Carl Paladino APOLOGIZES!

After first trying to deny his words, or some of them (the ones he had in his written speech but didn't read), Carl Paladino has done something unusual - he has actually apologized.

The actual and unedited text of his apology is below. While I still disagree with him on a large number of issues and I still support his Democratic opponent in the New York gubernatorial election, the issuance of an actual apology that has a minimum of weasel wording is worth noting. As a reward, I am editing my earlier post to remove the caricature of Mr. Paladino's head with the Charlie Chaplin moustache photoshopped onto a picture of one A. Hitler, former Fuehrer of the Third Reich.

Here is the text of the apology, followed by my comments:

I am Carl Paladino, a father, a husband, a builder and a business owner. I am neither perfect, nor a career politician. I have made mistakes in this campaign - I have made mistakes all my life- as we all have. I am what I am - a simple man who works hard, trusts others, and loves his family and fears for the future of our State.

Yesterday I was handed a script. I redacted some contents that were unacceptable. I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated. I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the Gay and Lesbian Community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong. My personal beliefs are:

1) I am a live and let live person.

2) I am 100% against discrimination of any group. I oppose discrimination of any kind in housing, credit, insurance benefits or visitation.

3) I am 100% against hate crimes in any form.

4) I am in support of civil agreements and equal rights for all citizens.

5) My position on marriage is based on my personal views. I have the same position on this issue as President Barrack Obama. I have previously stated I would support a referendum by New York voters. I have proposed Initiative and Referendum so New Yorkers can decide important issues like this.

6) The portrayal of me as anti-gay is inconsistent with my lifelong beliefs and actions and my prior history as an father, employer and friend to many in the gay and lesbian community.

I am concerned with the future for all our citizens, gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim and Agnostic. Although I am not perfect I do admit my mistakes. I will reach out to leaders of the gay community to educate me on how to better represent my support for the rights of all citizens. If elected as your governor I will stand and fight for all gay New Yorkers rights. I ask you for forgiveness on my poorly chosen words and the publication by others not involved with our campaign of unredacted script that did not reflect my oral statement or match my personal feelings. Please go to my website www.paladinoforthepeople.com to learn more detail about the issues including my staunch support for civil rights for all New Yorkers.

The only weasely words?

I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated.

The "should have chosen better words" part requires some amplification, as does the "misinterpreted and misstated."

It's really hard to misinterpret and misstate an unaltered video.

Essentially, what Carl biggest mistake was to read someone else's words as his own, slightly edited. That someone was most probably the ultra-conservative right wing "Rabbi" Yehuda Levin, the leader of a tiny ultra-Orthodox but not Hasidic Jewish sect.

Carl was trying to garner support from these people by telling them pretty much what their leader wanted them to hear. So, if he doesn't believe what he told them, he was lying to them to get their vote, possibly not thinking that the terribly nasty things he was saying to pander to this small group was going to be spread to the rest of the world by way of the news media and the blogosphere.

This is the sort of campaign trick that used to work fairly well - a candidate would tell a small group what they wanted to hear without fearing that the words would be recorded and broadcast, and then promising something else to some other group.

In this case, Mr. Paladino got caught.

His hiding behind Barack Obama's skirts as if the President is his mommy, on the issue of marriage equality, is rather disingenuous. President Obama is wrong on this issue, and he is another example of a lying politician who has told many different stories to many different groups on many different issues, though President Obama's actual record is mixed.

If Carl really believes in "live and let live," he would be willing to put the Constitution above his religious prejudices - why should the Catholic Church decide whether gay Unitarians should be able to get legally married?

The fact remains that no one who places the immoral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ahead of the Constitution of the United States or that of the State of New York, is and remains unqualified to be Governor.

The addition of "Initiative" and "Referendum" like they have in California, particularly if not limited so that individual rights are unaffected, is likely to result in what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." Popular votes taken to limit the rights of people who are different that they don't like, can result in injustice - the majority is not always right.

