A quick look at Media Matters reveals these lovely little tidbits from rightist nutcases.

[James] DOBSON: I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South, and they did great wrong to civil rights and to morality. And now we have black-robed men, and that’s what you’re talking about. [MediaMatters.org]

I notice that conservatives only dislike the judicial branch when it rules against them. Isn’t this knee-jerk and childish? More to the point, why in the world have noted public figures (including Congressmen) ranted and raved about the lack of accountability in the judicial system? Didn’t they read any textbooks? That’s the point of the judiciary: they aren’t beholden to the public; they’re independent arbiters. Why else would Supreme Court justices serve life terms?

I should also point out that the KKK was composed largely of religious people, especially Protestants, and while I know that Dobson himself doesn’t represent racial bigotry, he should choose his allusions more carefully.

[Laura] INGRAHAM: We have John Bolton, who is a real reformer. He’s almost a lifetime public servant, a scholar, an intellectual. He’s a firm minded man, and he is brilliant. And for John Kerry and for Joe Biden and to Barbara Boxer, with all those other issues that the Democrats can be grabbing onto, to actually be on the side of, what, Kim Jong Il and the European intellectuals who are attacking John Bolton, it makes no sense. [MediaMatters.org]

Uhhhh… what? I was a vegetarian for seven years. Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that make me on Hitler’s side? Nevermind that John Bolton, even if he is a scholar and intellectual (Colmes disagrees), is unfit for role as U.N. ambassador for reasons that Ingraham naturally doesn’t mention, for instance, saying that the U.N. “doesn’t exist.” This is a no-brainer, folks.

[William] DONOHUE: Look, look, there’s a new strain of HIV available in New York City. It’s because of gay men. All right? All the talk about condoms —

RACHEL MADDOW (guest and Air America radio host): Or virology.

DONOHUE: The fact of the matter is it’s due to the behavioral recklessness of gay men in New York City, that they’re endangering the lives of everybody. So, you want to talk about the Catholic Church intervening in other people’s lives? The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done — for contaminating the blood supply in New York City and around the country. And I find it amazing that, when people are acting so morally delinquent, that they’re asking for more rights at the same time.

It seems to me that gay people in this country should apologize to the rest of the people, the way the pope has apologized to other people, and practice sexual reticence. Practice restraint, and you won’t have the problem. It’s entirely a result of behavioral recklessness that we have this disease [HIV/AIDS]. And it’s a politically correct disease, isn’t it? [MediaMatters.org]

Contaminating the blood supply? Why hasn’t the straight community apologizes to gays for belittling, abusing, marginalizing, and even killing them?

Remember, Donohue is head of the Catholic League. Catholics. You know, the ones who are telling Africans in countries with AIDS epidemics that condoms are sinful.

[Bill] O’REILLY: So this is just the beginning, ladies and gentlemen, of this crazy gay marriage insanity — is gonna lead to all kinds of things like this. Courts are gonna be clogged. Every nut in the world is gonna — somebody’s gonna come in and say, “I wanna marry the goat.” You’ll see it; I guarantee you’ll see it. [MediaMatters.org]

In Bill’s defense, he’s not a total bigot. Still, I hate it when moderate requests for liberty are viewed through the filter of some conspiratorial domino effect. Asking for equal legal rights (“marriage” or no) for homosexuals is not an endorsement of sex with children (NAMBLA is still not exactly a force majeure in Washington), sex with animals, or any irresponsible sexuality. Conservatives paint homosexuals as nothing but swingers and degenerates, and I’m sure there’s at least as high a percentage as in the heteresexual populace, but the gays who are trying to get married are doing so in search of the very domestic values that conservatives claim they are destroying: a stable family, a monogamous relationship, &c.

§580 · April 19, 2005 · Tags: , ·

10 Comments to “How can you tell when a conservative is lying?”

  1. chris says:

    just a question, but how can there possibly be an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage as many of the people listed above would support? the last time i checked marriage was a religious ritual, and the last time i checked there still was a seperation of church and state in this country for good reason. and, more to the point, what right do they have to view love between two people as less than between two other people, just because they are the same sex?

