News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


33|175:175

About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.


Coulter's 'faggot': Dems miss the point (again)

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:00:00 AM EST


[UPDATE: The Log Cabinettes put out a response. See it below the fold.]

I just wanted to toss in my two cents on this one.

Ann Coulter is easy.  She's a buffoon and a loose cannon who should be marginalized by conservatives. No one should be surprised when she opens her pie hole and "faggot" drops out. This is her shock-jock-political-chick schtick. It's sold a lot of books, gotten her on the boob-tube, and allowed her to travel around the country earning a living speaking to horny young Republican Yellow Elephant frat boys.

She was a useful tool for the Republicans for a while, but, as Tim Hardaway and the Snickers folks learned, blatant homophobia isn't selling like it used to. Coulter's remarks are simply stale bad theatre and it should have been treated as such.

The auto-generated condemnation statement by HRC is a given; no news here. This incident should have presented an easy opportunity for the DNC and all of the Democratic presidential candidates to not just condemn Coulter's comments, but to ask aloud why she feels compelled to use homophobic commentary to make a political point and how it directly affects gays and lesbians in the real world.

To address what Coulter's remarks mean on anything besides the superficial level we are seeing -- and to generate real discussion about homophobia in the political debate, I guess we have to look elsewhere.

As I was mulling about what else to say on this topic, this popped in my mailbox (see after the flip)...

Pam Spaulding :: Coulter's 'faggot': Dems miss the point (again)
Click to enlarge:

The above says all we need to know about the continuing inability and lack of desire of Dems to move past 2004 (HRC's Joe Solomonese has no problem pointing this out about Republicans -- see Eva's post), but what does that Edwards e-release do to condemn homophobia?

Nothing. It doesn't even mention "gay," "lesbian," or "homophobia." It doesn't point out that Coulter's use of "faggot" as a slur on Edwards is also what spills from the lips of the kind of people who beat up a gay man for wearing pink pants, or murder a 72-year-old gay man by slamming him with a metal pipe.

Lesson for the Edwards camp: if you can't directly address the hate fomented by Coulter in light of the public backlash felt by Tim Hardaway and M&M Mars, you haven't progressed beyond 2004 either. All you have to do is Google a few seconds to find incidents of blatant bigotry and violence like the ones I mentioned above. That is the real price LGBT citizens pay when the new F-bomb is validated at a political conference of this size and scope.

Why say this:

Coulter's resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion.
...when you can't even spend one paragraph explaining what hate is being riled up? Certainly if she had belted out "nigger," we would have seen releases go out mentioning "racism" and black people.

I can't even begin to address the fact that the Edwards campaign used this as an e-fundraising tactic right out of the box. It cheapens the message beyond all reason. This required a separate response not tied to an ATM request.

If you're a homo, the message from Dems is that we're still invisible (see Dean's statement), the crazy granny in the attic, and only the granny's nearly feeble caretaker is allowed to say anything -- and even HRC never mentions gays or lesbians at all in its release (outside of its irrelevant boilerplate at the end). Even our advocacy organization couldn't find a paragraph to place Coulter's comments into context of the larger issue of homophobia.

Hell, instead of the tired righteous comments, simply denigrate and marginalize Coulter with humor. Ask her to elaborate:

Is there something wrong with being gay, Ann? Is that why you want to call John Edwards a faggot? Does being against the war mean you're a pansy? If so, that would mean a much larger slice of the demographic pie is gay than I imagined -- and the numbers are growing every day.

Do you truly believe that this is acceptable to all those gay Republicans sitting there at the Conservative Political Action Conference listening to you?

Where are the Log Cabinettes on this? I see no press release on that web site, sorry to say. The GOP has been filled with professionally closeted gays at the highest levels of the party and this is their problem to solve.

The Republicans simply can't take themselves off the hook on the matter -- they've used their toy Coulter as their bigoted id, keeping their hands clean as she says what too many of them feel but dare not say. Glenn is right, those who have championed Coulter in the past can't be taken seriously now that she's embarrassed them publicly on this one:

The people feigning upset over those matters are either active participants in, or passive aiders and abetters of, a political movement that, at its very core -- not at its fringes -- knowingly and continuously embraces the most wretched and obvious bigotry and bloodthirsty authoritarianism. They love Ann Coulter -- and therefore continue to make her a venerated part of their political events -- because she provides an outlet, a venting ground, for the twisted psychological impulses and truly hateful face that drives the entire pro-Bush, right-wing spectacle.
***

UPDATE: The The Log Cabinettes awakened and put up this sleepy response, and it doesn't address the larger issue of homophobia:

Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Sammon made the following statement about pundit Ann Coulter's remarks at CPAC:

"Ann Coulter should be embarrassed by her anti-gay remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference.  Coulter's words are not worthy of this event or our nation's political dialogue.  Intelligent people engage in political debates using ideas not insults.  Unfortunately, she has made a career out of saying increasingly outrageous things just to garner headlines and shill her books.  Ann Coulter is more interested in soundbites than substance and she has become more ridiculous than relevant.  She obviously has no shame."

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I agree, Pam
They missed the boat, especially by calling it "filth."  So being called gay/being gay is filthy?  All they needed was a few lines to make some powerful points, but they blew it.

