Why I, a Christian mother of a Muslim daughter, fear our nation’s Islamophobia

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/06/why-i-a-christian-mother-of-a-muslim-daughter-fear-our-nations-islamophobia/

By Patricia Raybon May 6 at 2:39 PM


(Image courtesy of Patricia and Alana Raybon)

People stare as we tell our daughter Alana goodbye at the John Wayne Airport in California. Alana is a Muslim, and her head scarf turns heads every time.

Alana laughs to lighten the moment. “Oh, I hate airports,” she whispers to me. “As soon as I get on a plane, I know what people are saying, “Oh, God. A Muslim!”

The day before in the Nashville Airport, she got a full patdown by a TSA agent who asked to check her makeup bag, then said it tested positive for explosives.

“Explosives?” she asked.

more at link

[AtheistCrusader]

1. So what. I've tested positive for explosives at the airport.

There's a LOT of reasons why that can happen, and a lot of reasons why molecules from various makeups can false-positive an explosive test.

[Gothmog]

2. The current Islamaphobia is scary

[cbayer]

3. I agree and it's getting worse, particularly in some parts of the country.

[okasha]

4. What particularly alarms me

is that racism--and it does involve racism--is usually less acceptable among highly educated people than it is among those with less education. That's not true in this case. Some of its loudest proponents are among the most educationally privileged.

[cbayer]

5. It is not only acceptable but appears to be somewhat fashionable

in some circles.

In watching this Pam Geller even unfold, I have been fairly appalled by some of the positive support from people supposedly on the left. I have even seen people saying she is a hero for having drawn out and taken out two unexposed terrorists. I think some of the support is driven by islamophobia. It seems that this event has emboldened some into taking a pretty alarming stance and there has been an equally alarming level of tolerance for that position.

It's a small but persistent crowd, but it is alive and well.

[okasha]

6. Frankly, I'm appalled

to see supposed leftists defending the founder and director of an outright hate group. Something I haven't seen in US media but was mentioned in l'Osservatore Romano, is the involvement of "extreme conservative European politicians," which I assume means Geller's good friend Gert Wilders, among others. Another thing never mentioned is how Geller and the Garland school district are connected. Garland is a wealthy, conservative suburb of Dallas, but what possessed a school district to get involved in this, particularly when a tax-funded public entity should have no involvement in either promoting or attacking any religious or non-belief viewpoint.

[trotsky]

7. "supposed leftists defending the founder and director of an outright hate group"

Links pls?

I've seen lots of people here defending her right to say stupid and hateful things, but not defending her. So perhaps you have other ways of knowing?

Or perhaps you have nothing but bile. I believe that is a strong possibility.

[cbayer]

8. I'm not sure what you mean by the Geller/Garland school district connection.

From what I understand, she chose the location because it is already a hotbed of anti-islamic sentiment.

There was a conference held there in January following the shooting of the 3 students in Maryland. It was called "Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect”. The stated mission was to combat Islamophobia.

In response, protests were mounted by anti-islamic groups. They were attended by thousands, according to the press. It was ugly, to put it mildly.




I think she saw a community that would welcome her with open arms and that is why she went there.

[okasha]

12. Thank you. That explains it.

That's not really surprising. DFW is the one area of Texas I don't expect to turn blue if Hillary is our candidate.

[cbayer]

14. I don't know much about Dallas, but I remembered this story

about the protests. Garland's claims to fame are all centered around hate at this point. The residents must be so proud.

[okasha]

18. Dallas has gotten bigger since 1963,

but not much better.

[Cartoonist]

9. An outright hate group

Like the RCC?
Tell me they rejected the French ambassador because they loved him too much.

[cbayer]

11. Playing fast and loose with terms does not make a very good point.

While it is clear that the RCC holds some positions that we all agree are bigoted, they are not a hate group.

OTOH, Ms. Geller's organization clearly is. Let me know when the RCC shows up on the SPLC hate group list.

