gods Must Be Angry or Something

Bill Maher, LA Times, Obama campaign targeted by domestic terrorists

When Bill Maher chose to frame his film Religulous as a call to arms against religion, one would be alarmed if he didn't believe the so-called "other side" just might respond to that call.

But as it turns out, Religulous may not be the only thing Maher has done to inspire the violent ire of religious extremism.

Last night Maher performed at a club in Palm Desert, California where a threat-laden letter containing a white powder had been sent.

"Save the babies" was reportedly written on the front of the envelope, and "kill all Obama supporters" scrawled across the back.

Similar letters were recieved by the Los Angeles Times and at a Barack Obama campaign office in Los Angeles.

As the 2008 United States Presidential Election campaign intensifies with less than a month to go until balloting, it's starting to seem more and more that this campaign is taking on more and more distinct overtones of a religious conflict. Perhaps more than any other presidential campaign in recent history.

Consider the case of Scranton, Pennsylvania, a city so religiously polarized by the campaign that local resident Ann Conway -- an opponent of abortion and of the Iraq war -- mused that "If I do end up voting for Obama, then I’ll go to confession after and tell the priest my sin."

Bishop Joseph Martino, the Bishop of Scranton, has declared that Barack Obama's Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden will be denied communion within his diocese.

“Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign,” Martino has asserted. “Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s command. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of the Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.”

Canadians are familiar with a few of these religious overtones within our own politics. In Ultramontaine Quebec (long prior to Jean Lesage's Quiet Revolution), it was regarded that "heaven is Bleu and hell is Rogue". The message of this was crystal clear: proper god-fearing Quebeckers would vote for the Conservatives, as voting for the Liberal party was considered blasphemous.

One also recalls that Prime Minister Paul Martin was threatened with the denial of communion over his government's same-sex marriage act.

To pretend that religion and politics can ever be truly and fully separate is utterly naive. Although it offended a great many Canadians, Preston Manning was actually quite wise to note that religious beliefs inevitably will, in one way or another, have an influence on political beliefs.

But there is no doubt that the equation of certain political beliefs with sin has a deeply corrosive influence on both politics and religion. This "crusade" against pro-abortion candidates and commentators is proof of this.

There is no getting around calling the actions of those who sent the letters in question to Maher, the Times and the Obama campaign for what it is: terrorism. The spectre of domestic terrorism, sadly neglected in George W Bush's War on Terror.

Not only is it politically detrimental to equate supporting the "wrong" political candidate as sinful, but religiously detrimental as well: the exploitation of the sacred in the service of the profane. In some extreme cases, as we see with these attacks, they transform the adherents of a faith founded by a man who preached a message of peace from law-abiding citizens into terrorists.

With all good fortune, those who have perpetrated these attacks will pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of American law.

But it's important to note that the answer to the corrosive influence of invasive religious fundamentalism is not what Bill Maher himself would advocate -- a public-scale disavowal of religion.

Rather, the answer is for moderates like Ann Conway -- even if Conway herself, her political thinking tinged with the notion of anti-abortion politics as a sin she's willing to bear even if unwillingly, could barely be described as a moderate -- to wake other believers up to the notion that they can keep their politics and their faith.

The answer is for more churches to take a hard line stance against violent anti-abortion activism, and denounce such terrorism for what it really is.

Meanwhile, one should also not overlook that atheist activists such as Bill Maher certainly haven't helped the issue. By seeking to polarize American society against religion, they've made religion as much a political issue as anyone else, but one certainly shouldn't expect them to admit it.

And as we've seen, some of the more deranged among the faithful don't take kindly to it.

Why Doesn't the United States Have a Stable, Viable Social Democratic Party?

An unlikely source provides the answer

If there is one great unanswered question about American politics, it's probably "who really killed JFK?"

At least, if you're a nutbar.

If, like the rest of us, you aren't a conspiracy-peddling, Manitoba-cigarettes-smoking weirdo, that question is probably "why doesn't the United States have a viable, stable social democratic party?

A passage from Al Franken's The Truth (With Jokes) ironically provides an answer -- and it's an answer that "progressives" like Franken probably won't like.

Starting on page 119, and continuing onto page 120:

"It is actually illegal for tax-exempt religious organizations to engage in partisan political activity. But that didn't stop the Bush-Cheney campaign from encouraging clergy in battleground states to do their civic duty. In Pennsylvania, for example, recieved this e-mail from a Bush-Cheney staffer:

"Subject: Lead your congregation for President Bush

The Bush-Cheney '04 national headquarters in Virginia has asked us to identify 1600 "Friendly Congregations" in Pennsylvania where voters friendly to President Bush may gather on a regular basis. In each of these friendly congregations, we would like to identify a volunteer coordinator who can help distribute general informatinon to other supporters. If you are interested, please email Luke Bernstein at LBernstein@GeorgeWBush.com your name, address, phone number and place of worship.

