God's Own Party Run Amok

South Carolina is one of those bizarre Bible-belt states. Normally it is as bat-shit crazy as Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi or Texas but it can get nutty. Of course, this is most likely the case with God's Own Party (GOP).

The Lauren County Republican Party has decided to try to get candidates to sign morality pledges straight out of some back-woods tent revival, absent the handling of rattlesnakes. Their pledge was adopted unanimously by the local Republicans who, given the demographics of the country,probably couldn't unanimously spell unanimously. The county has a median family income well below normal. Unemployment is officially over 11%, and 1 in 7 are officially living below the poverty line. Next consider the ability of locals to complete high school. Compare this graph of US dropout rates to the rates in Laurens County.

If we look at the rates for the same years we find that the local yokels in Laurens are far more unlikely to be graduate high school—which means prime hunting territory for the GOP, maybe. You will see that almost 37% of Laurens students, who should have graduated during the 1994-1996 period, dropped out of high school instead. That is just over three times the national average during the same period. One out of ten white males, ages 25-34, didn't even go to high school and have less than a 9th grade education.

Of those who did complete high school 42.5% took the Scholastic Aptitude Test in the year 2000. The average Verbal score in Laurens was 466; it was 505 for the United States as a whole for the same year. The average Math score in Laurens was 436 while the US averaged 514. The county is poorer than the average county in South Carolina and has a higher suicide rate than the state. More people die in the county than are born there and two-thirds of "adherents" there are Southern Baptists.

And, apparently, the local GOP has confused their political party with a Southern Baptist Church. The local GOP executive committee, or 13 of the 20 members, held a secret meeting which lasted 30 minutes and then unanimously adopted a resolution which stated what kind of Republicans they felt should be allowed to run for office. They said that they didn't think any candidate should be allowed who was contrary to the state Republican Party platform. But here is how the local newspaper listed the qualifications "consistent" with the Republican Party:

You must favor, and live up to, abstinence before marriage.

You must be faithful to your spouse. Your spouse cannot be a person of the same gender, and you are not allowed to favor any government action that would ALLOW for civil unions of people of the same sex.

You cannot now, from the moment you sign this pledge, look at pornography.

The local paper was surprised and contacted the State Chairman of the Republican Party, Chad Connelly. Connelly seemed supportive. He said that technically the party can't stop someone from running for office but that the GOP has to be able to vet candidates to see if they "recognize our core values." Core values? The County resolution says that all candidates must present themselves to the Holy Inquisition for questioning, that is a committee from the GOP, "within 24 hours of the closing of the file period," to see if the candidate is qualified. Connelly said this is important "now that the Republican Party is in such a dominant position in state politics and government."

Apparently the purported, though rarely lived-up-to, morality lectures of your typical fundamentalist sect is now the core values of the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater warned what would happen if these religious kooks and preachers got their hands on the Republican Party, but he own party ignored him.

Here is a county, dominated by Republicans, that can't even educate its own young people up to the pathetic levels of the rest of the country. When your school system is below average, and when you consider how bad is the actual average, then you have a real problem on your hands. But Republicans are pushing abstinence not education, and theology not science. These are people who think there is only one book, the Bible, and just as long as you can figure out what the verses say, you are educated. But, at least you would think they would worry about the poverty rates and the high-than-average unemployment in the country.

No, what inspires this Republican Party outfit isn't the horrible way they run their schools or the problems endemic in their county—what worries them is what someone might look at in their free time or whether or not they love someone of the same gender.

This is party that has their head so far stuck up their own ass, that the mistake the shit they are looking at for brains.

Sure, they might get the so-typical fake Southern Baptist wannbe politician who parades his high-haired clueless wife and butt-ugly children before them. Then he'll sneak out to the local rest stop to expose himself to some undercover cop. He'll swear by the Bible that he doesn't look at porn but will beat his children abusively, and later blame the fondling on too much booze. They will promise they don't love another man, and then for good measure try to prove how much they hate immigrants, gays and Muslims. They'll push their moralistic candidates who will get caught in some scandal.

But that's okay. He'll stand in the pulpit with Hollywood-style tears flowing down his cheeks. His numb-faced wife, clutching her Bible will stand silently and dutifully beside him, one step back, with her confused looking children at her side while he cries out, "I have sinned." He'll beg for forgiveness and the congregation, or is it the party, will yell, "Thank you, Jesus," and wave their hands in the air so God can see them. Everybody will have a good cry, pray a little, sing a little, and then return to their poverty stricken homes while the repentant sinner calls his secretary to tell her which hotel he rented for them.

Should Scientists Be Forced To State Their Theology?

You would think that what is science, and what is religion, are two very different things. Facts are facts and faith is faith and, in my view, rarely do the two coincide. Nor should they. Gravity is true whether the scientist discussing it is a Jew, a Muslim, a rationalist, a Jehovah's Witness or a born-again revivalist.

But a Republican in New Hampshire wants to pass law requiring all scientists discussing evolution to reveal their political viewpoints and their personal beliefs about supernatural hocus-pocus and the like. Actually, the bill doesn't go quite that far. It only demands that a scientist state his religious views if he is an atheist.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Jerry Bergen says that it would:

"Require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism."

That is pretty much the whole legislation.

There are a couple of things I immediately notice about this badly crafted piece of theocratic insanity. First, evolution is always taught as a theory. Apparently the legislator, like many fundamentalists, is unaware of what the term "theory" means in science. In science a theory is "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principles or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." Science assumes that a theory is the best explanation for something that has not been disproved. In science the assumption is that all theories are potentially false, but that a theory is regarded as true if it the best explanation to stand up to scrutiny to date. In other words, there are lots of facts to back up the theory, and there is no good reason yet presented to dismiss it.

But the public tends to use theory very different. "I have a theory about 9/11," is not a statement of the best set of principles that explains 9/11. What most people mean, when they use "theory" is opinion. To them, every opinion is a theory. But in science every opinion is not a theory.

Now many of the less educated on the Religious Right tend to be confused between the two. They assume that if evolution is a "theory" then it is like an opinion, a statement of personal preferences. Thus the witch doctor who claims an illness is the result of a curse is put on par with a doctor who found the virus causing the problem. Hence, their creationist nonsense is put on par with the science of evolution.

What this Republican is doing is trying to force the schools to teach the idea that evolution is merely an opinion, that is using theory in the common, unscientific sense of the word.

But, while many see this bill as aimed at the scientists who explain evolution, it seems more broadly written than that. Broad legislation is almost always bad legislation. This law would demand the "theorist" to state his political and ideological views and whether or not he is an atheist. But who is the theorist? Is it the author of a science book? If so, how do they force scientists, most of whom will not be living in New Hampshire, to submit to a state mandated Inquisition regarding their beliefs?

Who will determine what the theorists really believes? Would theorists have to report all changes in their beliefs every time they change their mind? I just don't see how this bill could possibly be enforced against scientists.