But it's not just Coulter, Pam and Blenders: Maureen Dowd is at it again.  She lied about Kerry, she dissed Gore, and she's been not-so-subtly attacking Obama as less than masculine: she calls him Obambi.  Can you get any poofier than that?  Strong manly Obama is compared to a little defenseless deer?  What is her agenda here?  Why is she so obsessed with painting Democratic candidates as unmanly?  What is her friggin' problem?  Today's NYT shows her at her snarky, insipid worst; the non-story about David Geffen is turned into The Battle of Britain.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report


Spot on, Pam
I also would like them to explain the use of the word "smear."  "Faggot" is a very offensive word, but the "smear" would seem to have to do with indicating that John Edwards is gay.  Am I right?  If so, how is that a "smear," unless you think it's bad or wrong to be gay?

Exactly!
I had a problem with saying this was a "smear".  Being gay or being assumed as gay is NOT a smear.  It just sickens me.

[ Parent ]
I disagree...a little
While I concur that the Dems and Edwards missed an opportunity here by not responding in the ways you suggest, the response is not inaccurate and will likely be fairly effective.  Clearly Coulter's intent was to smear; it was designed to specifically evoke, credit, and legitimize the sentiments expressed in the Snicker's commercial and Hardaway comments.

I'm pleased you and others are out there to point out that the response might not have been as effective as it might be, but remember -- the Dems aren't working to get our votes, just our money.  Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will go as far as they have to and no further to court the support of the LGBT community. (i.e. Far enough to get us to pull out our ATM cards, but not so close as to be confused with actually being gay.  The Edwards release is a great example -- just close enough to sincerely express appropriate outrage and cash in.)

Each knows we'll have no where else to go following the primary.  Strategy is to collect as much pink money as possible now while they're fighting each other, and still be able to engage the Brownback/McCain/Whoever camp a year from now.


"I can't bring myself to repeat her comments..."
... and that, my friends, is how she gets away with it.

It only laughs when I hurt

Wow, welcome to
Lieberman world. There's a reason why I forget to read this blog. Republicans spread hate speech, Democrats get bashed.

HRC responds instantaneously TWICE in a week -- and get BASHED AFTER they and ONLY THEY provide media coverage to a Republican rock-star in the making. And they bash back Coulter.

But no, to Pam they are useless.

Let's review...HRC broadcasts the ONE AND ONLY man-bites-dog interview of a Republican saying good things about gay people...and is bashed for NOT doing so...the day AFTER HRC broadcasts the only interview anywhere of the Republican Pam-endorsed rockstar.

HRC bashed for NOT doing things they actually did...okay, I get it. Bash the radio show because it was not a press release, bash the press release, well, I guess, for being a press release. My God, why do Republicans always rate a pat on the brow and HRC always does the wrong thing...or is blogged repeatedly and falsely as doing the wrong thing? Just askin.


Pam = stealth GOP concern troll?
Oh, ffs, get a grip.

...

Ann Coulter is of course disgusting in all ways.  It's beyond time that we on the left make her radioactive, period.  Any teevee news show who has her as a guest gets their sponsors boycotted immediately.  Any political figure who comes anywhere near her get a massive, coordinated blog sh*tstorm.  It's time to tar and feather the b*tch and run her out of town on a rail.  Enough is enough.

...

One thing she's right about, though:  John Edwards is a weakling who doesn't have any principles and doesn't know how to fight.  She's completely mistaken that that's what faggots are like--or that there's any correlation in that regard whatsoever.  She's an ignorant, money-grubbing, bigoted, hatemongering, sh*t-disturber--but calling John Edwards a faggot is an insult to faggots, not to John Edwards.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
That's a tightly constructed post, Pam.
Like Lev, my sense is that there's homohysteria on the part of Ann, but homophobia on both sides.  I don't know from Edwards' letter whether he generally loathes the use of the word, faggot, or hates that someone alleges he's gay.  Is the slur the word or the suggested sexuality?

I agree that Ann speaks for many, many neocons.  They delight when she abandons decency.  Too many neocons abhor decency.  They frame it as political correctness.  They want to revert. 

They say, "Give me dem old tyme tradtions, where homohysteria, racism, sexism, nationalism, and militarism were just the 'gredients for another sweet day."


Homosexuality implications
The Bible (The Word of God) is continually misquoted in regards to homosexuality.
Lets discuss some terms explained clearly  about this subject:
a)Practical Homosexuality is sin and is punished by God in this life.  ie.  HIV Homosexual connected deaths (horrible way to go).
"For this reason God gave them up to vile pasions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men commiting what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due". Romans 1:26, 27 NKJ
See also the total destruction of Sodoma y Gomorra for their practical homosexuality. Genesis 19

b)Practical Homosexuality is punished by God in the other (eternal) life.
"He overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.  But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually inmoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liers shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Revelation 21:7,8.

I believe that our country will continue in degenerating as it is necessary that this happens for prophesy to be fulfilled.
Briefly, before the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Antichrist will be in control of the planet and due to that Biblical fact, the only country that could sucessfully opposed it must be neutralized due to degeneration which practical homosexuality is an important part.
 


Thank you for your opinion
I am just curious--what makes you think that the United States is "the only country that could successfully opposed (sic)" the coming of the Anti-Christ?  What, from a religious standpoint, makes the United States so special over the rest of the world?