[MellowDem]

25. And why aren't they a hate group?

Because of religious privilege. They fit the definition just fine.

Hell, the religious texts of the Abrahamic faiths read like hate propaganda, and quite a few of the hate groups identified by the SPLC justify their hate with those texts. Hmmm.

The Pope just made a saint of an oppressive missionary, and some white supremacist group is getting behind the PR movement by preaching that it's really all about love. The only difference is social conditioning and privilege.

[cbayer]

26. No, because they don't meet the criteria. Lots of hate groups are religiously

based, so saying it is about privilege is completely off the mark.

In fact, the bulk of the SPLC's hate groups are religiously based.

They have some positions based on bigotry and make some decisions that reflect that bigotry. There is nothing to support about that.

But they aren't a hate group by definition.

So what did you think about the article? Do you think there is a growing islamophobia in the US?

[MellowDem]

30. I think the term in the same way I think of...

Fascism phobia. Complete bullshit. I think there could be growing bigotry towards Muslims and certain ethnicities as a result of the fear generate by groups like ISIS, but I'd like to see statistics on it before jumping to conclusions. That would be called Muslimphobia.

And I think a lot of what is called Islamophobia is criticism of a belief system, so I think the word is mostly a bullshit term to deflect any criticism of a hateful, bigoted belief system, and it does so using the terminology of an oppressed group demonized by Islam, homosexuals, which makes it doubly vile IMHO.

And you never explained how the RCC or any other Abrahamic faith don't meet the criteria. Their texts demonize and dehumanize whole groups of people and inspire hate towards others. Meets my criteria.

[cbayer]

33. Fascism phobia? Never heard of it.

So do you think there is outright bigotry towards muslims in this country? I don't mean criticism of a belief system, I mean bigotry towards people based on their being muslim.

It would be a great experience for you to be a muslim for a day. I have a pakistani son-in-law. Frankly it's kind of horrifying for you to deny that there is not prejudice and bigotry towards him based solely on how he looks and his religious affiliation. Even just spending a day with him might be an very eye opening experience for you.

Hate groups are those that are organized specifically around their hatred, hostility or violence towards other groups. Groups that may have some areas of bigotry, like the RCC, are not hate groups. The SPLC is probably the most active in identifying these groups and many of the groups they have identified have religious roots.

I guess you can develop your own definition, but it's going to be unique to you and not widely shared by those who really are seriously involved in the issue.

OTOH, there are clearly hate groups that target muslims, including Pamela Geller's group.

[MellowDem]

35. Exactly, because it's a bullshit term...

But it's the same concept. Is it possible to have irrational fears of a belief system? I suppose so, but it's not usually used in that context, it's usually used regarding oppressed groups who are feared based on ignorance.

It would be rational to fear fascists, knowing what Fascism entails. But, if we lived in a world where fascist was considered more a traditional or cultural identifier, and no indication of actual belief in the ideology, then we'd be in a comparable situation to the U.S. and religion in the real world.

There is definitely outright bigotry towards Muslims. The term Islamophobia is meant to defend a bigoted belief system, not to highlight an oppressed minority, which is why it's not called "Muslimphobia" if there was to even be a separate word for bigotry and xenophobia.

I don't know where I denied there is bigotry against Muslims, but wail away at your strawman.

The SPLC can't identify religion as hate groups because it would offend too many people, it's way too privileged in our society to be dealt with on equal terms to other ideologies, so the SPLC focuses on the most extreme examples, which makes their job a lot easier.

Even the hate groups are often organized around the same in-group love and acceptance people hope to find. And the Abrahamic faiths are among the most massive in-groups. When you worship a genocidal god that promises eternal punishment to non-believers, that's about as hate groupish as you can get. Many believers realize this, and just reject their own religious texts while keeping the label.

[cbayer]

36. I must of misunderstood, because I thought you said you feared the belief system,

not the believers.