Thanks,
-Luke

Paid for by Bush-Cheney '04, Inc

Jesus Christ! And this from a Bernstein?!

Look. Churches are always going to be involved in social justice issues, on one side or the other. Just as Dr. Martin Luther King (for) or Dr. Jerry Falwell (against). ANd some congregations certainly have a political bent, such as Our Lady of Gun Control in Bayside, Queens. But this was ridiculous. Even the campaign's allies thought the White House had gone too far, considering the state of the law at the time.

There was only one solution. Change the law."

Oooh! Those dastardly Republicans, right?

Right?

Hold that phone.

"In early June 2004, Republicans in the House Ways and Means committee added an ammendment to H.R. 4520, the American Job Creation Act of 2004 (which cut corporate taxes, thereby creating jobs for people who gild bathroom fixtures), that would allow churches to commit three (count 'em, three) "unintentional violations" of legal restrictions on political activites each year without losing their tax-exepmpt status. I call that the "four strikes and you're out" law. Even more exciting, clergy would now be allowed to endorse candidates, as long as they made it clear they were acting as individuals and not on behalf of religious organizations.

Thankfully, when even the Southern Baptist Convention said the Republicans were getting a little too cute, the "Safe Harbor for Churches" amendment died a quiet death."

Hooray! A victory for the separation of church and state, right? Right?

Well, that is important. But, at the same time, there are numerous questions. What about the right of Pastors to express their opinions (politically or otherwise), alternately known as free speach? What about the right of religious congregations to organize as they see fit (again, politically or otherwise)?

Of course, these are important questions, but not necessarily pertinent for our purposes here. For that, we have to turn to the development of Canada's social democratic party, the New Democratic Party. (While the Bloc Quebecois often claims to be a social democratic party, they don't count because they are founded almost entirely on an exclusionary racial ideology.)

The NDP was formed in 1961 as a political merger of the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Foundation) and the Canadian Labour Congress. The annointed leader, Tommy Douglas (quite possibly one of the three best Prime Ministers Canada never had) was actually an ordained Baptist minister. (That's right, you read it -- Baptist.)

Both the CCF and the NDP after it were based almost entirely on the Protestant Social Gospel. The Social Gospel advocated that Christian values demanded a more generous and inclusive society (aforementioned by Al Franken as social justice).

It probably helped that in Canada churches were allowed to hold and express political opinion. An obsession with politically marginalizing religion certainly isn't anything that has never manifested itself in Canada (see: modern NDP), but it has yet to establish the stranglehold on religion that exists in the United States.

Comparing the two case studies, one can't help but draw the conclusion that the failure of the United States to produce a relevant social democratic party is at least partially due to its legal muzzling of religious movements.

Of course other factors, such as an obsessive, fearful suspicion of communism (although suspicion certainly was warranted, at least on a limited basis -- read: not McCarthy-esque) certainly played a role, one has to wonder what would exist today.

Maybe -- just maybe -- a stable, viable social democratic party.

(If you're reading this, Ralph Nader, you don't count. And it certainly was a shame that Howard Dean -- whom history may recognize as one the best Presidents the United States never had -- was judged to be too scary by Democrats.)

Naturally, the blending of politics and religion can go too far, and George W Bush is a fairly decent example of that (although most of the Republican party's intractable opponents find Mike Huckabee even more threatening). But one should also keep in mind that a liberal mixing of politics and religion can also have positive results.

Canadian public health care is, without a doubt, history's greatest example of this.

But before the specific values of the Social Gospel can take root, as they have north of the 49th parallel, religious organizations have to be allowed to at least knock at the door. It's ironic that some of those who most decry the lack of social democrats in the United States are the ones most determined to see that this is never allowed.

Grudge Match: Religious Right vs. ...Conservative Partyt!?

Christian activists seek to crucify Garth Turner

It is safe to say that politics and religion are, more often than not, a volatile combination.

Sometimes politics and religion go hand-in-hand. When the need arises, religious

leaders of varying stripes can be effective organizers. Many would consider this to be mainly true of right-wing conservative parties. This isn't necessarily so. Tommy Douglas, the greatest leader ever offered by a Canadian left-wing party, drew his roots directly from Gospel Protestantism -- a socialist breed of Christianity.
But the opposite is just as often the case -- if not more so.