Carl - if your apology was genuine and sincerely intended:

- Will you openly sponsor a civil marriage bill as a Governor's program bill? (It has to be civil marriage, because "live and let live" does not work any other way unless you abolish civil marriage for everyone in New York and leave it up to the churches and individuals to decide for themselves on the basis of their own personal beliefs). It is okay for you to be personally against marrying a man yourself - you already have a wife, and a female concubine (well, how else am I supposed to describe the mother of your daughter . . .) - you don;t have to choose to marry a man - so that's where your personal beliefs are appropriate.

- Will you make GENDA a Governor's program bill? It would extend human rights and hate crimes protections to the trans community.

- Will you direct insurance companies and Medicaid to provide for medically appropriate care for all, including transgender New Yorkers?

- Will you pledge to let the federal government deal with immigration issues and leave the State out of it?

- Will you support abolishing city, town and village governments (excepting New York City) and provide for consolidation of services (including school districts) at the county level?

- Will you support making Medicaid costs the sole responsibility of the State without passing the cost off to the counties?

- Will you support the abolition of "member items?"

- Will you support the elimination of all loopholes in the mortgage recording tax?

- Will you support the adoption of the ACRIS recording system on a statewide basis, with local recording officers acting only as agents of the state? Will you provide for free online public access to land records (as they do in the State of Florida?)

I have much longer laundry list, but something along these lines would be a start.

Taking the Medicaid burden off county governments and consolidating local municipalities and districts to the county government level would go much farther toward reducing the real property tax burden than the things you're foolishly promising already.

But Carl, I do thank you for the apology - it's not something that a Ruben Diaz or a Sally Kern would ever do. It may be that all you need is a little education.

If you don't follow through on your apology, would you prefer I find a photo of Benito Mussolini to use as the basis for a caricature?

AFA’s Fischer proves he is Neither Conservative nor Christian

On August 21, 2010. Bryan Fischer of the American “Family” Association, writing in an article entitled “Coulter, Beck go AWOL in culture war” published on the WorldNetDaily (Sheesh! they can’t even spell WorldNutDaily correctly!)website has the most amazing effrontery to claim that there can’t be any such thing as a gay conservative, or a conservative “endorsing homosexual behavior.”

He writes:

“Let's be clear: Endorsing homosexual behavior is not a conservative position, period.”

Now, lawyer Ted Olson is perhaps one of the brightest *real* conservatives in the United States, and he has volunteered himself as one of the co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8. Perhaps the best clip I have seen on the issue of marriage equality from a conservative position came from, of all sources, FOX NEwschannel:




I am just letting Ted Olson speak for real conservatives!

Then Fischer says:

“Supporting special rights based on aberrant sexual behavior is not conservative, period.”

The first thing wrong with this lying sentence is that Fischer does not understand nature. Homosexual behavior is natural and not aberrant, for persons who were created by God with same-sex attraction. Even Paul the Apostle, in Romans 1, makes it clear that it is sinful for people to act against their natures – the passage refers to ordinarily straight people acting against their orientations during orgiastic Greco-roman religious rituals involving consumption of large amounts of wine. One can read that passage with understanding and realize that it is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior, in and of itself, but only when it involves a person acting against her or his nature.

Real conservatives oppose supporting special rights – that’s REAL conservatives, like Ted Olson.


Immediately, Fischer continues with yet another whopper (he's on a roll, or should I say, buns):

“Supporting either civil unions or marriages based entirely on using the alimentary canal for sexual purposes is not conservative, period.”

My first observation about this whopper is that Fischer assumes that marriage equality involves relationships “based entirely on using the alimentary canal for sexual purposes.” It’s fairly clear that Fischer has no idea about what same-sex couples in a sexual relationship might do with each other, sexually, and he does not seem to have any idea about the diversity of sexual behavior, regardless of sexual orientation. Neither same sex, nor opposite sex relationships are based solely on using the alimentary canal. Presumably, Mr. Fischer has never kissed a woman, or perhaps does not understands that mouths are a part of the alimentary canal, and that they figure prominently in “Straight” sex as well.

“Alimentary canal” is a term that is defined as:

n. The mucous membrane-lined tube of the digestive system through which food passes, in which digestion takes place, and from which wastes are eliminated. It extends from the mouth to the anus and includes the pharynx, esophagus, stomach, and intestines. Also called digestive tract.

