Pope OKs Condoms For Gay Porn Stars!!

But Doesn't That Fall Under "Special Protections For Gays?"

The silliness of the "abstinence only" group got sillier when Pope Benedict XVI declared that it was OK for male prostitutes to wear condoms since, after all, they don't procreate.

AP)  Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that the use of condoms can be justified in some cases, such as for male prostitutes seeking to prevent the spread of HIV.

Benedict said that condoms are not a moral solution to stopping AIDS. But he said in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."

Of course, some Catholic adherents to the Vatican, praised the pope's statement:

"We welcome the pope's change of opinion because it is meant to save life and to protect people. We see here an enlightened pope putting his concern over human life as a priority first." 

Then again, thinking hard: 

"There may be extreme, extreme exemptions for the church to allow its use, I'm thinking hard, but I can't think of any right now."

Exemptions, exemptions. Rapists? Nah. Pedophiles? Nah. The speculation as to exceptions besides male sex workers boggles the mind. 

So whither America's Christian Right? Should they condemn the pope because he acknowledged hustlers? Is he just trying to protect priests? Is he putting a (very small) halt to God's judgment? Or should they applaud him for helping them to point out gay porn stars? ("Pssst! That cute guy over there just bought some condoms - I wonder what movie he's in!"). Whatever their stance, they'll still look as perplexed as the rest of us: condoms for hustlers/porn stars, but not for anyone else?

This looks to be a lame attempt to counteract Benedict's 2009 statement that condoms were actually part of the problem of the AIDS epidemic. And it's one that will be twisted by the Christian Right (read: Tony Perkins, et al) as promoting homosexual concupiscence: "since gays can't procreate, let's just give them protection against STDs, then they can have as much sex as they want to."  

And another stance: this earth-shaking announcement flies in the face of women: women need protection too, but Benedict doesn't seem to care. He has taken a very chauvinistic attitude by allowing only a small male segment of the population the right to protection. One hopes he gets justifiably pilloried by women's groups for this latest effort to look sympathetic to the world's ills.

All people have the right to protection from illness, so the placement of that right on one minuscule segment of the world's population smacks as disingenuous at best. It is a tiny throwaway plastic trinket that only further distances Benedict from the people of the real world. And anyone who thinks this is a portent of further pronouncements on birth control is foolish. 

 

So where is Benedict going with this (assuming he's moving in any direction at all)? It smacks of chauvinism, stigmatization, or benign contempt:  the ruminations of a man who shielded pedophile priests, the cast-off, arbitrary pronouncements of a clerical actor who can think of nothing to say about human sexuality. 

In  the end, who cares?

"Christians Should Be Rewarded For Killing." Is Bryan Fischer Taking Christian Privilege Too Far?

When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.

 - Leonard Matlovich

While the culture war is heating up for Christmas, Bryan Fischer of American Family Association is branching out into the war in Afghanistan and dissing heroes who have saved lives. He had this to say about the awarding of the Medal of Honor to men who protected their comrades:

Christianity is not a religion of pacifism. Remember that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers who came to him to lay down their arms, even when they asked him directly, “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).


War is certainly a terrible thing, and should only be waged for the highest and most just of causes. But if the cause is just, then there is great honor in achieving military success, success which should be celebrated and rewarded.

One of the few people who outwardly mocked a man for not paying a subscription fee to the fire department, (then witnessing his house burning down along with his beloved pets) and has Glenn Beck's aversion to the words "compassion" and "social justice," Bryan Fischer is still a force to be reckoned with since he broadcasts without censure from the network sponsored by the American Family Association. His last notable public appearance was at Tony Perkins' Values Voter Summit - that appearance becoming the imprimatur of sorts to his tasteless and violent rhetoric: he thinks all muslims should be deported because they all pose a threat to the US. He thinks all gays should be put in prison and has defended Uganda's infamous "kill-the-gays" bill. And now he thinks that good Christians should be rewarded for killing as many people as possible.

It goes without saying that Bryan Fischer should be considered "fringe" or "wingnut" because of his penchant for depicting a "Rambo Jesus" totally at odds with the conventional Jesus. But in recent years, the revision of the image of Jesus Christ has spilled onto more mainstream Christianity. In a time when terrorists are supposedly hiding behind every tree, people don't feel safe when they see their God dying ignominiously on a cross or holding a warm-and-fuzzy lamb. Bryan Fischer points out the valor of the knights of the Crusasdes lliberating Jerusalem from the "heathen." Muslims remember the Crusades differently. 

Fischer could also be accused of pushing the envelope regarding Christianity itself. What many people do not know is that the envelope had been on the table for a long time in the form of Christian privilege.