Lately, Conservative MP Garth Turner has had an interesting fight on his hands. At a time when many critics of the Conservative party want to accuse it of being too close to Christian fundamentalists (for the past ten years, in fact), Turner has seemingly incurred the wrath of Charles McVety.

McVety, who is active with a number of Canadian Christian advocacy groups -- including Defend Marriage Canada, the Canada Christian College and the Canada Family Action Coalition -- recently shared a disagreement with Turner over the role of a Christian activist. McVety believes that this role is to defeat "anti-Christian, anti-marriage, anti-life" Conservative MPs with "family-friendly" Christian candidates.

Naturally, with talk such as this, the subject was same-sex marriage. Naturally, it is safe to assume that McVety is opposed to it.

"[McVety's] group, as you can see in the post below, is after my political head since I trashed their stated plans to swamp nomination meetings of Tory MPs who support gay marriage and are otherwise morally deficient," Turner writes on his weblog, The Turner Report. " I said I disagree with any special interest candidates who are foisted on a party or a riding in a stacked nomination meeting, especially when a sitting MP – electable and experienced – is the victim of a one-night hijacking."

The one-night hijacking in question are schemes in which McVety organizes individuals sympathetic to his cause to purchase Conservative party memberships, and flood pre-election nomination meetings in order to help install a candidate who will support his agenda.

Hijacking isn't a new trick for McVety. He has been known to register online domains under the names of politicians, particularly those who oppose his views. Many critics consider this to be cybersquatting. However, because he uses these sites to express opinions regarding each particular politician's views, the law allows him to do so under tenets of acceptable use.

Charles McVety is not a man who believes in the separation of church and state. His plan to supplant the candidates of a political party with religious activists is chilling to those who believe in the secular state. This is precisely what Turner was alluding to when he wrote: "Faith-based politics is fine. It has a long tradition. It can accomplish a lot of good. But when one religious or cultural group engineers a coup, overwhelming existing political party members and workers, and replacing a politician elected by a plurality of people with a single-issue monochromatic militant, well, kiss democracy goodbye."

Supporters of McVety would later try to use this statement to paint him as an anti-religious zealot. Perhaps a person may suggest it would take a zealot to know one, and if this was true McVety would certainly know one if he saw it.

Along with his wife and children, McVety attended the 2005 Liberal party convention aboard his famed "Defend Marriage" tour bus. About the experience he wrote the following: "As in the days of Lot the penalty for the righteous was that they knocked on the doors of Lot and demanded his young men for their sexual pleasure. This was the penalty for the righteous being “wrong” in their eyes. As I stood on a rally platform outside the Convention Centre we prayed that marriage would be defended Canada protected. Hecklers cursed and swore at us and held up a sign displaying the word 'Immoral'."

This would certainly be a frightening bundle of rhetoric, if it didn't instead provoke one very simple response: what the fuck?

He noted that his daughter, confronted by the contempt and fury of the Liberal attendees, asked him: "daddy, why are they spitting at us?" He neglects to mention that he exposed his children to this behavior (as unacceptable as it may indeed be) knowingly and willingly. Which would make a certain amount of sense: his crusade against same-sex marriage is "for the children".

Let it also be known that this is a man who has organized boycotts against Famous Players theatres (for showing an advertisement supporting same-sex marriage) and the Da Vinci Code (apparently for being a fictional book about Christ).

If allowed to garner any significant amount of influence in the Conservative party, McVety would prove to be one of the greatest liabilities in the party's history. Those who suspiciously eye the Conservative party as crusaders aching to turn the clock back to the days when religion took a direct role in governance would suddenly have their poster boy -- a bigger, better poster boy than Stockwell Day ever could have been.

On the other hand, Turner is an absolute treasure for the Conservative party. He is an MP who defies the typical stereotype that critics of the party would like to promote. He may have a firey personality. He may love to get down and scrap with his opponents, but he stands for what he believes in. Most importantly, he is an indispensible voice of dissent within the party -- without such voices, the Conservatives risk becoming victim to that pitfall that has so entirely entrapped the Liberal party: groupthink.

In short, Turner is a Conservative who's not afraid to think outside that little conservative box. Consider this in comparison to McVety, who obviously believes it is some sort of grievous sin to think outside the pages of the Bible. This is like mixing Jedi and Sith: bad fucking idea.