About the only sexual act I’d consider engaging in that exclusively uses the alimentary canal is mouth-to-mouth kissing, though I understand it is entirely possible that a panderer like Mr. Fischer would have on his mind some kinkier activities that might involve oral contact with the other end of the alimentary canal. I think Fischer has a dirty mind. That’s what I think.

Kissing is an often but not exclusively sexual act that involves the mouth but the mouth can be used to kiss a lot of other palces that are not part of the alimentary canal. There are many other sexual activities that use the mouth, and I don’t believe that any of these are exclusively the province of same-sex relationships. Similarly, while I am not aware of any sexual activities “exclusively using the alimentary canal” that involve anus to anus contact, I am sure Mr. Fischer must know of something along those lines, though I am sure that he can’t really be so dim that he thinks that is what gay people do.

On the issue of what *real* conservatives might believe, I again refer to the Olson clip.

Fischer's last lie (well not the last one he wrote, just the last that I’ll comment on here):

“Even Darwinian evolutionists know better than to believe there is something healthy about homosexual conduct. They know it cannot lead to the propagation of the species, which, after all, is what evolution is supposed to be all about.”

Fischer shows how little he understands about evolutionary theory. This is not surprising, considering that it’s likely from his affiliations that he could be some sort of Creationist. I’d recommend that Bryan (and anyone else wishing to learn about sexual selection) read “Evolution’s Rainbow, “ by Dr. Joan Roughgarden.

Get the book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Rainbow-Diversity-Gender-Sexuality/dp/0520240731


or here
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Evolutions-Rainbow/Joan-Roughgarden/e/9780520246799

So, once we examine the facts, it appears that Bryan Fischer proves in his own words that:

a. he is the one who can’t be a real conservative; and

b. he really does not know much of anything at all that is in the least factual, that he isn't afraid to substitute really weird lies for the truth.

There is some consolation for Bryan Fischer. There are all sorts of right wingnuts out there, ranging from isolationist and hawkish neo-cons, to the Christianist Dominionists who want to create an American theocracy. It’s likely that Mr. Fischer may be one of the latter, but it’s not clear from this particular article. Those are the sort of people who might take him seriously. Unfortunately there are too many gullible and ignorant people out there, in addition to people like Fischer who bear malicious intent toward people who are different.

Many of the right wingnut sort of “conservative” types like Fischer are pandering to the disgruntled “Tea Partiers” who have emerged since the election of Barack Obama – a formless movement of largely ignorant and gullible people who were previously not motivated enough to care about politics. Many of these tea partiers are driven by the words of lying demagogues who can’t seem to accept the idea that America elected an African American (yes, of the half-blood, but still African-American based on both their “one drop of blood” racial purity thoughts, and the way the president identified himself on the 2010 census) president. Many tea partiers have become “birthers” - they have been gulled into believing that a Hawaii birth certificate can’t be a real birth certificate, and many of them inexplicably believe that the president is a Muslim. Apparently those aren’t even familiar enough with Presient Obamas embarrassing longstanding association with the “Chriatian” church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is himself a Christianist with rather wingnutty beliefs.

Bryan Fischer is not only not a *real* conservative, he is also a false Christian, and he and his organization are the sort that taps into the religious bigotry of other false Christians, who wrap themselves in the flag and cross like wolves wearing the skins of sheep, without understanding the principles of the Constitution or the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The context of his WorldNutDaily article is an attack on Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. You will note that I am not actually defending either of them, just pointing out that Bryan Fischer, at least, makes absolutely no sense at all. Read from that what you will.

Going toe-to-toe with the Christianists

Today on one of my favorite blogs in the whole world, Pam’s House Blend, we get the otherwise cryptically-named article by Pam Spaulding herself entitled:

And Blankenhorn and Rauch think these people will compromise on marriage?

(The cryptic reference to Blankenhorn and Rauch is to an op-ed piece on compromise in federal recognition of civil unions that ran earlier in the week in The New York Times, A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage, by By DAVID BLANKENHORN and JONATHAN RAUCH
Published: February 21, 2009 )

I won’t go into the proposed “compromise” here – that’s not the thrust of Pam’s thoughtful essay.

