N.C. church sign unwittingly admits wickedness

Pastor Rondell Lance of the Center Pigeon Baptist Church of Canton, North Carolina (or whomever the church chose for the purpose of setting up their church sign), appears to have admitted the wickedness that was the basis for the church's blatant open support of North Carolina's anti-marriage Amendment One effort, which enshrines anti-gay bigotry into that state's constitution, making N.C. the last state in a now solidly wicked South to do so by a "popular" vote.

For anyone who has actually read the Genesis story about the actions and punishment of the Men of Sodom, the story is not a condemnation of homosexuality (a lying misinterpretation that is taught by Christianists ranging from this backwoods independent Baptist preacher Rondell Lance from his pulpit in the mountains of Western North Carolina, a few miles south of I-40 and not terribly far east of the possibly even more backwards State of Tennessee, all the way up to Pope Benedict XVI,spiritual leader of over a billion Roman Catholics (many of whom thankfully ignore him) from the papal throne at the Vatican in Rome).  It is about inhospitable intolerance for strangers and people who are different, by macho misogynistic people.  It's all pretty much clear from a reading of Genesis 19, unless it's a bizarro reading.

The right-wing conservative Christianist base of the Republican Party is truly inspired by the macho misogynistic wickedness and intolerance of their heroes, the Men of Sodom. Pastor Rondell Lance is perhaps the rare one who is willing to actually admit it on a church sign.

So, thanks to Pastor Rondell Lance and his church sign, we can understand that the exceedingly wicked Men of Sodom are the inspiration for the Republican War on LGBT people, because we are strangers in their midst, different from their cissexist and heterosexist selves. Because we are different from them, they hate, fear and despise us.

Bit it isn't just us - and it appears that this deep spiritual evil root of this right-wing conservative Christianist Republican politics - the inspiration of the exceeding wickedness of the Men of Sodom - is also responsible for so many of the deeply-held positions of the Republican Party, such as:

The Republican War on Women.  Needless to say, the Men of Sodom were macho misogynists.  Their whole rationale for wanting to show their disrespect for Lot's visitors had nothing to do with sexual orientation, and everything to do with the fact that they believed women were lesser creatures than men.  By extension, their intent to rape the strangers in their midst would, in their way of thinking, prove that the Men of Sodom were the real "he-men," and that the strangers, who would have been "used" in the same way that the Men of Sodom "used" their women, were debased and "less than women."  It almost goes without saying that the attitude of the womb-controllers in the Republican Party is modeled on the misogyny of the exceedingly wicked Men of Sodom.

The Republican War on Immigrants. Like Lot's visitors, immigrants come from somewhere else.  They are strangers in our midst.  Republicans want to treat them disrespectfully.  That is just like their spiritual ancestors, the exceedingly wicked Men of Sodom.

The Republican War on Islam. They're different, they worship what seems to Republicans to be a different god (A classic example of this is that of the thankfully now-retired U.S. Army general, William G. Boykin, a Christianist who ridiculed the faith of Muslims, in a 2003 NBC interview, stating about an Islamic terrorist he hunted down in Mogadishu, "He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.' Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."  For that matter, during the Republican primaries, one of the reasons many Christianist GOPers were looking to "Anyone But Romney" was because his LDS faith marks him as being different, a stranger in our midst (and they were even willing to flock to Rick Santorum, A Roman Catholic who, just a few decades ago, would have been viewed as a stranger as well).  Again, the Republican position is just like that of their spiritual inspiration, the exceedingly wicked Men of Sodom.

The Republican War on Racial Minorities.  People who are not white are different, strangers in the midst of the community.  This also passes the "inspired by the Men of Sodom" sniff test.

I could go on.

The thing is, that church sign in Canton, North Carolina says in truth what the inspiration of the Republican Christianist forces of Darkness really is - a deeply held distrust, revulsion and hatred for people who are different from themselves.

The exceedingly wicked Pastor Rondell Lance, with his bizarro Orwellian-Newspeaky brand of Christianist theology, likely does not realize the truth of the admission of wickedness on his church sign.  After all, he mistakenly believes that gay men are the ones who are like the Men of Sodom, rather than being more like Lot's visitors, the strangers in the midst of the community because they are different from the heterosexist majority of voters.

But I know what the true meaning of the sign is.  And now, if you've actually read this whole blog post, so do you, if you didn't know it already.

Spread the word.

Eye of Newt. . .