  2. Jeff says:

    Marriage, in the eyes of our government, is not religious, as far as I know. It’s essentially a contract between two individuals.

  3. Ben says:

    All valid questions. The first is that conservatives trying to pass the constitutional amendment don’t speak of it in terms of religion, but couched in rhetoric of “preserving traditional marriage.” It’s a sneaky segue from the religious institution to the secular protections. By blurring the lines, and making Americans think that marriage as granted by the court system is in some way dependent upon or tied to the religious blessing of the union. And secondly, they denegrate homosexual love for one of three reasons:

    Their religion tells them to (Lev. 18:22). This is the most prevalent. For some odd reason, they don’t, however, make any objection to my wearing a cotton-polyester blend, eating multigrain bread, or animal husbandry (19:19). Also, if I sleep with someone else’s slave, all I need to do is sacrifice a ram (19:20). I should also point out that I’m sinful and wicked because I trimmed my beard today (19:27).

    They are for some reason afraid of homosexuals. Most people can’t fathom same-sex attraction, so they must be strange and wicked creatures.

    They believe that homosexuality is directly equatable with promiscuity (it’s not: we’re talking about monogamous marriage here, for goodness’ sake!) and pædophilia (it’s not: such an illness is no more prevalent among homosexuals than hetereosexuals).

  4. Andy says:

    Helios,
    there is ‘ceremonial’ law and ‘moral’ law. Ceremonial law deals with cleansing sacrifices, clean and unclean animals, et al, and are no longer necessary because of the cleansing sacrifice of Christ. Moral law is permanent. Moral law does not go out the window because of Christ’s death.

    This new covenant is outlined, among other places, in Acts, in the vision on the rooftop. So all the small legalistic details are not the paradox you make them out to be, and are not evidence that Christians just ignore certain things of convenience.

    You don’t have to believe that, but I KNOW you are aware of it.

  5. chris says:

    The point I was trying to get across is that marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental one, and therefore, cannot be regulated by an amendment to the constitution. The only thing the government could possibly look at is a civil union.

  6. Ben says:

    No, Andy, you’re quite right, but there’s a tendency to quote the Old Testament whenever it’s handy while still resigning it to obsolescence when it isn’t. The question really is: I see bits of purported moral law and bits of purported ceremonial law intertwined all throughout Leviticus. At what point were they labelled as such, and who did it?

  7. Brady says:

    Why do the restrictions on sodomy (read: any non-procreative sexual activity) have to fall under moral law? It seems to me that the Ten Commandments are laws of morality. The levitical laws seem to be either based off of tradition (it has always been done this way), logic (it makes sense for them, as a small agrarian society, to do things that way), or arbitrary (it really makes no sense, but since God said it, there you have it). The restriction on sodomy was traditional and logical (a small society living in desert conditions needs to keep pumping out babies to survive), or it was arbitrary, but it is not a moral law. Consentual love between two people of the same sex is not murder, theft, infidelity, or worship of false idols.

    I find it funny that Christ is cited as the reason that it’s ok to no longer follow ritual law. Wasn’t it Jesus who said, “I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it?” Jesus was a devout Jew who upheld the Torah. The rare instances of deviation from Jewish law in the Gospels were either performed by the disciples, or were common subjects of interpretation in first cenury Judaism. Jesus was not against Judaism; he interpreted the Torah like every other good Jewish male did.

    If the world was really following the beliefs of Jesus, we’d all still be Jewish. But instead, the ritual laws were dropped by later Christians such as Paul to make Christianity more appealing to Gentiles. So I think that many Christians do ignore certain things out of convenience. For example, that Jesus was Jewish, and did not intend to be anything other than Jewish. That Paul says women should wear veils and be silent in church. That there is evidence (although by no means conclusive) that King David was bisexual.