I'm afraid you have missed the point I have made repeatedly. The SPLC's list of hate groups is chock full of religious groups. They don't give a shit who it might offend. I'm afraid you really don't know much about them or their program in this area.

Your hatred of religion is blatant, but you and your ilk would not fit the criteria of a hate group unless you organized around your hate and pursued an agenda of practicing hostility and/or violence towards those that you hate.

Anyway, you don't get to define it in general or for anyone else, but you are certainly welcome to create any definitions you want for your own use.

Just might want to be careful, because if you make your definition too broad, you might actually fall into that hole.

[MellowDem]

41. The RCC, for example...

Organizes and pursues policies that strip women and homosexuals of their basic human rights, it fires people for being homosexual, it refuses to hire women in leadership roles. Not a hate group eh? You're defending the powerful and privileged here.

I do fear true believers in hateful bigoted belief systems, but the root fear is the ideology itself, the true believers can, and sometimes do, change their mind.

The hate groups identified by the SPLC are only fringe religions. Offshoots of offshoots. The SPLC have to care, I'm sure quite a few are religious themselves, and such is the power and privilege of religion that they can identify with those same umbrella religions and not worry about the connection. They wouldn't be around for long if they identified the RCC as a hate group, it's just being practical.

My dislike of certain religions is like my dislike of conservatism, it's an ideology, not a group of people, it's why DU isn't a hate group.

[cbayer]

43. I don't disagree that the RCC pursues some policies that are bigoted and I'm

not going to defend them. But they don't meet the criteria, expect by the definition that you have created.

Saying they are not a hate group is not the same as defending them. That's just something you have made up.

You continue to provide more and more evidence that you really don't know much about the SPLC. You are creating a fantasy that really has no basis in reality. They don't identify the RCC as a hate group because it doesn't meet the criteria.

DU is not a hate group in any way, I agree.

[MellowDem]

44. I'm just pointing out it does meet the criteria...

but it's not practical because of how powerful and privileged many religions are. That's what power and privilege get you, certain immunities. I'm not sure why you think the RCC doesn't fit the criteria. It doesn't advocate direct violence, but it sure does organize and actively pursue hostility against all sorts of groups, many with deadly consequences. And it worships and condones a God that condemns nonbelievers to punishment, certainly a rather violent, if supernatural, belief.

[okasha]

13. Because there's no difference between Gert Wilders and the Berrigan brothers.

Stop digging, Toons.

[cbayer]

15. Or Pamela Geller and Sister Simone Campbell.

He can't help himself.

[okasha]

19. Operant conditioning.

[cbayer]

21. What are the rewards?

[okasha]

22. Attention, peer affirmation and ego gratification.

[cbayer]

23. Yes. And the avoided punishments are being ignored, being shunned by the group

and feeling less than superior to the "other".

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. As if the Berrigan brothers, or Sister Simone Campbell, have, or had, any power in the RC church

If you're characterising an organisation, you don't look at the exceptions in the membership or hierarchy; you look at the mainstream people who control it. So, that would be the popes and cardinals. You know, the ones who campaign against same-sex marriage, threaten to excommunicate politicians not for launching wars, but for accepting abortion, that kind of thing.

Face it, name most American RC cardinals, and DU will collectively spit in disgust, because they are bigots. That's the problem - the Roman Catholic church as an organisation is a self-perpetuating group of bigots in charge.

[cbayer]

79. Would you compare it to Pamela Geller's organization?

I'm not going to defend the RCC, but the exceptions are what makes it different and that is exactly who you should look at.

They represent the opportunity to change the organization from the inside.

Do Pamela Geller's organizations have any such people? I strongly doubt it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. It's far more powerful, certainly

"the exceptions are what makes it different and that is exactly who you should look at"

That doesn't make any sense. It's ridiculous.