Since Newt Gingrich seems to have become the latest to become the darling of the ABM (Anyone But Mitt) movement among the know-nothing Tea Party and “Evangelical” Christianist Republicans, let’s take an opportunity to skewer one of his latest platform statements – his response to the call by the WAcKO Iowa group, The FAMiLY LEADER

NEwT: To Bob Vander Plaats and the Executive Board of The FAMiLY LEADER: I appreciate the opportunity to affirm my strong support of the mission of the FAMiLY LEADER by solemnly vowing to defend and strengthen the family through the following actions I would take as President of the United States.

Defending Marriage.  As President, I will vigorously enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted under my leadership as Speaker of the House, and ensure compliance with its provisions, especially in the military. 

JP: The fact that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is really an assault on states’ rights, an assault on marriage, and actually does nothing to preserve and strengthen marriage, is lost on Newt.  DOMA is unconstitutional and likely to be held to be unconstitutional by the courts.

NEwT: I will also aggressively defend the constitutionality of DOMA in federal and state courts. 

JP: A waste of taxpayer dollars, to defend a law that should so obviously a violation of the Constitution to anyone who claims to be a constitutional scholar.

NEwT: I will support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification. 

JP: it’s so rare that constitutional amendments to take away rights are introduced.  The last one ushered in Prohibition. The constitutional Amendment we need to see is a reintroduction of the Equal Rights Amendment.  It is about time.

NEwT: I will also oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman.  I will support all efforts to reform promptly any uneconomic or anti-marriage aspects of welfare and tax policy.  I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.

JP: Given Newt’s personal history, “personal fidelity to his spouse” in that “one man/one woman for life” scenario can only mean returning to the first wife he previously abandoned while whoring around with the second, and the third  he whored around with while still married to the second, and abandoning the later whores. But he is a whore himself who deserves the serial polygamy he *really* favors. His “one man and one woman”pledge should mean just that – not just serial polygamy, or “one man and one woman at a time.”  Oh, but wait, to his adopted Roman Catholic Church, Newt gets a pass, since neither of his earlier marriages are recognized by the pedophile-pandering priests (or any of the other more decent priests) in his Church as having been valid.  But don’t all these “Evangelical” Christianist types look at Roman Catholics as “papists” in sort of the same way they see Mormons as pagan idolators? Wouldn't that be especially true since he used to be a white Southern Baptist good ol' boy, and he actually converted to the papist cause?  Aren; these the same sort of people who objected to Al Smith and Jack Kennedy?

NEwT: Defending the Unborn.  I believe that life begins at conception. 

JP: He “believes.”  This is important. I will note that this belief that “life begins at conception” has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of when that life is entitled to be considered a human being.  Anyone who professes to be a bible-believing Christian and who does not accept the idea that the soul is intimately connected with *breathing* (i.e., the span of a human person’s ensoulment runs from first breath to last only.  Even under the English Common Law, which was rather bible-based in many ways, a baby that was born, but did not take a single breath, was not deemed to be a person, but was called stillborn.  No inheritance or inheritance rights would pass through such a non-entity. But Newt is one of those people who like the idea of granting full personhood status to inanimate corporations.  He would also likely consider the construction plans to be a home, and pans on regulating chicken eggs as if they were fully formed and once-breathing chickens.  But his "belief"is consistent with the kind of thing the Pope wants to impose on all Americans.

NEwT: On day one of my administration, I will sign an executive order reinstating Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions overseas. 

JP: That’s right, Newt “believes” and only his beliefs count. How he can say this, and then claim to defend “Religious Liberty” two points down from this one, is a conflicted position that can only be taken seriously by people who do not have the capacity to understand the fact that these principles are in opposition - such as anyone who might have signed Robbie George and Chuck Colson's bombshell of a Manhattan Declaration.    So Newt wants to take way from the religious freedom of women.  For Newt, women are a necessary inconvenience, and as an originalist on the Constitution, he believes that women should not be counted, and that African Americans should be returned to a state of involuntary servitude. (See his position on appointing "Originalist" judges!)

NEwT: I will also work with Congress to repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood so that no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund abortions but rather transfer the money so it is used to promote adoption and other pro-family policies, and enact legislation that provides greater protections for the unborn.

JP: Even the English Common Law recognized that “the unborn” are not people.  So protecting the “unborn” means taking away the rights of women who are already born.  And so little of Planned Parenthoods budget goes to abortion,  Most of it goes to other reproductive health services.  I am sure that Newt would rather give taxpayer money to "religious" groups that discriminate against people they don't like.