The Conservative party needs to pull Turner in and hold him close, and push McVety as far away as it can. Only then can it step forth from the shadow of Christian fundamentalism, and get on with the business of being a secular political party.
After all, religion and politics can be a nasty mix.

Worshipping Hate

This Just In -- God Hates Everybody

That’s right. God hates everybody. Including you. Maybe even especially you.

At least, according to Pastor Fred Phelps. You see, kids, reverend Phelps is perhaps one of the most extreme opponents of gay rights in the United States. He is also Pastor for Westboro Baptist Church, a rather charming group of people who maintain a number of websites, including www.godhatesamerica.com and www.godhatesfags.com.
Of course, this won’t be the first funeral protest for Phelps. In 1998 he forced his way into the public consciousness by protesting at the funeral Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student who was beaten to death. His church has also picketed at the funerals of those who have died of AIDS.

Most recently, Phelps has promised to picket the funeral of Corporal Jamie French. French, 19, an Idaho native and a former cheerleader. Phelps feels little shame for his actions, calling her, “An all-American girl from a society of all-American heretics.”

Phelps has also claimed that, “Our attitude toward what's happening with the war is the Lord is punishing this evil nation for abandoning all moral imperatives that are worth a dime." Which, to judge from his actions, is basically denying the right of hateful, homophobic gay-bashers to beat homosexuals to death on the street. Charming. Absolutely charming.

“While we respect Mr. Phelps' right to protest, we would hope that he would respect the family and friends of this young person by not disrupting the memorial,” said Caldwell, Iowa police chief Bob Sobba.

Fat chance. The word “respect” has no meaning to people like Phelps. Nor do the words “shame”, “decency”, or “love” have any meaning.

Take, for example, this excerpt from his website: “[Westboro Community Church] rejoices every time the Lord God in His vengeance kills or maims an American soldier with an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" (Ps. 58:10).”
Phelps has rarely declined an opportunity to cry about the “hateful words and actions” directed at his church – including a bomb attack in 1999. But instead of understanding how he has brought hatred and violence upon himself, how does he choose to react? That’s right, with more hatred.

“When you fill the army with fags and dykes and spit in the face of God, you have sown the wind, and shall reap the whirlwind.”

Of course, hatred of this intensity is ‘spit in the face of god’, but don’t ever put that past Phelps. God makes an awfully convenient excuse for people such as this.
Unfortunately, it isn’t only gays and lesbians that face the wrath of Phelps’ hatred. His website also proclaims that Reggie White is in hell (because “he displays none of the traits of the “heroes of faith”, as they are listed in Hebrews 11) and Ronald Reagan is in hell (because “Men honor him”, as well as some swill regarding Rock Hudson… if you read it, you’ll be as confused as I am).

Of course, websites like www.godhatesamerica.com and www.godhatesfags.com (which proclaims “thank god for the London subway bombings!”) are full of nothing but lies and excuses. The truth is another matter entirely.

The truth about men such as Phelps is truly dark. The truth is that people such as Phelps claim to worship the Judeo-Christian god. But that claim isn’t the truth. Because the truth is that men such as Phelps worship at the altar of hate. They worship hate, because they understand nothing else.

If that isn’t idolatry, I don’t know what is. But there is one thing that I do know: whatever this hate-filled little weasel thinks is waiting for him in the next life, it isn’t what he thinks he is.

Because people like Phelps are filled with too much hate for heaven.

Gays vs. The Religious Right -- The Grudgematch

Yeah, like a homophobic tirade wouldn't be at all home here...

This isn't that. And it is. Or is it? To tell you the truth, I've forgotten already...

Oh, right! The topic is: Gay Marriage/ Gay Adoption/ Gay Milkshakes/ Gay... what have you.

Hoo boy, what a huge topic lately. And maybe it should be. The fact that there are elements of our society who seem to think it should be alright to take every homosexual in sight and hang them from the nearest tree is fairly scary and disturbing, but the politicization of the homosexual issue (whatever that issue may be) is something scary in an entirely different way.

I imagine there may have once been a time when one's sexuality was their own business, and not the concern of public domain. There may have once been a time such as this, but to tell you the truth, I can't remember it. And this may be because our society has chosen to divide itself along the battle lines of "gay vs. straight", and while one side seems to think it is going to force the world at large to accept and embrace it the other side seems to think it should have the right to wipe the other side out entirely.

And then, there's the rest of us, caught in the middle of this facade. Wondering "wait, whose business other than my own (and a consenting partner) where I stick my dick, or possibly a feminist-approved dick-substitute (at least according to Freud, who, as we know, was an immensely funny individual... at least I know he makes me laugh) other than my own?"*

We live in an age of partisan everything. Partisan politics, partisian religion, and now partisan sexuality.