"They represent the opportunity to change the organization from the inside. "

And the Berrigan brothers started their activity in the 60s. How's the change coming along? Did it stop the appointment of bigoted bishops and cardinals in the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s? Do we see any sign of Philip Berrigan being honored by the church, more than 12 years after he died? Maybe that's because he left the priesthood around 1970. The RCC doesn't permit people to change it from the inside. It is the most conservative organisation the world has ever seen - more so that Chinese dynasties, the British monarchy, the Roman Empire or anything. Daniel Berrigan's role has been for years as a lecturer in a university. He's a good man, but hardly likely to make any change in the church. Sister Campbell tried to go against the party line, and they stopped any change happening.

[cbayer]

82. Definitely more powerful, and you may disagree with my take on this,

but it's not ridiculous.

You didn't answer my question. This subthread started because there was a comparison of Pamela Geller's hate group and the RCC. The example of having rejected a french ambassador was compared to the things that Geller's group does.

Do you agree that they are both outright hate groups?

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. Yes, I agree they are a hate group.

Form the top, the RCC is homophobic (as the case of the ambassador shows, the organising of Proposition 8 in California, and more). The Roman Catholic Church hates LGBT people. Many of the American members may not, but they stick with moral and financial support of the homophobes in charge.

[cbayer]

84. Then your definition of hate group is not consistent with the general

and accepted definition.

When you include groups like the RCC, you really dilute the focus on the true hate groups like Ms. Geller's group.

That's one of the problems of being unable to see shades of gray when it comes to religious organizations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Definition:

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

http://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Beliefs, practices, an entire class of people, immutable characteristics. All there.

[cbayer]

86. That's not a definition, of course, that is a statement that all hate groups share these

characteristics. If that were the definition, then the SPLC would have a substantially longer (and weaker) list.

They focus on extremist groups which are specifically organized around their bigotry and not for any other reason.

A designation by the SPLC is very meaningful and should not be taken lightly, nor should the term be applied to groups that are neither extreme nor organized solely to promote hate. By including groups like the RCC, you minimize the impact of that designation.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. those assholes defending freedom of speech!

what the fuck is wrong with them. amirite?

[okasha]

16. Actually, what you're defending is a First Amendment violation.

In this case, there was a taxpayer-funded unit of local government--the school district--adopting and advocating a religious position.

Nourrong.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Well you do get credit for imaginative bullshit.

[okasha]

20. So it's okay for a govwrnment entity to violate

the First Amendment as long as you agree with its position? My goodness. Can't say I'm surprised.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Now you've piled the bullshit wide and deep.

Curtis Caldwell Center is indeed owned by the Garland Independent School District. What you haven't established is that the Garland Independent School District "sponsored" Geller's event, any more than they sponsored the Stand with the Prophet event earlier in January. They rent their Curtis Caldwell Center to people and organizations, and what the first amendment prohibits is their doing so in a religiously discriminatory fashion.

About the Center
Since our opening in 2005, the Curtis Culwell Center brings together more than 700,000 people a year to enjoy events including graduations, concerts, performances, athletic competitions, tradeshows, corporate meetings, weddings, reunions, church services and other social and community gatherings.
Owned by the Garland Independent School District, the center was built to host graduations and other school district events while providing the community of Garland a first-class facility which hosts a variety of events and has a significant economic impact for the area.
Event planners and visitors to the Curtis Culwell Center are welcomed with open arms into this sleek modern facility that was built with the end-user in mind. With a full conference center and arena, we offer flexible space that allows for most any event you can imagine.

You do indeed have an imagination run wild, but are way short on having actual facts to back up your bullshit.

You can apologize for your fucking awful accusations anytime.

[Goblinmonger]

29. That's just patently false.

If they open up the taxpayer-funded building to anyone, they have to open it up to all. They can't pick and choose. That has been made very clear by SCOTUS. If they allow the stop islamaphobia event, they have to allow Geller. Or they have to allow none of them.

And there is not adopting or advocating of a position by renting out the building. Or do you think that the school district is simultaneously adopting and advocating both pro-Islamic and anti-Islamic religious positions simultaneously?