    Christians says homosexuality is wrong because it isn’t natural, but neither is driving a car. They say its wrong because it doesn’t produce children; but neither does oral sex or sex with a condom. They say its wrong because the Bible says so, but the Bible says that women should be silent in church, which I don’t see happening in today’s churches. This, mind you, is same Bible which once was used to justify slavery.

    Christianity cannot afford to continue to restrict homosexuality, or the rest of the world will leave it behind. And hey, that’s exactly the type of awful, nightmarish world that will signal the end times, so maybe that’s a good thing.

  8. Jeff says:

    “The point I was trying to get across is that marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental one, and therefore, cannot be regulated by an amendment to the constitution. The only thing the government could possibly look at is a civil union.”

    As I said before, it is a government institution. Each state issues marriage licenses based on certain requirements and a legal marriage license entitles you to certain benefits, like a spouse’s social security checks when he or she dies, custody rights to children, tax exemptions, etc.

  9. Andy says:

    Brady, you make some good points, and some that are way off.

    Firstly, Jesus went contrary to Jewish law a number of times. Healing on the Sabbath, for example. And, oh yeah, instituting a new tradition to replace the Passover. That kind of went against Judaism.

    Secondly, there is a purpose beyond stimulation to driving a car; Comparing homosexual sex to oral sex or condom-ized sex is not really a valid defense, because many still hold to the belief that *all three* are wrong. And as for the “silent women” and pro-slavery arguments, the language is either open to interpretation or misunderstood. But there’s really no misinterpreting the words “thou shalt not” and “abomination to the Lord.”

    Again… believe, don’t, whatever. But that’s what’s there.

  10. Brady says:

    The Pharisees got on Jesus’ case because they felt he was in violation of the edict against working on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, “work” is something that’s very hard to define. Thus, it was ENTIRELY NORMAL for Jews to have arguments about what constituted work. The Pharisees felt that healing on the Sabbath was work that should be restricted; Jesus felt that healing was an acceptable thing to do on the Sabbath. This does NOT mean he was in violation of Jewish law. The Pharisees were a particularly strict sect of Judaism (making up at most 1% of all Jews), so Jesus would have actually been in the majority in his views. Also, Jesus never replaced Passover with anything. The Last Supper was a traditional Passover seder, with an extra bit of symbolism added to it. Jesus died a traditional Jew, while he was celebrating a traditional Jewish holiday.

    Is there a purpose to watching TV or going to the movies or sitting in an vibrating armchair other than pleasure? Also, I think it’s a bit unfair to say homosexual love is purely about pleasure. Maybe they want the same deep connection and intimacy with another person that heteros do.

    Also, I think the oral sex/contraceptive sex is a very valid argument. After all, you believe that they are ok, and you still consider yourself a Christian. In Genesis, Onan always spilled his semen on the ground, which “was wicked in the LORD’s sight.” (38:10) What you would probably tell me is that God was really upset because Onan was doing it to try and cheat his brother out of his inheritance. But there are millions of Catholics who would argue otherwise with you. Are they not Christian, or are you not? Can you both be?

    So why is it not Christian to believe that homosexuality is just as much a part of God’s design as heterosexuality? Homosexuals have been around for a long time. You might say that so has man’s sinful nature, but we have yet to truly determine why this is a sin. After all, the idea that God hates them queers comes primarily from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah we know from Genesis 13 that the men of Sodom were “wicked and sinning greatly against the LORD.” (13) Couldn’t that just mean that they were assholes? I mean, if the entire city were gay, the city wouldn’t have lasted very long. So God sends two angels who are disguised as humans to decide whether the place was worth destroying or not. The men of the city want to have sex with the angels, so they condemn the city and destroy it. Was this because the people of Sodom were gay, or was it because they tried to rape Lot’s guests? After all, Lot is willing to protect his guests at any costs, including letting his daughters be raped. “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” (Genesis 19:8) Was homosexuality the real crime here, or was it attempted rape and violation of hospitality rules? Is someone less Christian if they interpret it one way, as opposed to the other?

    If Christians can allow birth control and remain Christian, they can allow homosexuality and remain Christian.

Leave a Reply