Christian privilege is the overarching system of advantages bestowed on Christians. ... At times overt and at other times subtle, Christian privilege is oppression by purpose and design, as well as by neglect, omission, erasure, and distortion.*

We're currently engaged in a comparatively mild annual skirmish brought on by Christian privilege: the "war on Christmas: the Christ Right has declared Christmas to be their exclusive holiday and to pay it proper respect we all MUST say "Merry Christmas" or be branded as atheists. Churches are also forcing government officials to display nativity scenes. 

But in his Right Wing militaristic stance, is Fischer going too far? Has he taken the image of Christianity and turned it on its side? To uneducated and naive people, he has done just that:  studies have shown that Christians are relutant to wage war (unless pressured by their Christian leaders). Unfortunately, they have no knowledge of history: Bryan Fischer's Crusades ushered in the concept of  a "just war," almost 1000 years ago, but before that Christians refrained from warfare and most of Rome's legions (after Constantine) were pagans. The early Christians (read: Peter and Paul and Mary Magdalene) were indeed pacifists.

There has also been a progression in Fischer's view that, if not stopped at the image of a "Rambo" Jesus, seems to be leading to even more deadly scenario: first, the protestation of the Ground Zero Mosque, then the recommendation of deportation of all Muslims, and the latest rant about "feminizing" the Medal of Honor. 

It all begs the question: what's next, concentration camps a la Manzanar?

*(Investigating Christian Privilege, by Warren Blumenfeld, 2006)

Hey, America! Did You See THIS? These FOX News People Are Gonna Lose Their Jobs For Sure!!!

OMG!!

"Sarah Palin's Alaska is like the Sound of Music without the Nazis, without the romance, without the music!"

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! FOX News. What else do you think about our Right Wingnuts?

Soros & Murdoch: Fighting For Control Of The World

 According to Beck, Soros is a sneaky and sly ideologue who just loves to do almost everything under the cover of darkness, using a lot of front groups and organizations to hide his real agenda.

Rupert Murdoch Reportedly Funds North Korean Regime

Glenn Beck's recent attacks on the character and machinations of George Soros have raised speculation as to how much these stones have to do with "social justice" or if they are prompted by Soros' arch enemy, Rupert Murdoch. In any case, it is interesting to compare the two billionaires and to speculate who is doing what to whom. And the even bigger question: why?

The answers are not only based in the political and social views of the two men, but how they conduct their businesses and how they spread their wealth.

George Soros is almost twice as wealthy as Murdoch and spends a much greater portion of that wealth contributing to liberal causes and charities:

THE GENEROSITY INDEX

“The Giving Game: Billionaire Edition”(p. 85). Condé Nast Portfolio looks at which billionaires are giving the most to charitable causes, relative to their wealth; which are giving the least; and who is refusing to say. ... The top 10 most generous billionaires (in order of giving): Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, George Soros, John Kluge, Michael Bloomberg, David Koch, Pierre Omidyar, George Kaiser, and Michael Dell. ... Among the wealthiest people in the country with no record of public giving in the past several years (in order of giving): Kirk Kerkorian, Sumner Redstone, Anne Cox Chambers, Steve Ballmer, and Rupert Murdoch.

George Soros' Open Society Foundations has funneled money into welfare organizations throughout the world and if any theme might be given to his philanthropy it is "social justice." In a very real sense, Soros' philanthropy also focuses on politics both national and international:

Open Societies Statement:

Working to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens

That statement certainly sounds noble enough, but without the word "tolerant" the statement falls flat. It can be said that from a liberal POV, Open Societies is all-inclusive, meaning: conservatism is, by nature, exclusive. In contrast to Soros' philanthropic focus, Murdoch has been putting more money into political campaigns and media outlets for the Republican Party. In response to questions put to him by stockholders in NewsCorp as to transparency, Murdoch had this to say:

“We’ve considered[it] from time to time. I don’t believe we’ll be doing it again. We’ll see.”
And would he be willing to involve shareholders in this process?
“No,” he said. “Sorry, you have the right to vote us off the board.”

And while Murdoch aptly points out that NewsCorp has contributed more money to Democrat campaigns in the past, he has never divulged the value of time and promotion FOX News has given to conservative political campaigns. It runs in the billions, to be sure.

So here we have two men in different realms of power:  Soros has international power and (ostensible) goals of social justice, while Murdoch wields more national power through the media and has (ostensible) goals formed from pure capitalism. It's almost a fight between pure liberal and pure conservative (although Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic would disagree about anyone on the Right being a "pure" conservative). Murdoch's Glenn Beck has been trying desperately to make "compassion" and "social justice" pejorative to the lower middle and middle class, thereby depicting left-leaning philanthropists like Soros as people who "embrace the darkness" (at least, that's the way Lou Engle would put it). George Soros has been fighting back with contributions to organizations like Moveon.org and Media Matters.* Soros knows, however, that Murdoch owns too much of the media to ever be attacked effectively: sicking the Beck-Bulldog on Soros is something Murdoch will never cease to do until Soros is buried (rhetorically speaking, of course).