Or are you being deliberately obtuse hoping nobody will call you on your bullshit?

[okasha]

42. Two posts?

Isn't that a bit above and beyond what you need to do to keep your hosting position?

[Goblinmonger]

46. Aren't you clever. Are you going to reply to the point made.

See, I made one point in the other post and a different one here.

I see you have made multiple posts in this thread. Why is that?

I give fuck all about your concerns about my hosting A/A. Or are you talking about my requirements for hosting Fiction?

[Goblinmonger]

31. Yeah, it's just like those assholes that defending the KKK

and George Wallace. What a bunch of fuckers those "supposed leftists" are for defending the Nazis. THE FUCKING NAZIS. Can you believe that bullshit?

Frankly, I feel quite happy defending the free speech rights of a fucking hateful bigot if it puts me in the company of the ACLU. You and your ilk, on the other hand, might want to reconsider taking a position contrary to the group dedicated to protecting constitutional rights.

Or not. Do whatever the fuck you want, but don't you dare think that your calling out the defense of free speech rights by those on a progressive website will go unnoticed. That defense of the free speech rights of people that are fucking horrible people with racist, awful positions is a pretty solid progressive, liberal stance. Fucking deal with it.

[okasha]

37. "...don't I dare"

or you'll...what, Goblin? Hold your breath?

For the record, I'm a founding member of my local ACLU chapter. Also for the record, no one here has questioned either Geller's free speech rights, or more to the point, the participating cartoonists' rights. They do seem to get lost in all that palpitating outrage you and your ilk have served up.

Do deal with it, dearie.

[skepticscott]

39. People here HAVE stated quite clearly that anyone who dares to defend Geller's free speech rights

is actually supporting the views she expresses and "cheering" her and her group. Which is pretty fucking despicable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196166

[Goblinmonger]

45. I made that clear in my post.

I will call you on your bullshit.

You do question those of us that stand up for her free expression rights. As a founding member of your local ACLU chapter, perhaps you want to inform Ms. Bayer that when she says she wants to have Geller stopped, that she shouldn't be questioning he free speech rights. Perhaps you want to inform yourself that it isn't a first amendment violation for a school to be open to all view points and is actually something that ACLU fought to make sure happened so school districts didn't say yes to religions they liked and no to ones they didn't.

My outrage is that people want to blame the ones exercising their non-violent free speech rights for the violence attempted upon them.

[okasha]

48. Oh. How fearsome.

How terrible.

I quail with dread, and all that.

Pamela Geller needs to be stopped by making clear to the public how utterly vile a creature she is, something that a few visits to her website will do for anyone who isn't a sociopath him/herself.

[MellowDem]

27. Islam is worthy of lots of rational fear...

As well as Christianity. I fear these two belief systems with good reason. There are many who fear Muslims (not Islam) for irrational reasons, generally based on xenophobia and bigotry, but who otherwise share many of the same foundational Abrahamic beliefs. It's those beliefs that scare me.

Islam and Christianity explicitly dehumanize those who do not believe in their texts.

For people who identify with such hateful and bigoted faiths to say they fear hate and bigotry wrought from the same line of reasoning of their belief system is a sort of sad irony.

[cbayer]

28. I doubt that you as a white, male atheist experience anything even

remotely similar to what this woman experiences.

You may fear Islam and Christianity, but do you fear this woman? Is there a good reason to fear her?

Hate and bigotry is not unique to religion. Hate and bigotry crosses the spectrum. Believers hating other believers. Believers hating non-believers. Non-believers hating believers. Non-believers hating other nonbelievers.

It is, indeed, a sad irony.

[MellowDem]

32. I don't fear the woman...

Nor did I claim the same experiences as her. Now that the stramen and ad homare done, I'll explain why. Most believers in the U.S. ignore or don't care about the religion they identify with, and their religious institutions don't hold political power, even if many true believers do, which does scare me. But the average believer picks and chooses the parts of their religion that conform to the broader society's morality, and discard those that don't. It would be like the supremacist that discards racism but embraces a good bonfire with friends. It's only normal because it's so socially normative.