What Pam writes about here is the right-wing Christianist rhetoric about gays that rings lodly in the halls of Congress and the inner recesses of our state legislatures. Today’s featured nutcase is Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe, a Republican from Greeley, Colorado.

Renfroe was quoted in opposition to a bill to grant insurance benefits to gay partners of state employees (a bill that passed in the Colorado Senate after his less-than-inspiring speech) as saying “I oppose this bill because of what my personal beliefs are. I think that what our country was founded upon was those beliefs also.”

What are Renfroe’s beliefs? He certainly can’t be a Christian. Then again, even Pope Benedict XVI isn’t really a Christian. People with the sort of belief about LGBT people that Renfroe has, if they claim to be Christians, are lying. They’re Christianists – people who pervert and twist the kerygma of the message of the Good News, and use it as a justification for attempting to take their bigoted feelings about people who are different from themselves, and make their bigotry the law of the land.

How do we deal with the Christianists? Toe to toe on the theological level.

Every time they cite Leviticus 18:22:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

We should turn the other cheek with 1 Samuel 18:3:

“Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul”

and 1 Samuel 18:21 (KJV and most other translations are confused):

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain,"

giving the impression that David will be marrying one of Saul's two daughters. So let’s not use the old KJV or other mistranslations of this verse. The literal and accurate Darby gives us:

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be upon him. And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time."

The first time was with Saul's son Jonathan, the second with Saul's daughter Michal). That means David and Jonathan were married.

The American Standard version (ASV), also a reasonably good translation, differs from Darby in only two words:

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time."

John Nelson Darby was the leader of the Plymouth Brethren movement in the 1800s. He was extremely gifted in linguistics. Darby is reputed to be a very rich and accurate translation. By going to the available original language sources rather than translating from St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, (Douay-Rheims does the best job of that, but most non-Catholic Christianists think that the KJV was "authorized" by God rather than King James . . . ), Darby gets to the essence of what otherwise looks like a completely fumbled passage. After all, when homophobes do the translating, they're more likely to try to obscure the meaning of anything quite as powerful an example of same-sex marriage clearly stated in the Bible as the sacred covenant between David and Jonathan.

How does this relate to Leviticus 18:22? Simply put, at worst this verse from the "holiness code" relates only to a single kind of male-male sexual activity. Some theologians will also link this prohibition to the story of Sodom, and indicate that it relates only to the practice of anal rape, commonly used in the ancient Near East as a way to humiliate a defeated enemy by "using him as one would use a woman" (which has nothing to do with a loving gay relationship). Others would link it to a prohibition of sacramental religious relations with transgendered priestesses of Near East agricultural goddesses (Astarte, Ishtar, etc.), relating more to Caananite religion as the forbidden "competition" for the Hebrews at the time of Leviticus.

The Christianists and their erroneous understanding of Sacred Scripture can be challenged, and should be challenged, on their own theological turf. Too often LGBT people will turn away from Christianity, thinking that the Christianists are the bearers of the Good News. They are not - they pervert the Bible with their Un-Chriatian foul bigotry spawned by Satan. Unless they repent they will be numbered among the goats on the Day of Judgment, asking in their confused false righteousness:

"Lord, when saw we thee . . .a stranger, . . . and have not ministered to thee?

Then shall he answer them saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have not done it to one of these least, neither have ye done it to me.

And these shall go away into eternal punishment, and the righteous into life eternal."

- Mt. 25:44-46 (Darby)

This relates back to one of my favorite passages, Isaiah 56. I often will cite verses 3-5, but see 6-7:

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

- Isaiah 56:6-7 (KJV)

Strangers are not only those who are from foreign countries and cultures, but also those in our midst who are different by our natures or circumstances from the majority - whether it be based on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Real Christians embrace the wonderful diversity in God's creation, while Christianists, even the Pope, abhor it. Like the men of Sodom, their desire is to obliterate us, to humiliate us, to deny us human rights and common decency, solely because we are different, because we are "strangers," because we are aliens in our own native land and culture.