[ Parent ]
Why USA is the only country that can stop the Antichrist
The answer have to do with the fact that we are presently the only superpower existent.
But our power means nothing if we are morally corrupt and no longer fear The Lord.
If we are totally corrupt as it is the direction the country is moving (in an exponential way), we will not have the will to fight evil in any shape or form.
Not counting that our corruption and disobedience to The World has converted us into the greatest debtor nation which threaten our future.

[ Parent ]
You are talking about two different kinds of power
You are mixing your religious zeal with nationalistic zeal, speaking as though the two should walk hand-in-hand.  What does our status as being a superpower have anything to do with righteousness?  Your comments indicate a disturbing notion of America as being special in the eyes of God.  What is your reasoning behind this?  I don't think God is an American, and much less a Republican.

[ Parent ]
Your statement about "my mixing religious and nationalistic zeals"

Evidently I have not been clear enough to be understood properly.
All I have stated is that we are a very powerful country (although getting weaker by the minute)and as such we could have the power to oppose the Antichrist if our moral and spiritual strength was up to par which is not and is getting worse as time goes by.
Whatever good we were, was due to our fear of The Lord which today is very scarce and getting scarcer.
God is God and certainly not American or Republican. I do not believe that anything I wrote meant that.

[ Parent ]
I'm Confused
"if our moral and spiritual strength was up to par"

Wouldn't then those people be transported to heaven as part of The Rapture leaving those of us Left Behind to fight Jesus on behalf of the Anti-Christ who supposedly holds us voluntarily in thrall inasmuch as it was our lacking moral and spiritual strength that singled us out as members of the other side?


[ Parent ]
Well, good for you
I believe that our country will continue in degenerating as it is necessary that this happens for prophesy to be fulfilled.

While you stand by and cheer as the world goes to hell (metaphorically), I hope you'll understand while the rest of us work our butts off to make the world a better place.

...the Antichrist will be in control of the planet and due to that Biblical fact...

I guess that would be different from an "actual" fact, huh?

the only country that could sucessfully opposed it must be neutralized due to degeneration which practical homosexuality is an important part.

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs? Do you think Americans are going to be standing around saying, "Well, I would love to stop that evil Antichrist, but gosh darn, I just can't because of all those homosexuals!"


[ Parent ]
Answer to several objections
1))Alerting people to what lies ahead if there is no repentance is one way to make this a better world.
God accepts 180 turns and I certainly would like to see millions of repented homosexuals in heaven with me.
2)The Bible is the only absolute truth everything else is man made (corrupt).
3)If americans continue going away from God (No prayer in the schools, no Ten Commandments, abortion on demand, euthanasia, rampant homosexuality, etc., etc.) they will be to blind to see the evidence of their inminent demise. 

[ Parent ]
"...in heaven with me"
Pedro, this is so arrogant.

I don't happen to believe in the existence of heaven or gods or anything else supernatural, but if I did I would call this presumption of yours a kind of blasphemy.

What makes you so sure you know the mind of the supreme ruler you claim to worship?  Maybe the truth is that you're not going to heaven after all.  As one of our greatest presidents said, "The almighty has his own purposes."  Who are we to claim to know what they are.

There's really no way of being sure about what happens after we die, is there?  (Other than those things that we know happen, such as the decay and disintegration of the body.)  Maybe you're a fallible, mortal human being just like everyone else, destined to meet the same unknown ultimate fate.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
The Bible is the only absolute truth everything else is man made (corrupt).
But the Bible is man-made. Man wrote the gospels, men made the decision as to which Gospels would be included or left out of the Bible and thousands of human scribes copied the Bible by hand over and over again through the ages until Gutenberg invented movable type. According to your premise, everything man made is corrupt and therefore all of those copies over the centuries have had mistakes (corruptions) included into them. Last night on either the Discovery or History channel I saw a copy of a hand-copied Prayer book with an image of a man performing cunnilingus on a woman while being anally violated by the beak of a large bird. I'll guarantee you it was not the only corruption to the text over the centuries.

We won't even mention that any Bible you might use (and there are many different versions) is by nature a corrupted document inasmuch as the number of Bibles in the original language (Aramaic?) is miniscule. Every other Bible has been subjected to the corruption of man-made translations from language to language to language to language. The percentages of the Bible as you know it is an exact match to the original writings is probably even smaller than that of your winning the lottery.

Oh I guess I mentioned it. My bad.


[ Parent ]
Pedro,
I assume that you're on the road and that you composed from a public computer at a library.  I assume this because you seem so intent on following Jesus and as we both know, Jesus urged all Christians to foresake wealth and family and follow in His footsteps.  Therefore, you don't have your own computer, thus requiring the usage of a public library's computer.  Now, I know that most terminals in public libraries have 1-hour limits, so you're probably back on the road, serving the poor, and visiting prisoners as the Bible decrees.  I assume you're also protesting women's hair salons, since the Bible is quite clear about women not cutting their hair, and when you have time to visit a church, you spend your time there hushing women and reseating them in the back of a church, as the Bible also decrees.  But here are my questions:

Do you also ask women if they're menustrating?  If they are, do you escort them out of cities, as the Bible demands, since a bleeding woman is unfit company?