Hate and bigotry aren't unique to religion. But then, I don't identify with an ideology that preaches hate and bigotry, these two women do. It's only religious privilege that allows them such easy cognitive dissonance.

[cbayer]

34. I would take issue with your claim that you don't identify with an ideology that preaches hate

and bigotry.

But I think your own cognitive dissonance completely blinds you to that. It's always ironic to see people so high on the ladder of privilege slap the hands of others that are so far below them on the ladder.

Muslims do not have religious privilege in this country. White males do, religious or not.

[MellowDem]

38. Muslims have some level of privilege...

Depending on context. Privilege isn't black or white. Religion in this country gets massive advantages, even minority religions to some degree, and Islam is no exception. As a belief system, it gets massive protections and deference it would otherwise not get if it wasn't a huge religion.

If you think I identify with an ideology that preaches hate and bigotry, name it. Because I think it's just another one of your passive aggressive jabs, devoid of meaning.

Being high on the ladder of privilege doesn't mean you can't criticize privilege. Many Muslims have all sorts of privilege in this country. It's more complicated than you think. Male privilege, economic privilege, religious privilege. To name a few.

For example, it is a privilege to be able to identify with an explicitly hateful and bigoted belief system that entails all sorts of social connections and advantages and not be thought of as personally hateful or bigoted as a result.

[cbayer]

40. In the US? I don't think muslims have any privilege, and even if they

did it would be offset by the massive prejudice.

I think you hold an ideology that is distinctly anti-religious. I think this ideology you embrace makes little distinction between subgroups and gets applied to everyone without regard to who they are personally. When you makes broad assumptions about these two women just because one is christian and the other muslim, your ideology becomes crystal clear.

These two people are women and black. One is Muslim. You can't even see them from where you sit, but somehow you think you can judge them.

And please look up passive-agressive before you use it again. When I say this about your ideology, it is aggressive-agressive. There is nothing passive about it at all.

Sure, you can criticize privilege, but you can't even see most people from your point on the ladder.

[MellowDem]

47. I didn't make a single assumption about the women...

I just described my objections to the belief systems they identify with.

Do you hold an ideology that is distinctly anti-conservatism? Do you see how silly that sounds?

I think I can see people from my point on the privilege ladder, it's not like once you get to a certain point it's impossible to have empathy or understanding. I think it's a point you harp on because it's another ad hom. You say I can't possibly understand privilege because I'm white and male. Seems a bit presumptuous, but under that reasoning why would anyone try to understand anything different from their own experiences at all? All my being white and male does is give me a different perspective of privilege, it doesn't mean I can't ever see it or understand it.

You're passive aggressive in that your insults are usually subtly implied, qualified and rarely explained. You use a lot of irrelevant ad hominem as well. I don't take your insults seriously, but you do throw a lot around.

[AlbertCat]

49. but do you fear this woman? Is there a good reason to fear her?

She's a jew. Maybe he fears Jews too! But I doubt it.



"Hate and bigotry is not unique to religion. Hate and bigotry crosses the spectrum. Believers hating other believers. Believers hating non-believers. Non-believers hating believers. Non-believers hating other nonbelievers. "


Thanks for the great insight.... who knew that? Maybe you can shorten it to fit on a bumper sticker.

[cbayer]

53. Sure! People in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones.

What does "Maybe he Jews too!" even mean.

[mr blur]

77. Actually, it's not an "irony",

but never mind. At least you tried, eh?

[Yorktown]

50. Damn. Mellow, Warren, Goblin & Skeptic have made all the good points.

Nothing to add.

[mwrguy]

51. It's socially acceptable bigotry. Thanks a lot Bill Maher.

For emboldening the like of Geller.