Take, for example, the kerfluffle over the recent film Alexander. Now, according to a lot of gay and lesbian writers, we are supposed to believe that cutting the gay sex out of Alexander makes it a bad movie. Which doesn't, and which it isn't. One thing this is is censorship, which as many of us will agree is a bad thing, but it doesn't make this a bad movie. In fact, I probably (scratch that, definitely) enjoyed this movie a lot more because of the lack of gay sex. However, I do not approve of artistic censorship, but that's beyond the point.

It is extremely sad that some people seem to need to identify their sexual orientation/ethnicity/what-have-you with famous or historical figures in order to attempt to engineer acceptability for something that is already acceptable to begin with. The truth is, these people aren't trying to engineer acceptability, they're trying to engineer comfort. They are attempting to make themselves more comfortable with themselves by attaching a label that they (or someone else) have attached to them by also attaching it to someone else. The debate over whether or not Alexander the Great was gay is an example of this.

Alexander the Great may have been gay (as opposed to bisexual, or perhaps even heterosexual), but truthfully, this is incidental. What should it matter to anyone else what Alexander the Great did in his bedroom? Not a whole lot, truthfully.

Whenever I attempt to make the case that we do not truly know whether or not Alexander the Great was gay or bi or not, a lot of people make the assumption that I am assuming that he was straight, as if this would be any more foolish than assuming that he was gay (well, we know that Alexander had a son, but all we have to corroborate claims that he is gay is translations from legends written more than 2300 years ago, regardless, this is beyond the point).

There is also the vicious branding of closeted homosexuals as "cowards". While there may be a lot on the line for a lot of people with this issue, when our society will not respect the privacy of individuals (even within the confines of their own bedroom) we have a serious problem. I'm wondering: if organizations like GLAAD (mostly good people who do good work) are wondering what entities such as, say, the state of Alabama (so many backward jokes, so little time) are doing in their bedrooms, why does no one ever ask what GLAAD is doing in the bedroom of the governor of the State of New Jersey (I can't remember his name, and I'm too lazy to look it up)?

That, my friends, could be construed as hypocrisy.

But let's talk about hypocrisy, because it is one of my favourite subjects. Excuse me, one second, I have to go change hats...

...

...

...

OK, I'm back. Miss me? Yes? Good. No? I love you too. Anyhoo...

How about the religious right on this issue? Yes, we all love them with their "god hates fags" talk, and I thought it was sooo classy when they propested outside of the funeral of a murdered gay teen ager. What a great bunch of people.

God, as we all know, is supposed to be perfect. In the minds of these people, how does this correspond with also being a bigot (as they would tell us). Oh, yes, homosexuality is sinful. But, wait... if homosexuality is a sin, why did god create homosexuals?

Yeah, we'll be waiting for a clear answer on that for quite a while.

How about Jesus, who taught us to love thy neighbour, and who loved his own neighbours regardless of who they were? Let's have a real close look at the bible. If Jesus comes back right now (right now!) who's he going to hang with? George "Dubya" Bush or those gay pride parade folks who got pelted with pig manure in the states. By the way, that was real classy, as well.

Pens down, people. Who did Jesus hobnob with? If you said "the gutter folk" then you are exactly right. And why did Jesus hobnob with the gutter folk? Because they needed his love the most.

And maybe that's part of my point. If we're going to love our neighbour (in that brotherly, good will towards men sort of way) then maybe the idea of loving (in that brotherly good will towards men sort of way) that gay guy down the street shouldn't seem so repulsive to us. But wait, there's more!

Growing up, we are taught pretty often that people are not going to like you. People will find reasons not to like you. That's life. We can't make everyone we meet like us... but what if we could?

Would we want to? Should we want to? That sounds like an essay coming on...

But, it's New Years Eve, and I'm late for getting drunk, so I've gotta cut this short.

The idea that gays and lesbians are going to force people to accept them is folly. And truth be told, if someone looking for a reason not to like you finds "you're different" to be an acceptable reason, do you want that person as your friend or neighbour? Probably not.

There is no sense fighting battles that you aren't going to win. Thankfully, in this little dispute, there are plenty of battles that gays and lesbians ARE going to win. Like the battle of gay marriage. Accepbability will come later. Right now, just win the little battles.

The war will follow.

* Yes, I know that's a long fucking sentence, but it's a good one, ain't it?