Good luck with your poverty.  I don't expect you can answer my questions since you'll be serving the poor all day, and herding women out of a city come evening.  I'm sure you miss your family, which you foresook to serve the Lord, but I suspect that the women in your family don't miss you, since they no longer have to flee when they bleed.


[ Parent ]
:-)
Holly, you're the best. Thanks for that. :-)

[ Parent ]
Thanks,
Pumpkin!

I do worry about Pedro, though. 

I'm sure he's been bopped a few times when he asks strange women, "Pardon me, ma'am, but are you menstruating?"


[ Parent ]
The Bible
There's a new book out, Relgious Literacy, reviewed in the WaPo, http://www.washingto...
that says most Americans, including fundamentalists, are scriptually ignorant.  Only 1/3 of people polled know who spoke the Sermon on the Mount and less than 1/2 which is the first book of the Christian Bible.  No joke!

So I'm not surprised that Pedro claims to know what the Sodom story is all about.  He's dead wrong.  2,000 years of Jewish tradition interpret this story as one of cruelty, boundary violation, and trashing the contemporary codes of hospitality.  While that may not be satisfying to some people, that's how the story has traditionally been read.  That's the majority reading.

Christian nutjobs of course misread it to their own ends, another example of how ignorant they are of other faith traditions, as well as their own, and of how they distort the Bible.

PS:

Well, hello, Holly, yes, hello, Holly, it's so nice to see you back where you belong!  You're posting well, Holly, I can tell, Holly--etc.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report


[ Parent ]
Thanks, Lev!
Your fan,

Holly


[ Parent ]
Right on!
Love your post Holly.  Count me as a fan, too! :-)

[ Parent ]
The Second Coming Of Christ
Dear Pedro, while you wait for the second coming of Christ evidence is growing that he never left - that his bones and those of his wife (Mary Magdalene) and son (Judah) have possibly been found which would indicate that he did not rise again bodily after 3 days which undermines the whole basis of your man-created religion. What will you do if it turns out to be true?

Also, "What Would Jesus Do?" Would he stand around waiting for the world to end while millions of people suffered? I think not. And I wonder what is it that would cause someone to believe in a God that would do that?

See you after the Rapture - since we'll both clearly still be here.


[ Parent ]
I always wonder ...
what leads a Christian to comment at "worldly" sites, troll pride events, or picket abortion clinics. 

I've never read an evangelical Christian commenting in a thread earnestly stating the words of their lord in the loving, caring way that their Christ might have and that might get people to listen to them.  Instead, they unintentionally parody themselves by playing Terminator Jesus.

What is their purpose then? Is their purpose genuine, but they completely lack communication skills.  They seem too hate filled for it to be simply a poorly communicated message of salvation.  In fact, the hate and anger seems to be the only genuine part of what I've seen fundamentalists post.

When I lived in Philly, I used to walk to the gym on Saturday mornings.  My walk took me by Planned Parenthood where, every Saturday morning, anti-choice demonstrators would scream scriptures and wave red-painted dolls on sticks.  Every online fundamentalist commentor I've read reminds me of them.

What are they hoping to accomplish?  Would Jesus focus on being disruptive?

I remember, from my upbringing in a New Lifer church, how people LOVED the story of Jesus having a fit of rage in a market place (though, they never seemed to consider what he was pissed about: greed).  The glee people took in his anger scared me then and is revealing now.

and OT: Holly I'm glad to see you contributing again.  I love the way you write.

Electricity's for light bulbs!


[ Parent ]
Thanks, Hun.
Now, it's my turn to admire you.  I love this: "I remember, from my upbringing in a New Lifer church, how people LOVED the story of Jesus having a fit of rage in a market place (though, they never seemed to consider what he was pissed about: greed)."

Yep.  It was all about greed, about using God to make money.  The Bible says that charging interest is against God's will.  Think about that and contemplate the millions of alleged Christians who charge interest.  I suspect that many fundies don't actually read the Bible or do so selectively because the message isn't easy: Be kind.  Think of others.  Don't judge.  Don't crave things.  Give all you have to the poor.

Who wants to behave that way? 


[ Parent ]
right on
Yeah, imagine what the world would be like if the fundamentalist focused on being kind to others.
:) Thanks Holly.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

[ Parent ]
Why Christians comment at worldly sites.......
True Christians participate in the activities that you mentioned because they were told by God in The Bible that they have to carry the message of salvation to the world anywhere and anytime.
If they did not care for the final destination of the millions that do not know The Lord, they would stay home and see television, go to the beach, etc.
They do it sometimes at great sacrifice because they care for what the Bible calls "the lost".
Sometimes some of them may be rude or offend sensitivities and this is deplorable to most of us that do not want this as our main concern is to bring the gospel of salvation so that people can go to eternal bliss with The Lord.
The Gospel is offensive to the unrepented person for many reasons, but one of them, because places man behind The creator and man prefers to be God.

[ Parent ]
"...and man prefers to be God."
As I said above (and Mena makes the same point below) you seem to evince a strong preference for being God yourself.  Is it really your place to go around speaking as if with final authority?  Making judgments concerning your own or other people's eternal fates?

Consider honestly whether you are truly selflessly spreading the gospel as you claim to be, or if instead you are perhaps taking a kind of vain satisfaction in your own righteousness.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
Why true Christians are certain of their going to heaven
Jesus Christ died for my sins (past, present and future) and thanks to this act(explained clearly in The Bible)I as any other Christian have total security that we are reconciled with God The Father and we can go to heaven once we repent of our sins and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord.