[cbayer]

52. Agree. I think he and others have made it even more than acceptable.

[AlbertCat]

54. Yeah.... just like hatred and fear of Atheist! Thanks a lot Bill O'Reilly.

Pointing out that religion is ridiculous INCLUDES Geller, not emboldens her.

[cbayer]

55. Agree, I can see the similarities between O'Reilly and Maher.

They both use bigotry to pad their bank accounts.

This is about Maher's islmaophobia, which is what emboldens people like Geller.

[Goblinmonger]

57. So the RCC emboldens Westboro Baptist.

Right? Right? Same thing.

[rug]

58. Only if you lack critical reasoning.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Oh, do educate me then, great one.

If Maher made Geller possible, how does the RCC and their anti-gay stance not make Westboro Baptist possible?

And not fair saying "because it's my religion."

I mean, it's fine if you want to say that the people connecting Maher and Geller are full of shit. Then the RCC lead to Westboro argument goes away.

[rug]

62. I'm more interested in following the convolutions that led you to that point.

That point being where one old-time anti-Catholic bigot is being "emboldened" by one of the very things he hates.

[Goblinmonger]

66. Well, following the logic of your compatriots,

the RCC is engaged in some very socially acceptable homophobic bigotry. Many people go out of their way to not call them out on it. So apparently, that kind of bigotry makes the more extreme bigotry more acceptable. QED, I guess. And do you think that Geller likes atheists?

[rug]

67. Compatriots? Do tell. What country do we inhabit?

Whatever you think that is, this pretzelian logic is all yours.

As to whether Geller likes atheists, I have no idea. But I'm sure she thinks fondly of Sam Harris.

[Goblinmonger]

70. Does metaphoric usage of a word confuse you?

[rug]

71. No. Let me know when you do it.

[Goblinmonger]

72. I know you are but what am I.

Seriously--speaking of "that's all you got."

[rug]

73. .

(insert stupid picture of a dog and a water hose)

[Goblinmonger]

65. Oh, wait, I forgot the reply I was supposed to make

given your group's model.

Something garble call to arms garble something batsignal garble.

Think I nailed it. It's sweet that you come to her rescue, even if it was just...

[rug]

68. And what group might that be?

I know you tend to treat individuals as no more than a molecule of various groups you despise but now I think you're going to have to provide a playbill.

What grop specifically is your fervid mind now contemplating?
"
I really don't think I need a "call to arms" to respond to you.

[beam me up scottie]

87. And yet the pope's hate speech against lgbt people is perfectly acceptable.

Pope Francis on gay rights: His 5 worst quotes

The new pontiff is being hailed as a fresh choice, but there's nothing new about his opposition to gay rights


Pope Francis has been praised for his humility (he picks up his own luggage!), his acceptance of other faiths (he won’t insult the Prophet Mohammed in public addresses!) and his “precedent shattering” name choice (more humility!).

But the pontiff who is being hailed as a “new direction” for the Catholic Church is the same-old brand of theological conservative who opposes the ordination of women, abortion and the fundamental rights of gays and lesbians.

In fact, then-Cardinal Jose Bergoglio was a major force against the 2010 move to legalize same-sex marriage in his native Argentina. Though he ultimately failed, Bergoglio used the full weight of the church to crush the measure.

Here, a collection of his very worst quotes on the issue.

1. A Senate vote on gay marriage is a destructive pretension against the plan of God

From a letter to the Carmelite Sisters of Buenos Aires on the perils of marriage equality:

“Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

2. Gay marriage will destroy the family

More from the same letter to the four monasteries of Argentina:

“The Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family… At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children.

3. Gay parenting is a rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts

Again:

“At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

4. The political struggle against marriage equality is war

And finally:

“The bill will be discussed in the Senate after July 13. Look at San Jose, Maria, Child and ask them [to] fervently defend Argentina’s family at this time. [Be reminded] what God told his people in a time of great anguish: ‘This war is not yours but God’s.’ May they succor, defend and join God in this war.”