But, I do see the bill as being broader than that. Wouldn't the theorist also include the teacher doing the theorizing in class? I think so. This would do something we haven't done in a long time—force every teacher to publicly reveal their beliefs on politics, ideology, and god. And what do you think will happen to the teachers who would be forced to reveal they are atheists? If you don't think the fundamentalist fanatics would demand a lynching then you are mistaken.

If a teacher voluntarily tells their students they are atheists the Religious Right routinely demands the teacher be fired. They march on school board meetings, petition, shriek loudly, wail shrilly, and whine about the mere presence of a non-fundamentalist is a violation of their religious freedom. So, atheist teachers who reveal their rational thoughts on the topic, are subject to all sorts of harassment from the fanatics. Now, they appear to want to force each atheist to out himself if he or she is to teach evolution. I'm sorry but this is an invitation to a witch burning.

Of course, none of this is relevant to whether the scientific theory in question is a valid one or not. Germ theory is the most plausible explanation regardless of the beliefs of the theorist. And, whether the Jesus-addled Republicans like it or not, evolution is the most plausible explanation for how life as we know it came to be. And no witch hunt for atheists is going to disprove the theory of evolution, and without that, it will still remain the most logical, scientific explanation.

Be it demons causing disease, or creationism, those are not scientific theories. They confuse opinion with theory.

More importantly, their faith statements can not be theories. The hallmark of a scientific theory is that it can be disproved. But their faith statements are outside science. The idea that there is a god somewhere is not something the scientist can disprove. This is why logic puts the burden of proof, not upon the denier, but upon the person making the affirmative assertion. If the creationist kooks want to replace evolutionary theory with faith-based assertions, they have first show why evolution is deficient and why their faith-based claims are a better explanation. They don't do that. Instead they want to pass laws to force people to publicly disclose their private beliefs.

By the way, if this law were to be enacted, ask yourself what kind of powers a government would need in order to enforce it. What you will realize is that this is not a law that "small government" people would enact. It is Big Brother at work.

Who Would Jesus Assault?

Some religious right folks in Mississippi started a group they called The Savior Unit. They call themselves a "tactical search team that is faith based. Our purpose is to promote Christ." They say they detain "offenders who are danger to society." I'm not sure how they define offenders, but I would guess rather broadly.

The Savior Unit came to the attention of police who got a call about a home invasion. Apparently these "faith based" thugs, dressing in military outfits and bullet-proof vests smashed in the door of a home and dragged out three people for a beating, including a 70-year-old man. After promoting Christ by assaulting people the police caught them and prevented them from further witnessing in said manner, which no doubt some Christian group will say is violating their religious freedom.

The Savior Unit was primarily made up of adolescent males who would retreat to the woods to learn about guns and God.

The leader of this para-military religion band of kooks was 32-year-old Michael Schaffran. Like so many on the religious Right, Schaffran seeks to protect society from people like himself. If they were out to get "offenders who are a danger to society" they might take notice that Schaffran has felony convictions for theft, forgery and aggravated assault. Yes, who would Jesus assault?

Schaffran's mother claims her son "was keeping them [the other paramilitary members] out of trouble, on a good path," and mentioned how he took one of the other invaders to church as evidence.

The mother, in what is clearly a faith-based claim, said her son heard screaming and went to rescue a woman. Odd that he just happened to be in a bullet-proof vest when walking innocently by this house. Odder still is that the woman claims they grabbed her and forced her to the ground. And even odder yet is that the two Savior Unit members ran for the woods, their tails between their legs, when the police arrived. Heroes usually don't flee. But, the virtue of faith is believing something in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

Sadly, the religious Right has a tendency to want to use force to save people who don't think they need saving, except perhaps from the religious Right.

Why You Shouldn't Donate to the Salvation Army—Ever

With Thanksgiving days away, you know that means the Christmas lights will be out. And with them will be the bell ringers and their Salvation Army kettles. But libertarians and liberals may well wish to keep their change to themselves. Even conservatives should think twice. The Salvation Army is not exactly a charity, as many people assume. It is a religious sect, and a fundamentalist one at that. It is part of the Religious Right and it has an agenda like they do.

Like other fundamentalists they think abortion should be outlawed. They write: “The Salvation Army deplores society’s ready acceptance of abortion, which reflects insufficient concern for vulnerable persons, including the unborn.” Get that? The “unborn” are persons. That is in line with the “personhood” campaign to define every fetus as legally a person. Similarly you can count them out when it comes to defending the rights of individuals to terminate their own lives in the face of unbearable pain and misery. They say: “The Salvation Army believes that euthanasia and assisted suicide undermine human dignity and are morally wrong regardless of age or disability.” Yep, I sure would feel more dignified, if my mind was gone, and I was bedridden, lying in my own urine and feces while suffering pain—instead of being able to choose to terminate my life before that happens.

On alcohol and drugs they don’t want legalization or harm reduction strategies. As they note there are “both spiritual and temporal dangers inherent in the use of alcoholic beverages” and the church “believes total abstinence to be the only certain guarantee against overindulgence and the evils attendant on addiction.” They also believe there is a “direct connection between the incidence of addiction and the easy availability of alcoholic beverages and the increasing social acceptance of their consumption.”

No gambling either, they say that “engages its participants and promoters in an exercise of greed contrary to biblical moral teaching.” “We believe gambling is wrong, regardless of any perceived benefit of entertainment, charity, or personal gain, even when its destructive influences may not be seen on an individual basis.”

How about gay people? Well, they try to sound enlightened by saying that “same-sex orientation” is not blameworthy but “requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural authority.” If they stopped at “individual responsibility” there would be no problem. Instead they toss in the Bible and then say this means homosexuals “are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life.” Sure, celibacy, that worked so well with Catholic priests, didn’t it. Thus they oppose marriage rights for gay couples because “There is no scriptural support for same-sex marriage as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.” I would note there is also no “scriptural support for cars as an equal to, or as an alternative to, riding an ass into town.” They even try to say they will accept gay people in their church and don’t discriminate, provided they “accept and abide by The Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline.” In other words, gay people are fine provided they don’t actually have a relationship, remain celibate, only shake their tambourine to raise money for the sect.

The church, remember the Salvation Army is a church, says that marriage is “the loving union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” I think that “for life” part precludes divorce for heterosexuals, and, of course, it precludes all marriages for gay people at all. And marriage “is the only proper context for sexual intimacy.” Otherwise it is “abstinence before, and faithfulness within, marriage” but only for opposite-sex couples. Gay people are NEVER, NEVER, NEVER to have sex. They also push the myth that marriage is “God’s institution” and that God invented it. They no more believe that marriage evolved than they believe humans did.

And, since gays can’t marry, can they at least have a wank? Well, it's not clear but they can’t if they look at erotica which the Salvation Army opposes “in all of its forms.” They also promote the lie of the Right that porn “is clearly linked with prostitution, sexual abuse and assault, and other forms of sexual exploitation.” They claim it “promotes deviant sex and violence”—I was so naïve I thought the Old Testament did that; it is pretty kinky book with fathers and daughters fornicating, multiple wives, etc., and there is more genocide there than in the worst blood and gore film around.

And don’t think you have a private right to erotica. They say it is “not an issue of private morality alone,” and that people “have the right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons.” What does it mean when you say people have a “right to protection from” something? If you have a right to protection from assault it means that the act of assault is a crime. It means those who assault are arrested and may be imprisoned. When you have a right to protection from murder it means that murder is a crime, as is attempted murder, and those who try, or succeed, in such an endeavor are arrested, tried, sentenced and imprisoned. It is clear they want the low to censor erotica under penalty of prison.

They also urge people to “start or join grassroots efforts to protect your community against pornography.” And they even have a “click here” button so you can download information on how to do that. And where does that information come from? Focus on the Family, of course. In other words, the Salvation Army directly promotes one of the most active Religious Right groups around. And Focus on the Family then quotes a Salvation Army official who says erotica “is prostitution for mass consumption.” (Note to libertarians, they would oppose legalize prostitution as well.) The brochure the Salvationists distribute says that all porn is technically illegal and that the problem is that “law enforcement agencies at the local, state or federal level do not enforce obscenity laws.” The Salvationists, and Focus on the Family, note “Active, informed and vigilant citizens are needed in every community to ensure laws are enforced and community standards are maintained.” Get that, what we need are more vigilant fundamentalists trying to impose their moral values, through the force of law, on the rest of us.

So, the “right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons” means that people should be arrested for producing and selling porn, perhaps even for owning it. And since it is not just “an issue of private morality alone” don’t take naughty videos of yourself and your partner, presumably even if you married (which means straight, and for life).

But, wait a second. If there is a “right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons,” and since the Salvation Army already said that alcohol and gambling do just that, then aren’t they also hinting that gambling and alcohol production should be criminal offenses as well?.

They also say they support human equality and then put in enough loopholes to indicate that they don’t. They say they support “the Biblical and Christian imperatives of human and civil rights.” So, if the Bible says you can have the right they are fine, otherwise, not so much. They don’t oppose discrimination per se, just “unlawful, unjust, or immoral discrimination.” Apparently “moral discrimination” is fine, such as denying gays the right to marry because it isn’t a “Biblical and Christian… civil right.”

Libertarians, and conservatives will both be appalled to learn that the Salvation Army believes: “All people have a right to secure the basic necessities of life (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, safe environment, economic security.) So along with their socially conservative agenda they are very Obamanesque when it comes to a “right” to health care and a “right” to shelter, education and “economic security.” They claim all people have a “right” to a “just wages and benefits” but fail to define what that means. Rights are something other people have to respect, and how do they respect your right to health care? Not by leaving you alone, but by being forced to fund your health plan.

So what kind of governance would exist if we implemented the ethical system of the Salvationists. First, there would be no decriminalization of drugs, a reimplentation of prohibition, a war on gambling, and erotica would be illegal. Gay people would not be allowed to have sex, let alone marry. Abortions would be illegal. And if you think all of this is rather unbearable you aren’t allowed to commit suicide either. And before the Religious Right starts having wet dreams over the Salvationist ideal society they should remember that it also teaches that every person has a “right” to health care, economic security, just wages and benefits, education, etc. We are talking about very active government with fingers in every aspect of human existence.

Next time you see one of those annoying bell ringers, remember your donations do more than feed some hungry people. It goes to a fundamentalist sect with the same agenda as the rest of the Religious Right. It allows them to promote brochures on how to bring the law down on people who don’t live according to their religious morality. It is used by them to promote a political/religious agenda, not just to help people in need.

There is nothing wrong with helping people in need. If you want to feed hungry people give to a food kitchen for the hungry. What you don’t have to do is donate to an organization that has a “charitable” public face, while pushing a fundamentalist, religious agenda behind the scenes. The only reason the Salvationists are not as open as their good friends at Focus on the Family, is that they, unlike FOTF, rely on naïve, charitable people for their donations. In a way, that makes them worse. At least Focus on the Family is upfront about their political agenda and only people who support that agenda donate to them. But the Salvation Army has their agenda hidden behind a wall of “human needs” and that allows them to dupe a lot of well-meaning individuals to fund an agenda they would not normally support.

The Morality of Glee and Immorality of the Religious Right

Glee is one of those shows that gets the typical fundamentalist tied in repressive knots of anger. For the last week the Religious Right has been fusing and fuming about Glee's episode regarding virginity. Of course, you knew they would. And, it should be said, they didn't even need to see the show to start having kittens on the spot, howling loudly about the evil that is Glee.

Well, in this blogger's mind, Glee remains one of the most moral shows on television. And those Bible-bashing banshees remain one of the most immoral groups the American South has ever spawned. I include the Klan in that category since the Klan was always closely allied with Christian fundamentalism.

If you've see the show you would know that the most sexual thing depicted is a kiss and a hug. And you get individuals wanting to lose their virginity "for the wrong reasons." In the show they are shot down by their would-be partners and the emphasis is on love and commitment. There isn't a shred of "sex for fun" in the entire episode.

We see three relationships at work here. Two are the long-term relationships between Rachel and Finn, and the one between Blaine and Kurt. A third relationship is in the works, that of Coach Bieste and a sports recruiter. Bieste is a large, rather masculine woman but she makes it known that she likes men. And she has a crush on the recruiter. But he's a nice looking man and she doesn't want to entertain the possibility that he is interested in her, so she ignores his invites for lunch.

So, three relationships, at different points in their cycles. The four glee club members discuss issues like condoms. But they also discuss the necessity of having relationships for the right reasons, and none of them imply that sex just for the fun of it is perfectly fine—by the way, I have no issues with consenting individuals having sex together because it enjoyable and for no other reason.

But the "kids" in the show are acting very responsibly. They are not pushing themselves to do something they are not ready for, even if they have the wrong motives part of the time. And, if you expect to see a clear indication that they were having sex you won't get it. Of course, it could be a "you'd-miss-it-if-you-blinked" scene and I blinked. But I didn't see anything that was even close to being clear sex, let alone explicit depictions.

And, the best moment, for me was when the recruiter fights through Beiste's rough exterior to make it clear that he finds her attractive and wants to have a date with her. She finally realizes he is not just leading her on and tears run down her face as, for the first time in her life, someone treats her as she wants to be treated—like a woman.

Glee is a damn moral show. The entire storyline about Coach Beiste pushes the value of seeing who someone really is, not just their appearances. Glee teaches rational moral values—tolerance of others, acceptance, love, character, community.

Fundamentalists are opposed with sex and pay little to no attention to humane values, such as those in Glee. They are intolerant, hateful, cruel and they define community entirely by one's agreement with their hateful agenda. They are irrationalists and they hate Glee because it is not as irrational as they are.

Now much has been made by religious kooks about the show depicting "children having sex." That is typical of their inability to be truthful. Glee doesn't have children. The main characters in this episode are high school seniors and legally adults when it comes to consenting to have sex with another teen. Even if you take the fictional town they are in, it is located in Ohio and the age of consent is 16 there. They are not defined as children either emotionally, physically or legally. But then fundamentalists believe we are all children and they are the stern papa sent to beat us into submission to God's awful will.

Glee, in fact, is pretty much spot on with the real world—the world fundamentalists know nothing about. The average individual in America is around 17 when they lose their virginity. All the teens in this show are this old, if not older. In addition about half of all teens are sexually active, but half the glee club is not sexually active. The show doesn't do anything but depict the world as it really is, at least when you block out all the singing and dancing that happens—everywhere.

No, Glee doesn't represent the hateful, cruel "morality" of the fundamentalist Christian. And that's a good thing. What it does do is show caring, humane people trying to live their own lives, and loving others in the process. It is a humane show with humane values. And that is what the fundamentalist really hates. They hate the show because of its virtues.

Family First Tortures Kids for Profit

The video tape is very disturbing. It angers me to no end, and I promise you, had I witnessed adults doing this to a child I would lose it emotionally, grab the first heavy object I could find, and start bashing in some skulls—and I would not feel guilty about it.

Family First claims to be a "bootcamp" for kids. This means it treats children the way drill sergeants treat adults. That, in my opinion, means abuse. And the video clearly shows four adults abusing a young boy. The adults who run this "tough love" camp go by military titles, playing adult dress-up to try and intimidate kids. Watch this video to see what I mean.

Another video shows screaming thugs, pretending to be adults, forcing teens to drink vast amounts of water until they vomit.

I admit that I get suspicious the moment I see someone extolling "family" as their agenda. Almost without exception the people hiding behind the "family" label are bigots, authoritarians or worse. You have openly bigoted hate groups like the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Family Research Institute, Illinois Family Institute, and now Family First Growth Center.

Conservatives believe in man's innate sinfulness and believe that individuals must regularly be punished to avoid "sin." This is behind their high levels of child abuse, their obsession with executing people, their support for the use of torture, their unending demands for "stiffer" penalties, even for victimless crimes, and their belief in a hateful, vengeful deity intent on torturing people for eternity. As much as they claim to be "pro-life" these attitudes are, in every sense of the word, anti-life to the core.

In my opinion what we see in this one video is sufficient to charge all four of these adults with a crime, and it is serious enough to warrant jail time for each of them. No child deserves to be treated this way, no matter how "at risk" moronic adults believe him or her to be.

I note that the "sponsors" of this "bootcamp" include several local businesses and three churches. All of the churches involved are fundamentalist churches. At least one of the churches appears heavily connected to "Family First" bootcamp.

The "camp" is in Pasadena, California. There is a lot of outrage over the videos that people have seen.

Fundamentalist website, No Greater Joy, tells parents "As the military drills their soldiers, you must drill your children." Do you still wonder why I think of fundamentalist Christians as monsters?

The Desperation of Rick Santorum

One of the major losers in the Republican presidential primary is Rick Santorum. He has garnered almost no attention in spite of the media including him in debate after debate—note that the press only excludes one legitimate candidate regularly, Gov. Gary Johnson, the only libertarian in the race. Santorum has built his entire campaign on flogging a dead horse. He's trying to attract fanatical fundamentalists to his campaign.

There are several problems with this. First, Santorum thinks he can win over the fundamentalist vote but he has a problem shared with Romney. In the eyes of Christian fundamentalists Mr. Santorum is NOT a Christian, but a Catholic. Fundamentalists hate all religions that are not part of their sect. The dyed-in-the-wool Southern Baptist might tolerate a Pentecostal as a Christian—barely—but he won't cotton to no Catholic or Mormon. Why the Book of Revelation, clearly indicates—as clear as mud at least—that Catholicism is the Church of the Anti-Christ.

Santorum is trying hard to give the fundamentalists someone to hate more than Catholics. the Religious Right coalition, mainly fundamentalists with a tiny smattering of the magic-underwear Mormons and a minority of Catholics, is only held together by one thing today—a common hatred of gay people. Sure the conservative movement today is vehemently anti-immigrant—of course, they pretend they are only against "illegal" immigration, but the evidence shows otherwise—but Catholicism is only avoiding collapse in America because of immigrants. And the Mormons have found that uneducated Hispanic immigrants are often prime candidates for their normally vane attempts at convincing people that the con man Joseph Smith was some sort of prophet. So anti-immigrant hatred doesn't hold the Religious Right together the way scapegoating gay people can.

The other problem of the Religious Right is that American fundamentalism is in a state of advanced decay. Most fundamentalist churches are losing members. The percentage of Americans who claim to be members of one of these ignorant sects is going down. And young Christians in these churches are pretty much disgusted by their elders. Not only are they not attracting much in the way of new blood, but they are losing their own young to "the world," as these cultists put it.

Santorum, however, has nowhere else to go. He's a nobody in a field of morons, bigots, and Know Nothings—with the exception of Gary Johnson. And the only horse he's got for his pathetic bandwagon is the dead one. So flog it he must, even if he looks ridiculous doing so.

Santorum's latest act of desperation was at a so-called "Values Voter Summit," a klavern of the Religious Right where Republicans gather to spew venom, spit hatred, and fantasize the good old days of lynchings, witch burnings, and heresy trials. This klavern included all the conservative candidates that suck up to the fundamentalists, including their fellow fundamentalist Ron Paul. They do, of course, follow the lead of the media and exclude Gary Johnson, not that a non-bigot like Gary would win any support there.

Santorum used his appearance at the klavern konference to lie to the attendees. Mind you, lying doesn't upset these people, their entire political agenda depends on it. But Santorum's lie is so obviously false that it shows how desperate he is.

Recently, as most informed people know, the so-called Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was abolished and the American military entered the modern world, much to the horror of the Bible-beating bigots. Soldiers no longer have to fear expulsion from the military simply for being gay. This brought up a question from some military chaplains. Given that it no longer an offense to be gay in the military, and given that gay marriage is legal is some states, what may chaplains do in regards to same-sex marriages?

The Pentagon issued a directive stating that if the chaplain is in a state with marriage equality, and if he wishes to do so, he may perform a same-sex marriage. But the directive clearly said, "a chaplain is NOT required to participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion or personal beliefs." That is pretty clear.

Santorum, however, got up and told the values klavern that the directive says the complete opposite. He said that Obama "has instructed his military chaplains to marry people in direct contravention—marry gays and lesbians—in direct contravention to the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as between a man and a woman. So not only did the President not defend the law, he has now instructive people in the military to break the law."

There are two lies contained in this short sentence—clearly if Santorum is going to be the darling of the Values klan he will have to learn how to pack more lies into one sentence—if he's going to compete with the likes of Maggie Gallagher or Jennifer Morse.

The first lie is the obvious one: the President did NOT instruct chaplains to perform same-sex marriages. Obama is still too cowardly to announce he supports marriage equality. The directive from the Pentagon merely says that chaplains MAY participate in such ceremonies if they wish to do so but that no one is required to participate.

Secondly, if a chaplain feels that participation is the moral thing to do, the odious Defense of Marriage Act does NOT make his participation illegal. Is Santorum really saying that he wants the law to chain chaplains down from participating in legal civil ceremonies, or private religious ones?

There is one bit of honesty in that statement as well. Santorum admits the DOMA "defines marriage in federal law." Ron Paul continues to lie about that claiming that he supports DOMA but also wants marriage defined by the states. DOMA does create a federal definition of marriage, for the first time in American history. And it restricts the federal government from recognizing valid marriages performed in the individual states UNLESS it meets the federal standard. But it does not restrict the actions of ministers, priests, rabbis or chaplains of any faith.

And the real hypocrisy here is that while repeal of DADT doesn't strip chaplains of their right to choose what ceremonies to participate in, Santorum's interpretation of DOMA does. Santorum says such participating is a violation of federal law. So it is Rick Santorum who is assaulting the religious freedom of chaplains, not Obama. There is plenty to bitch about when it comes to Obama, but this isn't one of the issues.

Convenient scapegoats.

Harris Himes is a Religious Right activist, who periodically claims to be a pastor and an attorney though both credentials seem to have been called into question. He is the head of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and an outspoken proponent of using government to impose "Christian values" on the entire culture. Schlafy lists Himes as her state coordinator in Montana, though I wouldn't be surprised if that changes soon.

Himes was recently arrested in a phony investment scheme, charged with bilking a man out of $150,000. Himes and another man, who is also a fundamentalist minister, claimed to be principles in a manufacturing compan,y but records indicate the $150,000 went to pay off credit card debts.

After his arrest Himes went on radio to claim that he is the victim of a conspiracy lead by "the gays" along with "pro-abortion activists." I wonder if "the gays" involved in the conspiracy against Himes includes Schlafly's son.

In celebration of the paranoid delusions of "Rev." Himes, here is a music video by Oded Gross, "It's All Because." Enjoy it.

Has the Christian Right Jumped on the Wrong Campaign?

The story that went around the media, courtesy of a far Right fundamentalist group, was that a poor Christian high school student, Dakota Ary, was being picked on because he's a Christian who, of course, dislikes gay people intensely. Dakota, by the way, even with the long curly locks and a rather feminine-sounding name, is a boy.

The story that went out was entirely one-sided. It claimed that Dakota was sitting in class minding his own business when he was possessed to quietly make an anti-gay remark to another student sitting near him. We were told he did in a manner so as to NOT disturb the class, that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and all he was doing was expressing his faith.

I was waiting for more information until I commented, but I was already a wee bit suspicious. The first thing I had to wonder about was how the claim that he did this quietly so as to not disrupt the teaching or the classroom in any manner. If this were so, then precisely how did the teacher hear the remark and report the miscreant to the school, which then suspended him? After all, the fundamentalists insisted that the boy didn't speak loud enough to disrupt the class in any way. That would seem to imply he was so quiet that other students, except the one he was speaking to, would NOT have heard this. Yet, the teacher heard it at the front of the room, during a lecture. So, clearly the teacher could hear the remark over his own voice as he was speaking.

But, if the teacher heard the remark over his teaching voice, then it would mean that other students would have heard the remark over the teacher's lesson as well. And, if other students heard Dakota preaching louder than the teacher was teaching, then, ipso facto, Dakota did disturb the class, contrary to the claims his defenders were spewing to the media.

Having escaped from the clutches of fundamentalists some years ago I also know that they are always tempted to lie in situations like this, for the sake of morality, of course. So, I was suspicious that they insisted the boy also only spoke respectfully and didn't direct his remarks at anyone. I assumed, based on the odds, that this was an outright lie. I assumed, wrongly, that the remarks would be directed at another student.

After a week of the fundamentalist Right whining and crying over the alleged issue of "political correctness," some friends of the teacher are now coming forward to speak on his behalf. And the story that is emerging there is very different than the webs spun by the PR people for the misnamed Liberty Institute, the bigots behind the story.

The teacher and the school are forbidden to speak publicly about the matter while it is being investigated but some individuals have meet with the teacher privately to discuss the issue. His story is significantly different.

The class in question was a course on German and Germany. The teacher, not a student, had been the object of various anti-gay remarks made by Dakota and a few of his friends. They perceived the teacher to be gay and would make snide and snotty remarks directed at him, in his presence. The teacher, Kristopher Franks, is said to have reported these incidents to the school several times already, indicating it was a consistent patter by Dakota and his friends to disrupt the classroom by harassing the teacher.

On one occasion Franks reported that he had posted various German language articles on a board in the classroom. One of the articles mentioned gay politics in Germany and had a picture of two men in it. Dakota and his fellow harassers were seated at desks next to the wall where the article was posted. When Franks was not looking the article was ripped off the board and vanished. Apparently the fundamentalist defense team is not denying this but instead saying it violated the rights of the students by "imposing acceptance of homosexuality" on the classroom. The nonsense there is that "acceptance" can not be imposed. It is an inner state and not subject to the control of others. One can fake acceptance, but that doesn't make it real.

According to the friends of the teacher, who claim to have spoken to other students in the class, Dakota and his gang of friends frequently would burst out with anti-gay remarks in class under the pretense of "class discussion." But, it was reported that they did this even when the topics under discussion were not even remotely connected to the topic.

The Liberty (sic) Institute claimed that the discussion in class was on homosexuality. Not so, say others who were there. The topic, in fact, was about religious life in German with various students asking about what sort of religions were practiced there. Instead of whispering quietly to a friend, Dakota supposed said very loudly "Gays can't be Christians." (Exactly why they would want to be remains to be seen.) And, instead of the remark not being directed at anyone, the report is that Dakota was looking directly at the teacher and intended the remark for him.

Sadly this sort of dishonest representation is all too typical among Christian fundamentalists. It would be relatively easy to put together an entire book of the various lies they have told and continue to tell.

Fundy pastor wants "registry" to track non-believers.

Fundamentalist "minister" Mike Stahl wants to use the power of the state to force all "atheists" to register on a "national registry" so that Christians can harass them.

Stahl wrote: "There are already National Registrys (sic) for convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc." Other than not knowing how to spell registries Stahl is talking out of his proverbial anal orifice. There is NO national registry for sex offenders. There are state registries and they have worked very badly, and been counterproductive.

That said, there are no national registries of any kind similar to what Stahl envisions. Not only that, but other than state run registries for so-called sex offenders (peeing in an alley is now a sex offense, streaking is a sex offense, two teens have consenting sex is a sex offense, etc.) there are NO registries of any kind, at any level of government. More importantly, under Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech there are NO registries based on opinions.

Stahl is simply making things up.

What is the purpose of this registry? Stahl wrote:

Now, many (especially the atheists), may ask "Why do this, what's the purpose?"Duhhh, Mr. Atheist for the same purpose many States put the names and photos of convicted sex offenders and other ex-felons on the I-Net - to INFORM the public! I mean, in the City of Miramar, Florida, where I live, the population is approx. 109,000. My family and I would sure like to know how many of those 109,000 are ADMITTED atheists! Perhaps we may actually know some. In which case we could begin to witness to them and warn them of the dangers of atheism. Or perhaps they are radical atheists, whose hearts are as hard as Pharaoh's, in that case, if they are business owners, we would encourage all our Christian friends, as well as the various churches and their congregations NOT to patronize them as we would only be "feeding" Satan.

Frankly, I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea - including the atheists themselves (unless of course, they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion, and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.').

Two purposes are given by Stahl to register non-believers. First, he wants to know who these people are so fundamentalists can "witness to them." Anyone who has been "witnessed" to by this annoying morons knows exactly how aggressive and rude they can be. To register people so that fundamentalists can find them for "witnessing" amounts to harassment. People's opinions are not public business. The second reason Stahl wants a registry is so that Christians can boycott, perhaps picket, businesses owned by these people.

Now, let us consider a second factor when it comes to these extremists. They don't believe Catholics are Christians. They believe Jews worship the wrong god, ditto for Mormons, most mainstream Christians and everyone who is not a brain-damaged fundamentalist. None of these people are Christians in the eyes of the fundamentalist. Only fellow fundamentalists are Christians. So, why stop with a registry for atheists who need "witnessing?" Surely the Mormons need witnessing. Ditto for Catholics, Episcopalians, etc.

Also notice that Stahl wants to use boycotts to harm businesses simply because they are owned by non believers.

And that brings us to a religious right loon named Matt Barber. Like many fundamentalists Barber's obsession is hating gay people. Fundamentalists, of course, really "love" gay people. Much like the SS loved Jews and the Klan loves blacks. Actually neither the Nazis nor the Klan liked gay people much either—which just goes to show how "Christian" they really were.

Barber's bitch is that there is a fundraising organization that was called the Christian Values Network. Well, the name was a give away so they changed it to something that gives a different, albeit false, impression. They are now called the Charity Give Back Group. Now "giving to charity" sounds much nice than funding fundamentalist hate groups sounds. Which is why they changed their name to hide that funds they received went to far right groups trying to impose government regulations on people they hate—which is about everyone.

They encourage fundamentalists to use their web site to buy items from major companies and they tell the companies they will channel business to them for a cut of the action—which is then used to finance fundamentalist political groups and churches. What is missing from the list of organizations funded this way are what would count in most people's minds as real charities.

Lots of large corporations signed on. After all they don't have anything against "giving back" to charity. What they didn't realize was that they were funding some very specific political policies. As these corporation discovered they were being duped they started pulling out of the program. That has pissed off fundamentalist hate leaders like Barber who, of course, says "the gays" are to blame. Gays are to fundamentalists what Jews are to Nazis, the all-encompassing scapegoat for every social ill that befalls them.

Barber says that since sponsors of this project are dropping out, when they discover they are financing a political agenda, it means that there is "economic terrorism" going on. Yep, "economic terrorism." Apparently Barber assumes that since people tell businesses they will boycott them if they make political contributions this is "terrorism." Well, actually it is only terrorism when other people do it. Barber himself has demanded boycotts of businesses for not being sufficiently anti-gay to please him. When he does it, it's peachy keen and what Jesus wants. When other people do it, it's "economic terrorism." This is fundy-speak, an Orwellian world where words mean different things for different groups.

Barber goes even further with his latest rant. He now claims that the "sexual anarchist lobby," which includes non-anarchists as well, "want to see those of us who hold traditional values and have a biblical view of sexual behavior and sexual morality; they want to see us behind bars." Hyperbole is the hallmark of the fundamentalist. I know of no such effort to arrest people for being assholes—Barber is safe. He knows he safe but he needs to terrorize the old bigots on his mailing list and this works. He says that the nasty gay anarchists "want to see people like us not able to make a living" and that is why they have this "economic terrorism."

Notice that CGBG is not about "making a living." It is about donations to political groups and religious groups. No one is saying that these people should lose their jobs or that companies should fire them for being annoying asswipes. It is their absolute right to be asswipes and Barber exercises that right on a daily basis. But no one has a right to donation. Donations are freely given gifts and if people decide to not give those donations there is no "terrorism" going on.

But things get more bizarre when you read about how Barber pretends that gays want to put fundamentalists "behind bars." Watch the video below of fundamentalist Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association. Fischer claims there is "no reason" that homosexual sodomy shouldn't be a criminal offense in this country. Criminal? So who wants to jail whom? See, that's more of the fundy speak. People who don't donate to them want to put them in jail but when they actually want to make being gay a criminal offense, which means jail, they are just being loving.

By the way, for the record, sodomy laws did not make homosexuality per se a sexual offense. The laws were much more complex. Sometimes homosexual acts were covered by such laws and some homosexual sex was NOT covered by such laws. The laws often applied to oral sex between any consenting adults, including husband and wife but not oral sex between two women. And in many cases two men having sex in private couldn't be prosecuted even if they both admitted they had sex, in some states it required a third party witness. Fischer doesn't know the facts about sodomy laws in America, but then knowledge and fundamentalism rarely go together.

Wacky Romp on the Religious Right

You know we're getting into election when the Religious Right goes bonkers, making bizarre statements and hiding their own little scandals. It's been a busy few days.

Of course, we have the scandals of two Republican legislators, both with anti-gay records, getting caught in their own little gay scandals. Indiana Representative Phil Hinkle claimed his brain "snapped" and caused him to try to hire, then sexually assault, an 18-year-old man but rest assured, Hinkle said he's not gay. Puerto Rican Republican senator Robert Arango took rather intimate photos of his anus and posted them to a gay "meet up" site. His justification for the photos was he was documenting his recent "weight loss." Okay!

Then there was Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who speaks at rallies held by the sexual equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan, the National Organization for (sic) Marriage run by that rotund little bigot Maggie Gallagher. Actually Maggie is very pro-marriage. This explains why she had her first child out of wedlock, and why she is now on her second marriage. I believe, if my math is correct, she has had children by three different men to date. Her current hubbie is Raman Srivastav. Maggie not only hides him away but won't use her married name. I guess the kind of pro marriage people she deals with don't take kindly to her current marriage to a man who is not "Caucasian" and who is NOT a Christian. Given how Maggie wears her religion on her sleeve, it is no accident she avoids being seen in public with her husband and refuses to use his name. But, back to Levin, who told the world that earthquake that was centered in Virginia was God's punishment to New York for gay marriage. Yep, he knows what motivates God.

Well, the dike has broken with that sort of nonsense. The senile, rambling Ron Paul of religion, Pat Robertson, said the Virginia earthquake "means that we're closer to the coming of the Lord." I wonder how long these morons can keep that mantra up? Earthquakes have been a common, daily occurrence for as long as the planet has existed. God really is a dork to pick a "sign" that happens daily. It is of no use to indicate his "message" since they happen constantly, no matter what "sins" the people are engaging in. God has to be rather stupid. This is like picking sunlight to predict the end of the world. Every day the sun shines and the world still hasn't ended. All I can conclude is that Jehovah would have to be as dumb as his followers.

Of course, Robertson can't be outdone by a Christ-crucifying rabbi so he upped the ante and claimed that the crack in the Washington Monument is a "sign from the Lord" and is "symbolic." You might remember that senile Pat said the Haiti earthquake was because Haitians had a secret "pact" with the devil.

According to surveys about 38% of Americans believe that natural disasters are messages from God. I note this is almost the same percentage of people who believe support the Republicans as advocates of free markets and limited government. Clearly this proves that once you believe one piece of bullshit, you are prone to believe other pieces. Note, I'm not saying free enterprise and limited government are bullshit, I'm saying that Republican "support" for these things is bullshit. God's Own Party remains a big government organization.

Meanwhile, another crazy woman from the Right, Linda Harvey of "Mission America," has decided that the way to solve the "gay problem" is to announce that gay people simply DO NOT exist. On wacky right radio she said: "There's one big fact that's not backed up." Read that several times and it still won't make sense. It is a contradiction. If it's not backed up, then it is not "one big fact." But what gets more bizarre is that the unsubstantiated fact is "There is no proof that there's ever anything like a gay, lesbian or bisexual or transgendered child, or teen or human." Okay, so her inability to speak English meant she said the opposite of what she was trying say.

She seems to be saying that there is no such thing as gay people, or bisexuals or transgendered people. She was ranting about a program to teach respect of others. She says this really means respect not for people "but for homosexual lifestyle." She says the "The PR campaign to hold up gay as a good thing: the lifestyle, not the person, because there are no such humans." When I hear sentences such as that, I become sympathetic to the bigots who want to make English the official language.

Harvey simply can't put a complete sentence together. Entire clauses appear to be missing. But, what she is saying is that you can't teach respect for gay people because gay people do not exist. There is only something called a "homosexual lifestyle," which apparently even homosexuals can't agree upon. From the "lifestyle" that I'm seeing being pushed by "activists" and "radicals," in the non-existent gay community, is to get married, settle down, and maybe have children. Wait a second! Isn't that the heterosexual lifestyle? Of course, the way the sentence is worded Harvey may simply be saying she doesn't think gay people are humans. It's hard to tell when you're clearly dealing with someone who doesn't speak English well.

Meanwhile, the Religious Right had to deal with the funeral of one of their own. Rev. Zachery Tims was pastor of the mega-church New Destiny Christian Center. Tims was found dead in a hotel in New York City. He had a "glassine envelope containing white powder" on his person. No doubt it was Sweet 'n Low or something similar. Surely it wasn't an illegal substance in spite of Tims history of drug abuse problems.

According to the church's website Tims was a "troubled" youth who was "miraculously saved, instantly delivered from drug addictions and called into ministry." Hmm, I hope that "miraculously saved" part worked better than the "instantly delivered" part. Having escaped from the world of fundamentalism I can assure you that dishonest claims about being "instantly delivered" are rampant on the religious right. The one thing they can not tolerate is reality.

I remember when a porno theater burned down and a well known fundamentalist minister was among the dead. His followers had an instant explanation for his presence. He went there to "minister to" the men attending the film. Sure, he went to the porno theater to give them a hand or something like that. When Southern Baptist leader Lonnie Latham was caught propositioning a male police office for oral sex he tried the "I was in the area pastoring to police" excuse as well. It didn't work. Giving a cop a blow job is not the same thing as pastoring.

They can't face the truth about evolution. They can't face the facts about gay people. They can't even face the facts about drug addiction. They make up bullshit to try and rescue a theology befitting the Dark Ages. Since they can't accept the reality that their religion is so much BS, they twist reality and lie constantly. So, yes, we get scandals about drug addicted ministers dying in a out-of-state hotel room with a suspicious powder on their person. We get "exgay" leaders caught in bed with same-sex individuals they claim to be counseling. We get anti-gay Republicans claiming they posted their anal opening on a gay site to document weight loss, or who claim they "snapped" and that caused them to hire a male prostitute. Of course, who can forget Rev. George Rekers, an antigay leader of the cure-gays kind, who was caught with a pretty boy prostitute that he took to Europe.

Rekers still has the most articulate excuse. He claims he asked this boy to accompany him and give him nude, genital massages, because he needed someone to "Lift my Luggage."

Sure, we all need someone to life our luggage now and then. But only fundamentalists feel compelled to lie about it.

Family (sic) group warns of Disney gay day.

The hate that the religious Right has for gay people jumps out in the weirdest of ways. The Florida Family (sic) Association hired an airplane to tow a sign in the sky saying: "WARNING GAY DAY AT DISNESY 6/4." One day a year gay couples and children go to the Disney Park in Orlando as a group event. The Florida Family Association says that is an "offensive event." Gay people in the park are called "revelers." According to FFA, the mere sight of gay people at the park causes "as many as ten thousand (10,000) people" to "promptly exit" the park. Disney says the claim that simply has not been true. News reports indicate that "Gay Days" is a week long event in Orlando with different days for different attractions. Approximately 160,000 people come in to celebrate and spend about $150 million in the local economy.

Oddly, the center of gay "revelry" is San Francisco which has as many tourists per year as Disney World. Apparently this is done without much in the way of rides, unless you count the cable cars and when the entire city undulates during an earthquake. But really, those quakes aren't that reliable and people can spend all day there without experiencing one.

What if they find out that Minnie Mouse isn't really a mouse but really has a man trapped inside? I guess that makes Minnie transgendered and transspecied. Imagine the horror. They also claim that 30,000 children are subjected to the horror of 15,000 gay people and their kids at the park. Average daily attendance is 45,000. But apparently those 30,000 kids are coming to the park without their parents. This is Christian math, sort of the way one is three and three is one.

If you want a clue as to how clueless these fundies are consider that they are bragging" MTV's show Skins has been off the are for two months. Florida Family Association supporters' emails made a difference." They brag that the "irresponsible television show called Skins... targeted toward teens and children has not aired since March 21..." Well, they are absolutely right. It hasn't aired since that day, which just happened to be the end of the season. The full first series ended that day, and as is always the case, a new season doesn't begin the next week. Of course, I suspect they know that the three month season ended with the finale on the 21st. But they need to convince their followers that they are effective. In similar vein I wish to note that it is now Saturday and no Sunday church services have been held since last Sunday, so protests against the church appear to be working. Additionally, George W. Bush hasn't signed legislation in years, proving that those complaining emails worked.

PS: I had video of this plane but once again blogger won't upload properly. More bizarre, it automatically claims the video comes from Youtube, when it didn't. So it created a video box saying it was a Youtube video. I find blogger, of late, to be very unreliable and screwed up. Currently, after opening one's blog, you can't log out of it anymore. You are permanently stuck there. It is also changing font sizes for no reason, to these super large texts that you have to change back. If you are thinking of starting a blog I would look elsewhere. If I didn't have years of material here I would go elsewhere.

Update on the Brisbane attack. Who to believe?

The Christian Right group, Operation Five Thirteen, is now portraying themselves as victims instead of attackers. I reported on OFT and their attack on rally for same-sex marriage a couple of days ago here.

Now OFT claims that they were peacefully minding there own business "some distance" from the rally when those nasty homosexuals attacked them. And, of course, the rally on the other side has a different story; which is why I didn't pay attention to either of them. I paid attention to what a reporter on the scene said happened. The reporter said the fundamentalists "interrupted" the rally and and "used a microphone to yell abuse at marchers." That does not correspond with what OFT claims.

OFT claims that police are charging a gay person with assault and another charged with theft, for supposedly taking an OFT sign. The Brisbane paper says police told them that no one has been charged with anything.

OFT alleges that video they took proves their claims. The problem has been that no such video has been release that I can find. The Christian sites that repeat OFT's claims don't show the alleged video. Neither does OFT. Raw, unedited video might help but with us approaching the two week mark since the incident one has to wonder what happened to the video. It should have been released immediately, before anyone had time to selectively edit scenes or distort context. But that has not happened. If it does eventually get released the length of time since it was taken, until its release, is certainly long enough to allow editing that changes the context.

Let me tell you why I am highly skeptical that OFT is telling the truth. As I have noted before, I know this religious tradition well, having gone to their schools and churches. I know they routinely exaggerate, distort and lie. I am sorry to say that such things are routine. They hold to their faith and try to bend facts to fit their religion. I've seen this up close and personal. I have written of numerous examples of this tendency among fundamentalists but will have to do a major piece on it sometime.

Let me give a few brief examples. During the Prop 8 campaign they produced television commercials which routinely twisted facts and lied in order to push their agenda. One example was their invented "facts" about a school allegedly forcing kids to attend a gay wedding. I outlined what they claimed and what the facts actually were here. Another piece I wrote looked at what one religious right group claimed were the ten worst cases of Christians being persecuted in America. I researched every single one of them and found that none of them even came close to be what they claimed it was.

Not all the lies are intentional. Some are just delusional or wishful thinking. An example from OFT is found on their own website. There is a fad called planking, where individuals lie rigid on top of something like a plank of wood and have their picture taken. It is pretty much senseless and mostly harmless unless one is incredibly stupid. A preacher from OFT wrote that he was preaching when "a few young blokes who had been listening to my message for a bit decided that one of them should plank beside me."

This "evangelist" did not know who the man was. And the fad is a world-wide thing with videos and pictures being posted all over the place. That was on Saturday, May 14th. One day later a young man stupidly tries to plank on the railing of an apartment balcony and falls to his death. As I said, it is safe unless one is incredibly stupid. But the OFT evangelist immediately jumps to the conclusion "that the young man who planked beside me was very likely the same man who fell off the 7-storey building to his death just hours later." Why is it "very likely?" Given how widespread this fad currently is, it is only possible that it was the same man, not "very likely." He says it is very likely because that makes a good story. And he uses it about how that young man heard him preaching and ignored the gospel and was dead just a few hours later and could be burning in hell right now because he ignored what the evangelist had to say. Maybe it was the same guy but odds are against it. This is just wishful thinking on his part.

In many cases these fundamentalists report what they wish were the facts, instead of what are the facts. And they are quite capable of convincing themselves that they are true. Often they just regurgitate accusations from other fundamentalists without bothering to check the facts. The "facts" fit their fundamentalist world-view and thus "have" to be true and are reported as such. When evidence arises to the contrary they ignore it, much as they do daily to maintain their fundamentalist faith.

Recently Louis Marinelli, the man who organized the anti-marriage whistle-stop campaign for the National Organization for (sic) Marriage, announced that his time on the road, meeting gay couples wanting to marry, and watching his own side protest this, convinced him that he was wrong. He said he was changing his mind about marriage equality even thought he is still a very conservative individual. Marinelli is now talking about the tactics he was told to use, which included distorting the facts about gay counter-protesters at NOM rallies. He wrote that NOM crusade is "all about image" and that means "painting them [gay people] in a negative way."

Marinelli wrote of one incident when some supporters of marriage equality stood silently on the sidelines with their backs turned to the NOM rally. But NOM's blog said they were "intolerant, inconsiderate bullies who down and insult anyone who disagrees with them, including women and children." (Why are women in the same category as children here?) But Marinelli, who organized the rally, said the protesters were actually silent, not shouting down anyone.

Marinelli claimed that NOM said counter-protesters in Rhode Island were "crazy" and that they had photos to prove it. Marinelli writes that some of the "pictures depicting their actions do make them appear that way" and that he was the man who took the photos. He also noted he was instructed by NOM's national office "to specifically take 'crazy' photos of gays and lesbians." The exact words used by NOM's head office was "I need crazy pictures of our opponents." Marinelli says his job included taking photos that would distort the facts about the counter-protesters. He says this backfired as NOM supporters then feared attending the rallies and they ended up with very small groups supporting them. He was then instructed to take different kind of photos.

The new photos had to "focus on the positive... We want happy people, people clapping, families, speakers shaking hands with people. We want to still capture the protesters (especially if they do something exceptionally crazy), but that will not be the main focus." Marinelli was told to take photos to make their crowd "look as big as possible." Now they wanted to distort how positive their side looked instead. But in both cases Marinelli was encouraged to distort the facts.

This is old stuff for the Religious Right. I well remember covering a rally of Moral Majority which was called to support legislation that would make homosexuality a felony crime in the state of Indiana. That was the purpose of the rally and Jerry Falwell, along with Anita Bryant, were the key speakers. Falwell got up and endorse the legislation to make being gay a crime. One week later he was at a press conference in Chicago and told reporters that it was simply untrue that either he or the Moral Majority want to strip gay people of any rights—the complete opposite of what he was calling for one week earlier.

Now maybe OFT will be able to produce video evidence that has not been edited that proves the Brisbane Times falsified the facts and that they really were victims. But as days continue to tick by without them doing so I have to wonder. Maybe they got left behind the video was raptured out instead?