Once this is done, The Holy Spirit comes to live inside of us to guide us and to direct our hearts to be obedient to God's Word (The Bible).

Any true Christian can tell you the same thing as there is nothing complicated about.

There is nothing haughty about, just the abundant mercy of God
upon the human race.

God offers this incredible gift to every human being although most will reject Him.

One of the two thieves in the cross next to Jesus did that and now is in His company in spite of his past.

God is ready at any time to do that for anyone.


[ Parent ]
The doctrine of atonement
It's difficult for a believer and a nonbeliever to have a meaningful conversation about the doctrine of atonement, I think.  So an all powerful being turned himself into a burnt offering--to himself--in order to be able to forgive the wrongdoings of the beings that he himself created?  The mind reels.

In any event, when I was learning christianity as a child, we were taught that the significance of atonement is that it's a paradigm of the kind of radical selflessness that followers of Jesus are to emulate in the world.  Thinking, "Woohoo, I just won an all-expenses-paid trip to heaven!" is not really what christianity, as I learned it, is all about.  At all.  Instead, it's more nearly the opposite.  I was taught to focus on the obligations of being a christian (to my fellow human beings) rather than on the hoped-for future rewards.

Like I said before, I don't believe there's anything divine about any of it, so you and I obviously disagree fundamentally.  To me christianity is just an interesting allegory that has potential value as a moral idea.  If I did think that it is actually a divine thing from God, however, I would consider your interpretation to be false and even blasphemous.  You seem to have a very vulgar and self-centered view of what christianity is.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
Sweet Jesus, what Sportin' wrote...
...is the essence of sweet Jesus: "Instead, it's more nearly the opposite.  I was taught to focus on the obligations of being a christian (to my fellow human beings) rather than on the hoped-for future rewards."

Like you, Sportin', my mind reels when I contemplate the story of the divine Christ: The all-knowing, all-loving God creates Adam and Eve.  He MADE them and in that all-knowing making, he made them in a precise way that they sinned.  Then the all-loving God couldn't forgive that sin, which he configured, until he cleaved the Christ from Him and had His son hung on a cross.  Man, if I behaved this way, I'd be locked in an asylum.  Imagine me not being able to forgive some folks I fashioned until I arranged to have the ones I couldn't forgive kill my kid.  Then I could forgive them.

Anti-semites sometimes call Jews "Christ-killers."  I think anyone who doesn't focus on their obligations of being a Christian to (their) fellow human beings" recrucifies the Christ.  So, we're all Christ-killers, for we kill the theology of the Christ when we judge others, when we covet things, when we permit suffering.  Fundies believe you JUST have to say the magic words and the Bible doesn't say that.  The Bible says that if you believe, you will act.  I can understand why fundies avoid the full text of the Bible, for they don't want to submit and thereby act.  They don't want to care for the poor IF it's something more than a mere mission trip followed by settling into a snug and cozy suburb, where they buy a big screen tv and a surround sound speaker system.  I truly believe that most fundies don't believe that the Christ is the Son of God.  If they did, they would follow in His footsteps.  I believe that the Christ is an insurance policy for most fundies: they say the magic words and hope that that's enough to gain entry to Heaven IF there is a Heaven.  If they truly believed in eternal life, they would sacrifice for a few decades by emulating the Christ.

But most don't do that.  Instead, they go shopping.  And they hate gay folks, because they believe that not-gay is beloved by God.

Not-gay is the express elevator to Heaven.

Gay is the freefall to Hell.

In this way, heterosexims reminds me of sexism, where a man is not-woman and therefore superior by dint of what he's not.


[ Parent ]
Ah Pedro...
First of all, "exponential" doesn't mean what you think it means.  Secondly, what is a practical homosexual?  One that pays all of his or her bills on time, doesn't drink to excess, and is reliable at work?  That sounds like a good thing to me.  We should all try to emulate practical homosexuals.
The Gospel is offensive to the unrepented person for many reasons, but one of them, because places man behind The creator and man prefers to be God.
OK, there are some words missing in there but I see a definite Freudian slip in there since this is a gay blog.  As for man preferring to be God, is that why you are totally convinced that you are going to Heaven?  Otherwise, I didn't realize that it was for you to decide.

My America includes LGBT families.

[ Parent ]
Speaking of Antichrist . . .
Strange. I thought the Antichrist was named George W. Bush, and the Devil was Dick Cheney. It says so in my Bible.