5. Gay adoption is discrimination against children

According to the National Catholic Reporter, Francis called gay adoption a form of “discrimination against children.” A comment that resulted in a public rebuke from Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said that Francis’ remarks suggested “medieval times and the Inquisition.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/pope_francis_on_gay_rights_his_5_worst_quotes/

Elaborating on comments he made in Manila Jan. 16 about "ideological colonization that tries to destroy the family,"the pope offered a 20-year-old example of an unnamed government official, apparently in his native Argentina, who was offered a loan to build schools for poor children on the condition she assign students a textbook on "gender theory."

Catholic leaders often use the term "gender theory" to refer to ideas that question or deny the God-given nature of sex differences and the complementarity of man and woman as the basis of the family.

"Why do I say ideological colonization? Because they use a people's need as an opportunity to come in and impose their will on children. But this is nothing new. The dictatorships of the last century did the same thing; they came in with their doctrine. Think of the Balilla. Think of the Hitler Youth," the pope said.

The Balilla was a youth organization instituted by Italy's fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500255.htm

Sounds like a hate group to me.

[trotsky]

74. And moderate believers embolden the fundamentalists, right cb? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

88. And followers of the RCC are emboldened by its institutionalized homophobia and misogyny.

While critics of the church are called "bigots" for pointing it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123723

112. And this has what to do with the RCC?

Why would any couple want to marry in a church that doesn't accept them? Makes no sense.
You really look for extreme situations to provide fodder for your hatred of religion. How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?

I'm sorry, but religious rights and gay rights are not the same thing. I support both. Seems like you only support one. I know many gay couples, some who married in church and some at town hall and some couldn't care less about the institution of marriage.

I think your views are self centered. You want the world to adapt to your values, like the vegan who wants everyone to quit eating meat. What a boring world that would be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

176. Really? And how exactly did I do that?

You seem to confuse marriage and sexuality. The first is about a ceremonial binding of two entities. The second is about sex.
Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you.

A Jury voted 5-2 to hide this post on Fri Apr 18, 2014, 05:12 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124679

177. No, I am not equating it with anything.

We should all have the right to marry whomever or whatever, provided it is consensual and conducted of sound mind.
Do you have a problem with sisters marrying each other? I don't. How about other family members? Do you draw lines and, if so, why?

My point, as I'm sure you are already aware, was about seeking approval from the RCC or any other church, to get married. That approval comes from within one's own conscience. Official approval comes from the state. Fuck the church and fuck those who want to paint me as an enemy of equal rights. Fuck the bigots and bullies and nasty hate mongering anti-theists. Fuck all fascists.


Happy Easter!

[Goblinmonger]

56. Holy Logical Leaps, Batman

How exactly did Bill Maher cause Geller?

So after a week of amazing things on DU, I thinks to myself, "Self, you can't possibly see anything more stupid on DU than you saw this week." And then, BAM, this post.

[rug]

59. "Self, read post 61."

[Goblinmonger]

61. Are you wittle fee fees hurt because I said a mean about your church?

Too fucking bad.

Not sure the claim here, though. Are you saying the RCC isn't run by homophobic bigots at the top? Because that seems like a no brainer. Or are you saying that the original Maher/Geller connection is fucking stupid? Because that I agree with.

[rug]

63. Is that the best you can do?

With centuries of scathing literature at your disposal, you go to "wittle fee fees"?

Now I have to edit the post.

[Goblinmonger]

64. I know I'll never get an answer from you

so, pulling back into my reading of Don Quixote, I would rather not tilt at the windmills that are you admitting your pope is a homophobic bigot and do the logical thing which is attribute your lack of answer to a realistic statement on the church you support.

[rug]

69. Now that you mention Don Quixote, you've reminded me of this quote:

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”

[mr blur]

75. Oh, you're far too hard on yourself...

possibly...

[rug]

76. This failure to distinguish subject from object explains your difficulty with

the concept of cognitive dissonance.

[liberal_at_heart]

80. I completely agree. It is socially acceptable bigotry.