There is an insightful article in the Nov. 10th post of News Corpse that eviscerates Glenn Beck's "special" broadcast, The Puppet Master (I especially like the flipped-off title with Glenn Beck as The Muppet Pastor). It brings out Murdoch's machinations and scrutinizes them with the same criteria used to skewer Soros.

Conspiracy theory #4,876: So, is this feud merely a distraction? Is it a cover-up for the REAL players in world power? If I were a spy/mystery/sci-fi freak, I suppose it could be. But think of this: the Soros-Murdoch war may be a metaphor for the age-old war of "social justice vs. capitalism." Both sides may want you to look at it that way.  

On the other hand both sides may just want you to look the other way. Just a thought.

*Irony of Ironies:  WASHINGTON -- In one of the more clever moments of issue advocacy in recent memory, the progressive media watchdog group, Media Matters for America, successfully won an online auction Thursday to have a "friendly lunch" with its long-time nemesis, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch. [And don't forget that Soros donated one million dollars to Media Matters just days before the elections]

UPDATE 11/13/2010:

In the category of "nobody saw this coming" one of Sarah Palin's top aides, Randy Scheuneman, (foreign policy) has been on George Soros' payroll for years! Beck and Palin have some 'splainin' to do!

Will Mr. Tucker Carlson PLEASE Stay In The Closet?

He Does More For Gay Rights By Passing For Straight.

Tucker Carlson's (probably) illegal impersonation of Keith Olbermann in an email exchange showed us a side of Carlson that we all knew existed but didn't dwell on very much these last few years: he's really a bitchy queen in a bow tie. But the universe is filled with much more colorful bitchy queens trying desperately to look straight. And in the final analysis, it's the over-the-top macho maybes who look ridiculous in their homophobic scenarios that push straights to have compassion for gays: "Poor man, he tries sooo hard!" 

What tipped the scales in the Olbermann impersonation was his admission:

"Could you resist?" Carlson said. "It was just too funny. The flesh is weak."

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!

Make It a SAFER Halloween For Everyone!

Yes, readers, it's that time again: the streets will be filled with little demons...and fairies, and Freddies and Sarah Palins. No doubt, you've thought about taking the kids to a "Hell House" tonight to entertain them and keep them off the streets. After all, Halloween has gotten scarier. Just ask people in San Francisco's Castro district, who have had to give up Halloween festivities because of violence.

It's just possible, however, that the greatest threat to safety (future safety that is) is the church-run "Hell House" in your neighborhood. You see, while the usual Halloween Haunted House/Hell House tries to scare kids with the fantasies of the superstitious and the supernatural, church-sponsored Hell Houses try to scare kids with a form of REALITY.

Albeit a very skewed, very gruesome form of reality.

At a Hell House, a demon may escort you through scenes too gory for small children and too disturbing for young adults: a botched abortion of a cheerleader who dies and is headed to hell; the wedding of a gay couple, (the ceremony presided by a demon) the scene then shifting to one of the men dying of AIDS; a young girl goes to a rave, is given a "pill" then  gang raped (she also goes to hell). These and other scenes are graphically depicted before the end, when a moral is intoned and forgiveness of "sins" is offered. 

It's Scary ... and It Kills

We've already seen the fate of some kids who are bullied for being "different" or unpopular. And needless to say, the suicides of gay teens have been focused on by the media. What most people don't know, however, is that religious attempts to steer kids away from "sin" stigmatize as much as they warn: boys and girls have killed themselves over unwanted pregnancies, abortions, abusing drugs or alcohol, or a myriad of other perceived faults. Hells Houses also enable bullies and impound guilt. 

In a recent poll taken by the Public Religion Research Institute, almost two thirds of the American public blame religion in having a direct causal relationship to the latest spate of gay teen suicides:

Bottom line: Hell Houses are not as emotionally healthy as they think they are.

For the rest of this blogs articles on Hell Houses and demonizing:

Demonizing America, Part I: The UPDATES TELL THE STORY

Demonizing America, Part II: "Kill Them All! God Will Take Care Of His Kind!"

Demonizing America, Part III: SPECIAL REPORT - HELL HOUSES

Also:

Obama: It Gets Better...Hell House Ideology: IT GETS WORSE!

You're Right, Mr. Obama ...