What's indeed remarkable about Calvin's "the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God sufficient alone for salvation" is that the maxim itself is not in the Bible (which might lead some of us to ask where Calvin came up with it?). Secondly, the Bible actually repudiates the maxim: "the Church of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tm 3:15; note the definite article "the"). If one has any commonsense (which I grant no Evangelical by definition), this claim about the Church, rather than the Bible, should be obvious (I caught onto at age 8). The authors of the biblical books hail from different eras, but the New Testament writers did not even know Jesus, and were simply recording the "faith" they had received by oral tradition. Thus, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views are entirely accurate: The Word of God (assuming any such thing) is both oral and written together, and the oral tradition ontologically and historically precedes the written and has greater standing. (For inquiring minds, a good resource to consult is Dei verbum ["On Divine Revelation," 1965, Vatican II.]) And the Bible confirms this very point: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the tradition you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Th 2:15; emphasis mine). Since I'm on a roll, let me remind Biblidolaters that the "scriptures" referred to in 2 Tm 15ff. refer to Jewish texts, as the Christian scriptures would take centuries to be formed. So the next Evangelical who proffers such Calvinistic nonsense about the Bible being literal and inerrant Word of God (Calvin forgot the Church survived without Bibles before Guttenberg), you can cite their very own Bible to deny their ridiculous claims. The Bible denies it, for heaven's sake! These stupid folk cannot read what they claim, and they make claims that are repudiated by the Authority they cite. We usually call these kind people "clueless," because they cannot see what is right before their eyes. When they ratchet it up to the level of the Jesus Camp (a revealing and appalling documentary), we call them dangerous. I still have Hitler's Youth resonating in association with the Jesus Camp folk.

If the Antichrist needed dupes, s/he'd write a series of books. s/he'd dictate every man-made control of the masses by the priestly class, and subordinate them to divine retribution if they dared to think for themselves. It would look like the Bible or Quran (Leviticus would be paradigmatic). The Antichrist would call on people to Idolatry of the Book (not unlike the Ark of the Covenant), and people could not think outside the dictates of the Book's norms. The Antichrist would identify the Book as the Word of God, the supreme Authority on earth, literal and inerrant. Of course, the Antichrist would have to wait until Guttenberg invented the printing press, so that the Antichrist's Biblioidolatry could spread far and wide.

But when people get "Jesus," they really mean they've subscribed to the Book. If they read what Jesus is purported to have said, they'd know that purveyors of Idols (in book or calf form) were always those who extoled the "letter," while Jesus extoled the "spirit." Objects are always the object of Idolaters, and Idolaters are the Antichrist. But the Antichrist blinds them to those revelations, so they are sure the Word of God is the Real Idol, and the Man from Galilee was just a crazed radical who insisted the book had been fulfilled in HIM.


[ Parent ]
My response to a post at KOS that says Edwards shouldn't respond
This party doesn't want to stand up for LGBT rights as a whole and this entire diary is bullshit.  If this had been the word maccaca you all would have been tearing your hair out and wailing "attack".

As a gay american I for one am sick and tired of being thrown beneath the bus, because standing up for us is just not politicly expediant.  Try to use the LGBT community as an ATM machine in the next election cycle, go on, I dare you.  This queen's purse is tightly shut, and not a dime for any of the candidates or the party until people take our rights and dignity seriously.

I'm terrribly ashamed that people just want to let this type of shit go.  If it comes down to Edwards, who does not support equality for LGBT people (but doesn't want a constitutional ammendment-yadda yadda yadda) and Rudy G, I'll vote for Rudy.  I'm sick and tired of standing up for a party that continuously stands down when it comes to me and mine.

The Gay Bank is closed for business.

The thing about Equal Rights is that if they are not Equal they are not rights, they are privileges.

http://www.dailykos....

And to those of you here, I urge you all to keep your wallets closed.  Do NOT give any more money to that party, as they do not think our rights and dignity are worth their effort.  I call on a BOYCOTT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BY ALL LGBT PEOPLE.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY


It's time for the GLBTQI community to form its own third party
If the Democrats deserve the be boycotted the Repugnants deserve what? Detention camps?

[ Parent ]
Damn, Burnsey!
You're on a roll, my friend!  Please tell me you posted this over at the DNC blog. :)  How many crickets were chirping?

Yep, I think if the same options were given at the '08 election, I'd vote for Rudy too. 

As for the whole, "just not ready" and "don't defile the Constitution" crowd, thanks for affirming that what's more important is a piece a paper and not people's lives.

The only Democrats I'll be voting for are those who ARE not only talking the talk of GLBT equality, but actually working for it.  Looks like my votes for Dems are going to be few and far between.


[ Parent ]
Difficult Issue
I suspect that by tempering the reaction to the voting criminal's response, Edwards' campaign was trying not to give her too much power.  It's her stock-in-trade, and how she keeps going.  Of course, I'm not thrilled to see her attempt at a slur used for fundraising, either.  I would have liked to see Edwards say, "If you are calling me a faggot, then you are including me in a group that includes some folks who are some of the most intelligent, hardworking Democrats I know and I thank you for the compliment."

Pam, I have to say that I was concerned about your use of the word, "pansy," which is certainly an epithet these days.  I doubt the LGBT men and women actively serving in our military in combat zones think of themselves as pansies.  And I value my face and limbs too much to call them that.  ;-)


BetsyTX wrote:
"If you are calling me a faggot, then you are including me in a group that includes some folks who are some of the most intelligent, hardworking Democrats I know and I thank you for the compliment."

Rock on, girl!


[ Parent ]
that was purposeful irony
Pam, I have to say that I was concerned about your use of the word, "pansy,"

You didn't take it that way, but that was the intention. Of course no one serving in the military is a pansy.


[ Parent ]
forgot to address this
Edwards' campaign was trying not to give her too much power.

That doesn't fly with me; the issue really isn't Coulter, it's the banshees that were applauding and cheering her "joke" -- and all people who are satisfied among themselves that homophobia itself is AOK; that there is something funny and fundamentally wrong with being gay. They know Edwards isn't gay, but it sure cuts him down to call him a fag, because homo-hating runs deep in that party.