NEwT: Defending Religious Liberty.  As President, I will vigorously defend the First Amendment’s rights of religious liberty and freedom of speech against anyone who would try to stifle the free expression of believers. 

JP: Newt wants to impose his religion in everyone, and then comes out with this? This is inconsistent with his policy on women’s reproductive rights. There are women who share my religious belief that is bible based, and consistent with the common law understanding that we are only human beings between first breath and last breath.  Our souls are intimately bound up in our breath – and literally, “spirit” and “breath” are the same thing.  So, why doesn't our religion count? Is it because Newt only believes that Religious freedom is for people who agree with him?

NEwT: I will also promote legislation that protects the right to conscience for healthcare workers so they are not compelled to perform abortions and other procedures that violate their religious teachings.

JP: how about the religious liberty of healthcare workers whose religious beliefs allow them to participate in assisting women in their reproductive health care.  I think that people who have a religious objection to performing their jobs should find another line of work.

NEwT: Defending Against Debt.  As President, I will undertake vigorous policies to maximize capital investment and job creation, along with common sense entitlement reforms, to dramatically turn around the nation’s fiscal situation. 

JP: This is meaningless drivel.  Newt has every intention to line the pockets of fat cats at the expense of the people.  He already intends to scuttle child labor laws.

NEwT: Building upon the same principles I championed during my four years as Speaker, when we reduced the national debt by over $400 billion and dramatically reduced the national debt as a percentage of the GDP, we will reduce the enormous burden upon American families of the public debt and unfunded liabilities.

JP: Newt is infamous for being the huckster who designed the program one can only call “The Contract On America” - The only way to fairly accomplish the goal he seeks  is to stop the insane defense spending and end the wars.  It is a well-known principle since the Vietnam war that America  can’t afford to have Guns *AND* Butter. 

NEwT: Defending the Right of the People to Rule Themselves.  Today, as federal courts have intervened in sectors of American life never before imaginable, including the intervention in the definition of marriage as well as when unborn life can be protected under the Constitution, the public has increasingly come to view them as an usurpative device for unelected rulers. 

JP: The real activist judges have ruled that fictitious corporate “people” have the same rights as human beings – the next step is to give corporate entities perpetual voting rights.  And the slippery slope will be to give Republican-built robots voting rights (something that they apparently have tried clandestinely in Ohio, with the apparent voting rights of voting machines there).  The courts actually exist to protect the *individual* people against the tyranny of the majority – a job they don’t do terribly well because of conservative activism from the bench

NEwT: This abuse of power and loss of public confidence amounts to a constitutional crisis.  I believe the executive and legislative branches each have an independent responsibility to interpret the Constitution,

JP: That is true, within their parameters, but the SCOTUS has the final say on constitutionality.

NEwT: and in those rare circumstances when they believe the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have engaged in a serious constitutional error, they can choose among an array of constitutional powers to check and balance the courts. 

JP: The “check and balance” on the SCOTUS is the constitutional amendment process.  Is Newt an ass, or what?  Since he is a self-proclaimed constitutional scholar, doesn’t he actually know this?

NEwT:  As President, I will nominate for federal judgeships, including justices of the Supreme Court, only those individuals who are committed to an originalist understanding of the Constitution.  Judges with an originalist understanding will subordinate themselves to the meaning of the Constitution as it was intended by the framers, and not substitute their own judgments about its meaning. 

JP: Originalism is an error.  Times have changed, and I expect a SCOTUS and federal judges who are more civilized than their predecessors, and more civilized than the Founders, who believed in slavery, and in the oppression of women.  Newt is saying tight here that he wants to roll back the interpretation of the Constitution to a point prior to 1870.

NEwT: The inherent judicial self-restraint that comes from an originalist approach to the Constitution offers the best long-term assurance that federal judges will not exceed their powers and trample on individual liberties.  I will also work with Congress to use the Constitutional means available to reassert the right of the elected branches of government to defend their understanding of the meaning of the Constitution, including limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide on certain issues, when they believe the federal courts have engaged in a serious constitutional error.

JP:  I think that Newt treads on dangerous ground here.  While the courts have traditionally been a drag on progressivism, on occasion they lurch toward civilization.  Newt would kill that, and insure that the tyranny of the majority can crush individual rights for people who don’t fit into the majority.  Newt is a dangerous demagogue, and a threat to the republic, as dangerous as a mad dog I the streets.  If he were to be elected to the presidency, I would fear for the survival of the nation.  Gingrich, the Gingrinch, would steal the childhood from children, freedom from women, and human rights from LGBT people.

NEwT: Sincerely, Newt Gingrich

JP: Newt is *anything* but sincere.  He is a liar, a cheater, an adulterer, a miserable excuse for a human being, and he has a problem with the meaning of words.  His answer to charges of influence peddling was that he was not a “lobbyist.”  This fuzzy definition thing  is exactly the same kind of thing that he ha the House impeach Bill Clinton for exhibiting  – Clinton was technically truthful when he said that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman.”  Because what Clinton meant by “sexual relations” was limited to a particular act that he didn’t actually perform.  So Gingrich technically tells the truth when he says he was not a “lobbyist” but there are other aspects of influence peddling that he had his hand in once he was gone from Congress.  Newt’s hands are stained and unclean. None of the Republican candidates for President are qualified for the job, but Newt has shown himself to be less qualified than Michele Bachmann.  He is already committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” under his own definition of the term, well before getting the nomination, much less taking office.

Connubial rights the last step toward a fully gender-neutral domestic relations law

Connubium, which is the Latin term for the right to marry, is a right that has now completed in New York the gender-neutralizing of the state's domestic relations law.

Marriage is a right, and certainly not an obligation. The bundle of rights, responsibiliities, privileges and obligations that come with the issuance of a license and the performance of a ceremony in front of witnesses is not mandatory.

There was a time when there was no hope for connubial rights for same sex couples, and that went deeper than the different terms for spouses, "husband" and "wife."

Years ago, the law provided a different bundle to the male party than that provided to the female party, and if we go far enough back we see that the woman's bundle was often rather less, and then sometimes some aspects of the bundle were preferential to the woman. The idea was that there was a certain legal complementarity that could not heve existed under the law with two wives, or two husbands.

In those days, before the rest of the domestic relations law was gender-neutralized, there was not a hope for legal marriage in the L&G community - and as with the Fox in Aesop's fable involving the grapes that were so tempting but just out of reach, the community insulated itself with the idea that such unequal rights as were offered to the heterosexual parties to marriage only confirmed and expanded patriarchal dominance, or were in some other way just sour and inedible.

In the past couple of decades, the state legislature has gone so far as to smoothe out all the differences in the bundles of rights afforded the parties to marriage, until there was only one right that had not been made gender-neutral, and that was the connubium.

And now it has, at least in New York, five other states and several countries.

There are those for whom the grapes are still sour and will always be that way - and they still have the right to not get married.

For others, the right to form a family with the mutual rights and obligations appurtenant thereto, is a right that they would like to exercise - and having the right is a good thing.

Archbishop Dolan still disagrees.  Yesterday, after celebrating mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan, which is no longer on the route of the annual LGBT Pride March since New York City shortened the diustance for the sort of parade that requires street closures, he continued to assert that "marriage is between a man and a woman."  He has only 20-something days left for that to be true in New York.  After that, he will be able to truthfully say that "opposite sex marriage is between a man and a woman" or "the Sacrament of Matrimony in the Roman Catholic Church may be celebrated only by a man with a woman."  The connubium of marriage has been legislated to be gender-neutral in New York - and perhaps it would be wise for the archbishop to consider that there is a difference between civil marriage and the Roman Church's sacrament.  (But of course he can't do that.  As nice a man as he is on a personal level, he has no choice but to stick with the party line as ordered by the irrational minds that control the Vatican.  I am sure that Dolan is smart enough to know how silly he sounds, but that cardinal's hat is within reach, and this is a boat he would rather not rock. )

It's interesting to note that the Archbishop's position seems to be consistent with that of those in the L&G community who oppose marriage as a patriarchal institution, despite all the gender-neutralizing that has been done to the rest of the domestic relations law before the connubium was also made gender-neutral.

Neither Dolan nor the L&G folks who philosophically oppose marriage rights on a gender neutral basis seem to realize that the law has done all that smoothing-out of the respective rights of the parties to marriage, a smoothing of the way to last week's historic passage of marriage equality in New York.  Connubium is (or shortly will be) a gender-neutral right in New York.

The New York compromise should be a blueprint for other states to follow - even though the conservative anti-marriage churches are not happy with the extension of the connubium, and they are not openly celebrating the protections for those religious organizations that do not wish to celebrate marriages or host wedding receptions, I am sure that they are secretly pleased with the latter.

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.