Edwards, the DNC and HRC avoided the real issue of the homophobia and how Coulter's use of faggot mirrors the behavior seen all around the country. It's used every day against kids in school, when gay bashings occur and myriad other circumstances that will never stop as long as people like Coulter take no responsibility for perpetuating homophobia -- and no one holds the hate wing of the GOP responsible. If the Dems won't talk about homophobia and this incident, we're left on our own.


[ Parent ]
not about giving her too much power
it's about the DNC and Edwards being too scared to even say the word "gay" or even "homosexual."

Burnsey, who posts here, and I can attest to the fact that we clear the DNC blog everytime we post something saying the word "gay."  It's so obvious that I had to post: "Come on out and play, guys.  You can't catch THE GAY by simply seeing the word on your computer screen."


[ Parent ]
that's very interesting
I used to stop by the DNC blog when it first opened.  I'll have to stop by again sometime.  I love this:
"Come on out and play, guys.  You can't catch THE GAY by simply seeing the word on your computer screen."

Electricity's for light bulbs!

[ Parent ]
Well...
Pam, I have to say that I was concerned about your use of the word, "pansy," which is certainly an epithet these days.  I doubt the LGBT men and women actively serving in our military in combat zones think of themselves as pansies.  And I value my face and limbs too much to call them that.  ;-)
Unless you are talking about Pansy Division.  Peter, I dedicate that one to you!

My America includes LGBT families.

[ Parent ]
Back on topic:
Since Coulter is so obsessed with sexuality, her sexuality seems germane.  She isn't married.  She didn't procreate and it's too late.  She alleges that she's a Christian and concerned with the natural order of things, as framed by a fundy.  However, she didn't use her procreative machinery as God intended.  Month after month, her eggs were washed out of her womb.  Those precious eggs died horrible deaths in tampons and tissue paper.

Now, what did she do with her vagina?  Either's she's a virgin or a fornicator, as framed by the Bible.  If she's a virgin, then she's a real life Church Lady, ala Dana Carvey, obsessed with other people's sex lives, and substituting a black mini-dress and slurs for Carvey's pelvic thrusts and superiority dance.  It seems more likely that she's a fornicator, who had sex outside of "sacred" marriage.  She wonders about the sex lives of public figures.  As a public figure, it seems appropriate by Coulter's rules to wonder about her sex life, however personally repugnant I find it...and I do. 


Fair questions
Is she a Church Lady who dresses like a hooker?  That doesn't add up.

Re earlier comment (I think from Sportin' Life):  Yes,  Coulter must become radioactive.


[ Parent ]
I Awoke The Morning WIth That Edwards E-Mail In My Box
Here was my reply:

Mr. Bonoir:

I agree. What Ann Coulter said is abominable, referring to Senator Edwards by the new F-word appellation. However, I do not see the point of contributing money to the Senator's election fund because of it. To do so would be the greatest of hypocrisy - you're using the issue of being called gay to generate money when the Senator's support of full civil rights for America's GLBTQI
citizens, especially that of marriage, has been lacking.

Well congratulations Senator Edwards. You've gotten a small taste of the hatred, vitriol and discrimination that people like myself, to whom the new F-word is an
accurate description, have gone through every day of our lives for tens of decades.

Get back to me after the Senator has gone on record in favor of full support of ALL equal rights for GLBTQI AMERICANS and maybe I'll send along some campaign
contributions. Oh yeah. and getting Senator Edwards' fellow Democrats to disavow Ms. Coulter's words with some true outrage would be a nice gesture of support to
all involved as well.

ALAN DORFMAN
Delray Beach, FL


great letter!
my sentiments exactly

Lurleen on Twitter

[ Parent ]
I agree -
Great letter!

Also:  Loved the sentence BetsyTX composed for what she wishes John Edwards had said -- and could say yet.  A statement like that could let a lot of the air out of Ms. Coulter and the applauders at CPAC, and earn respect for John Edwards far and wide (vs. the thoughtless, supremely tacky response of using this incident to ask for money).


[ Parent ]
New responses from John and Elizabeth Edwards
From my latest post, the response from the Edwards camp. Elizabeth Edwards does attempt to address the homophobia fomented by people like Coulter and her conservative enablers on the JE08 blog.
"Although her words did not hurt us, they may have hurt some in the gay community. We are all sick and tired of anyone supporting or applauding or introducing hate words into the national dialogue, tired of people thinking that words that cause others pain are fair game. And we are sick and tired of people like Miss Coulter thinking that her use of loaded words about the homosexual community in this country is remotely humorous or appropriate."
And a statement from John Edwards just went up:
Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible. In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large.

I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it.



[ Parent ]
Log Cabin Republicans
They don't have the staff and the resources.  HRC does. 

It speaks volumes that HRC can put out a press release right away on Coulter - but can't praise the Republican state senator in Wyoming who courageously spoke out against an effort to put an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot. 

This is huge news - Romney, McCain denounce Coulter: 

http://thecaucus.blo...


I would give anything
to see a video of Coulter's f-bombing that showed the other dignitaries responses.  How many smiles and clapped at the momonet, then turned around and sent out their "kinder, gentler", good-cop responses?

Lurleen on Twitter

[ Parent ]
I'm honestly impressed with McCain's (via spokesperson) response
"Wildly inappropriate" is exactly what it was.  And not something to ignore.

[ Parent ]
Lynn Cheney must be pissed.
John Kerry referred to Mary as a lesbian causing mother Lynn's head to spin in circles and spew bile.

Do Lynn and Dick think its ok for John Edwards to be called a faggot but it is not ok for Kerry to use a polite term in reference to their daughter?

Perhaps we need to begin calling Mary a filthy man hating whore dyke for being pregnant without marriage to a man. 

What would Dick/Lynn do then?  Would that be an inapporpriate smear?

Would the Republicans start a fund raising campaign against the Democrats using that as an example of encouraging violence against a minority?

If fund raising is Edwards best response to Coulter's incitement to violence then maybe she has made a valid point about his...strength.


The "weakness" implication
Not only did Coulter use the slur, she was also making the old schoolyard connection between male homosexuality and weakness.  Part of me thinks Edwards shouldn't even get into such a schoolyard game, while part of me thinks Edwards ought to slam back hard, emphatically and memorably.  It could, in fact, if he has the guts and the principles, be an impressive demonstration of his leadership abilities.  How ironic:  The Edwards campaign could earn a lot more support (and I do mean including $) by a response to Coulter that is unmistakably principled and assertive, than by their very embarrassing, thoughtless, reflexive and immediate use of the incident to raise money, with no comment on principles.

[ Parent ]
Just read the responses from the Edwardses
Good for them.

But why did the tawdry fundraising crap kick in FIRST?  (Unless I'm mistaken on my impression of the order.)


[ Parent ]
Dean used the F-word incident to ask for money?
Must be taking lessons from Donnie over at AFA. 

Read again. EDWARDS, not DEAN
Edwards camp used it to raise funds, Dean has only made a statement haven't seen the dnc try to use this for cash, only for P.R.  They KNOW they are failing this community.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

[ Parent ]
Upon first seeing the Dean comment at the DNC site
I was actually surprised.  Usually, the DNC won't even put anything related to ANYTHING gay on their blog page.

Then I couldn't help but get infuriated.  Now I'm even more so.  It actually puts me at a loss for words.


Coulter
The responses from both the Democrats and Republicans are why my response to any candidate has been tepid at best.  I was raised to be politically active - as in one year while living in Iowa my parents were asked to go to state convention for their respective parties my mother was a Democrat and my father Republican.  And I have been politically active - as in county official and poll watcher and....  But for the last few years I've held my nose and voted for the least offensive candidate.

Coulter should be roundly denounced along with an explanation of why the term faggot is offensive, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.`


Not at all surprised
even HRC never mentions gays or lesbians at all in its release

One of the largest GLBT advocacy organizations can't even have the words "gay" or "lesbian" in their name. I don't expect much in the way of actual spine from them.


Breck Girl Edwards Gets "Smeared"
I hate to bring in this camp analogy, but the way I feel about John Edwards reminds me of something Joan Crawford said of one of her female co-stars.  "I trust her as far as I could throw a battleship."

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

The fundraising appeal/statement order - reason
My guess is the initial thought was just to make money on the deal, and political hack, campaign manager Bonior wrote the fundraising letter, which focused on the "smear" on Edwards.  Later after getting rightly criticized on this blog and others, the Edwards campaign changed their tack, and put out the statements. 

Blogs can
(1) collect good ideas
(2) provide practically instant feedback
(3) educate
(4) affect/effect actions

[ Parent ]
Oh, grow up...
...I hate to have to hit you over the head by a 2x4, but the fact is that nobody in the national Democratic scene is going to stand up for equal rights for faggots.  Get it?  Do you understand that?  Maybe some Democrats at the state level will.  Not many, except maybe in the northeast and the northwest, but certainly not in Jesusland, which is where the Democratic party is trying to extend its public relation reach.

On the national level, no.  Hell, not even HRC, which had advertised itself as an advocacy group related to equal rights for faggots hired an abortion rights advocate to be its head recently--indicating that it was no longer interested in equal rights for faggots.


**gg**
It's the cheers from the crowds that most bother me. We really need to deal with that. Making Coulter radioactive will help.

Never use any term that follows the formula **gg**


Dems missed Nothing
Easy to say the Dems missed the  boat on the Coulter non sense. That, after all, moves the arguementg over to the Edwards family and how they were wrong. They have, finally, the dign ityh to not digify the family name by getting into a teaching or arguement with witch Coulter. They moved on. You feel they should do what O"Reilly might have done and wave hands about and argue with Coulter. Now look at what they have done and who emerges with dignity intact?

You simply need to address issues headon instead of trying to dump on  the opposition. After all Coulter is a disgrace to conservatives the way Michael Moore is to Democrats.


Coulter is the joke
She has an audience and she plays to it. The reaction is telling though. All the candidates responded, denouncing her comment while not really saying much in support of gays. The Democrats showed me that they will not do much in fear of alienating the greater group by supporting a minority, after all, where does the GLBT community really have to go? Like the Episcopal Church, we should give them our support even though they cannot, in public, support us? Sometimes I remember and miss the old "I Hate Straights" that was published in the 1980's.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Report TOS Violations



Join the Blend Chat Room



Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox