About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

With their homophobic smears of Jennings exposed, anti-gay right now targeting EEOC nominee Feldblum

October 06, 2009 3:33 pm ET — 38 Comments

Following their discredited and homophobic smears of Department of Education official Kevin Jennings, the right-wing media is at it again, this time using anti-gay rhetoric to target Chai Feldblum, President Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) nominee. Rather than address Feldblum's qualifications, right-wing media have advanced their anti-gay agenda by targeting statements made by Feldblum and a statement she signed that have nothing to do with the job for which she has been nominated.

Right-wing media begin homophobic campaign against Feldblum

Farah: The "database Obama uses to locate people like" Feldblum has "got to be Perverts.gov." In his October 6 column, after referencing what he called "revelations about" Feldblum, WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farah wrote:

I wonder what kind of database Obama uses to locate people like this? Is it Monster.com? That would be appropriate. Or is it FreaksUnlimited.com? Maybe Obamanations.com? No, it's got to be Perverts.gov.

I'm telling you, the entire federal government is going to have to be fumigated some day when these deviants and degenerates are finally sent packing.

WorldNetDaily: Feldblum is "an outspoken homosexual rights activist." The right-wing website WorldNetDaily referred to Feldblum as "an outspoken homosexual rights activist" in two different October 5 articles. According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation's (GLAAD) Media Reference Guide (7th edition), "Because of the clinical history of the word 'homosexual,' it has been adopted by anti-gay extremists to suggest that lesbians and gay men are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered -- notions discredited by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s." Further, in one of the articles, WND sets off the word "gay" in quote marks when not directly quoting the word, as is WND style.

Catholic Online writer referred to Feldblum as a "practicing Lesbian" and a "homosexual activist lawyer." In an October 1 article on the website CatholicOnline.org, Deacon Keith Fournier wrote of Feldblum:

Ms. Feldblum is a practicing Lesbian and an advocate for the Homosexual Equivalency agenda. She sees a conflict between the Religious "Free Exercise" constitutional claims of Christians and the "equal rights" claims of practicing homosexuals, at least as they are viewed by the Homosexual Equivalency movement.

[...]

This homosexual activist lawyer -- who will soon have a significant role as an enforcer of "Equal Rights" at the Federal level -- actually believes that the protections provided under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution have become outdated. ... [A]n analysis of her legal writing makes it crystal clear that she believes that homosexual paramours should be granted legally equivalent status to married heterosexual couples.

Catholic Online writer warned that Feldblum may let groups use "Police Power" to push "Homosexual Equivalency Movement." Fournier also wrote of Feldblum's nomination:

I also thought of the well funded Homosexual activist group, The Human Rights Campaign, and how pleased they must be with her nomination. They are the leading public interest advocates of what I have long called the "Homosexual Equivalency Movement".

I use that phrase intentionally to get the real issue across to people. This is not about discrimination against anybody. These folks I refer to as "homosexual equivalency" supporters insist that all Americans recognize a legal equivalency between true marriages and cohabitating practicing homosexuals or face legal punitive consequences. These folks are social and cultural revolutionaries. The Human Rights Campaign uses the Courts and the legislature to force this kind of new America on all of us. They want to have the Police Power of the State as the enforcer of their cultural revolution and Ms. Feldblum may soon make it possible.

Traditional Values Coalition makes anti-gay statement that Feldblum, a legal scholar, "wants the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom to impose the gay agenda on all Americans." In a September 17 article on RightSideNews.com titled, "If You Hate America You Have a Lawyer -- Chai Feldblum," the Traditional Values Coalition wrote:

Feldblum isn't known by most Americans but her career experience and employers make her a sort of general counsel to the Forces of Darkness. She has worked for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign Fund and she founded something called the Moral Values Project, a "gender equity" group meant to sound like something conservative.

She is a lesbian and has played a major role in pushing the LGBT agenda in American culture for the past 20 years.

Feldblum is professor of law (gay studies) at Georgetown University. She is the primary author of the pro-gay/transsexual bill known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which is being pushed again in Congress. She is also a strategist for gay activists.

[...]

In short, she wants the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom to impose the gay agenda on all Americans -- including those with strongly held religious beliefs about homosexuality.

WorldNetDaily, Hot Air attack Feldblum's position that gay sex is morally equivalent to heterosexual sex

WND headline: " 'Gay' sex morally good, says Obama pick." In the October 5 article, WorldNetDaily wrote:

"Gay" sex is morally good and is as "wonderful" as heterosexual relations, according to Chai Feldblum, President Obama's nominee to become commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"Gay sex is morally good," she said. "Now you may think that might be a little crazy to go out there and say gay sex is good. But think a second. Society definitely believes that heterosexual sex is good. Right. Heterosexual sex within a certain framework -- marriage -- I mean, you can't get more dewy-eyed and romantic in this society about how wonderful that is."

Continued Feldblum: "If you're not being cynical for the moment, I think that does reflect a correct understanding that sex is often a basic building block for intimacy and that intimacy and connections within couples and within families are integral building blocks for a healthy society."

Feldblum is an outspoken homosexual rights activist and Georgetown law professor. She offered her sex remarks at a UCLA symposium on homosexuality available on YouTube.

Hot Air on Feldblum's remark: "[E]ven the most moderate of bible thumpers will generally have a problem with that." In an October 5 post on HotAir.com, a website founded by Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, contributor "Laura" wrote:

Some interesting information about President Obama's pick for EEOC commissioner, Chai Feldblum, is coming out. She's been added to the "smear list" of the "right wing blast machine" which is committing the unpardonable offense of quoting her accurately. Just like we did Van Jones. Hey, is it our fault if what you say is wildly at odds with what all us mouth-breathing, snake-handling, inbred red-staters believe?

For example, "we want to revolutionize societal norms" and "gay sex is a moral good." (video here)

You know, even the most moderate of bible thumpers will generally have a problem with that.

Conservatives target Feldblum for signing statement unrelated to EEOC commissioner duties

2006 statement, "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage," has no bearing on Feldblum's duties at EEOC. Right-wing media have attacked Feldblum for being a signatory to a July 26, 2006, statement titled, "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage," which states that "marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others," and cites "Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner" along with "Single parent households" and "Adult children living with and caring for their parents," among others, as people that "stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage." The statement is entirely unrelated to the duties Feldblum would have as an EEOC commissioner, which include enforcement of existing federal laws involving job discrimination and providing oversight of federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

Farah: "revelations about" Feldblum being "a signatory to an online petition." In his column, Farah referenced Feldblum's signing of the statement, which he described as "a manifesto praising polygamy and arguing traditional marriage should not be privileged above other forms of union":

Now come the revelations about his nominee to be commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- Chai Feldblum.

She signed a manifesto praising polygamy and arguing traditional marriage should not be privileged above other forms of union.

Another outspoken homosexual-rights activist -- it seems almost a prerequisite in the Obama administration -- she is a signatory to an online petition entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships." Among the stated "partnerships" the petition seeks to protect is "households in which there is more than one conjugal partner."

I wonder what kind of database Obama uses to locate people like this? Is it Monster.com? That would be appropriate. Or is it FreaksUnlimited.com? Maybe Obamanations.com? No, it's got to be Perverts.gov.

I'm telling you, the entire federal government is going to have to be fumigated some day when these deviants and degenerates are finally sent packing.

WND links statement to nomination. In an October 5 article, WND referenced Feldblum's signing of the statement in reporting on Feldblum's nomination:

President Obama's nominee to become commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signed a manifesto praising polygamy and arguing traditional marriage should not be privileged above other forms of union.

Chai Feldblum, an outspoken homosexual rights activist and Georgetown University law professor, is a signatory to an online petition entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships."

The organization defines itself as "a diverse group of nearly twenty LGBT and queer activists [who] came together to discuss marriage and family politics as they exist in the United States today."

The manifesto, first noticed by the Catholic News Agency, calls for a "new vision" for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of "diverse kinds of partnerships."

Among the stated "partnerships" the petition seeks to protect is "households in which there is more than one conjugal partner."

The petition laments what it claims are conservative attempts to push for "abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom."

Fox Nation: "Did Obama Nominee Praise Polygamy?" The Fox Nation linked to the October 5 WND article under the headline, "Did Obama Nominee Praise Polygamy?":

fnfeldblum

Gateway Pundit: "[C]omplete nutbag ... signed this nutty manifesto." In an October 5 post on his blog, Gateway Pundit wrote that "Barack Obama's latest nominee for The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signed a petition that praised polygamy. ... Feldblum is one of the many rightwing haters who signed this nutty manifesto." In writing his post, Gateway Pundit excerpted WND's piece on Feldblum.

Catholic News Agency: Nominee "signatory to a radical 2006 manifesto." In an October 1 article, the Catholic News Agency discussed Feldblum's nomination in the context of her being a signatory to the petition:

A law professor nominated by President Obama to become a commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was a signatory to a radical 2006 manifesto which endorsed polygamous households and argued traditional marriage should not be privileged "above all others."

Georgetown University Law Center professor Chai R. Feldblum, nominated as a commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), is listed as a signatory to the July 26, 2006 manifesto "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships."

The manifesto's signatories said they proposed a "new vision" for governmental and private recognition of "diverse kinds" of partnerships, households and families. They said they hoped to "move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics" in the U.S.

EEOC: Enforces existing laws, provides oversight

Feldblum's duties as an EEOC commissioner would be unrelated to her views on relationships. From the EEOC's website:

The Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination are:

  • the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
  • the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

Homophobic attacks on Feldblum follow similar attacks on Jennings

Media conservatives attacked Jennings with homophobic, extreme rhetoric. In their attacks on Jennings, numerous conservative media figures have resorted to thinly veiled homophobic appeals to paint Jennings, who is gay, as a "radical" "gay activist" with an "agenda" of "promoting homosexuality in schools."

Fox News, others ran with falsehood that Jennings "cover[ed] up statutory rape." Fox News and other media advanced the falsehood that Jennings, in the words of Fox News host Bill Hemmer, knew of a "statutory rape" and "never reported it." While pushing this attack on Jennings, these media figures ignored evidence that the student who told Jennings about his relationship with an older man was of legal age, and Media Matters for America has since confirmed that the student was of legal age and that these smears of Jennings were scurrilous and false. The former student at the center of the Jennings controversy, whom Jennings has referred to as "Brewster," provided Media Matters with a statement that he "was of legal consent at the time." Additionally, Media Matters obtained a copy of the student's driver's license, which shows that he was 16 at the time -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.

Media manufactured Jennings-NAMBLA link. In addition to the statutory rape smear, the Fox Nation and The Washington Examiner linked Jennings to the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) based on a 1997 speech in which Jennings praised gay rights activist Harry Hay, who had spoken in support of the organization. But like many obituaries written about Hay upon his death in 2002, Jennings was touting Hay as a gay civil rights pioneer for his role in helping start "the first ongoing gay rights groups in America" in 1948, and Jennings' comments had nothing to do with NAMBLA.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mk3872 (October 06, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
      9 2
      This is why Van Jones should never have resigned.

      It only just embolden these fruit-loops ...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by grunt (October 06, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
        5 8
        When it comes to marriage, why can't we remove the government from it completely? Allow all couples the right to civil unions (gay and straight). This will create equality. It will also allow those who seek marriage to decide whether they want to embrace the sacred religious ceremony or not. I believe this would be a better solution than the divisive issue of gay marriage. Although, the crazy religious right would feel their rights are being messed with, they are actually being protected. Keep the government out of marriage. The more they give you, the more they can take away.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (October 06, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
          3 3
          If marriage is a purely religious institution as the right claims it to be then the state has no business recognizing marriage.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mewi (October 06, 2009 5:01 pm ET)
            1  
            But the ownership claims the religious right make are..... False, and it is easily provable. Anyone who sees an atheist couple married would know this. But are religious right hate mongers trying to stop them from marrying by the masses? No, it is the homophobes trying to put the homosexuals back into the closet because they don't like us "free thinkers" and they especially don't like us if we violate their golden rules while free thinking. Hehe...

            ~Celeste~
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (October 06, 2009 5:10 pm ET)
            1 7
            I have said that many a time on this site and have been blasted by the libs for it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (October 06, 2009 7:59 pm ET)
                 
              I find that hard to believe. I've seen it stated several times here by several liberals that the state should only recognize civil unions and leave marriage as a personal choice with no legal significance. I can't say that I recall any liberals taking exception to the idea.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jove4015 (October 07, 2009 1:28 am ET)
              2  
              That's because it requires accepting a false premise - that marriage is a purely religious institution. In reality, marriage hadn't even been regulated by the church until it merged with the Roman Empire (the merger of church, and state). Prior to that, marriage was solely the domain of the state, not the church. There's no proscriptions of marriage rituals or the like in the bible - only references to its existence, and its meaning to Christians. Only later did Christianity overtake it and coincidentally, around that same time was when gay marriage was banned.

              So when you start off with the premise that marriage is religious, and then conclude to remove it from the state, what's really happening is that over a time span of about 1500 years, we've allowed Christianity to steal marriage from the state in its entirety, something which existed long before it and really has little to do with it, and then go on to deny it to people who would otherwise be perfectly eligible. You're giving them the right-wing nut jobs the win while trying to do the right thing and find compromise.

              It's an insidious little bait and switch, libs get upset that people fall for it.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by themidnightreview.com (October 06, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
          6 1
          Conservatives want less governmental regulation, that is unless you don't believe in their beliefs... but it is not their fault. Jerry Falwell and the Reagan administration fused this fundamentalist Christian philosophy into the party. What bothers me is that this "Christian nation" kick the right is on excludes other Christians

          Being a Catholic, I have been told by the religious right that I worship saints and that my religion is a cult closer to voodoo then real Christianity, and that it should be lumped together with fundamentalist Islam, Scientology, LDS, and Jehovah's Witnesses...

          It is not the business of the government to deny rights to a section of the population because it is against the religious morality of a few. It is well within the rights of the individual church to deny marriage to those who wish to seek matrimony, but religion should not dictate secular marriage.

          ---------------------------------------
          The Midnight Review
          Mum Is The Word
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (October 06, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
            6 1
            Being a Catholic, I have been told by the religious right that I worship saints and that my religion is a cult closer to voodoo then real Christianity, and that it should be lumped together with fundamentalist Islam, Scientology, LDS, and Jehovah's Witnesses...

            And as an ex-Catholic, I can assure you that the religious right is wrong about virtually everything.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by sherrib (October 06, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
              1  
              Death and taxes. The truth will be revealed on both. Here's hoping you well in your religion and your politics.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by mewi (October 06, 2009 4:57 pm ET)
          1  
          Sorry but you cannot remove marriage from the Government, it simply is not possible. Due to Divorce, children, property rights etc. And because marriage has no copyright claims to any one religion/nonreligion it is not a religious right, it is a human right, a fundamental right. As stated by the supreme court's decision on interacial marriages.

          ~Celeste~
          Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (October 06, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
          1 3
          Agreed, grunt. Agreed.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (October 06, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
          4  
          Grunt's twisted analysis:

          why can't we remove the government from it completely?

          Followed by:

          Allow all couples the right to civil unions (gay and straight).

          You can't remove the government from it completely BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT. Now you can remove the church from it completely, but I don't think you'd go along with that, would you?

          Sorry for feeding the off-topic derailer.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Ankhorite (October 06, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
        1
      Chai Feldblum is a sterling scholar and more than capable of serving on the EEOC. What the right hasn't mentioned is that she is also one of the authors of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Feldblum's commitment to the Constitution and to the American ideals of equality and liberty is rock-solid and easily proven by her record.

      When is someone going to call the Right out for being a bunch of prurient perverts? Her personal orientation is none of their business—none of anyone's business. Her advocacy of efforts to end discrimination is something to celebrate. Feldblum is *exactly* the sort of person anyone interested in supporting the EEOC's mission would nominate.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (October 07, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
        1  
        Ankhorite got a thumbs down for that?? Wow. Once again the right wingnuts display blatant venomous hatred for no reason at all other than disliking facts.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (October 06, 2009 4:40 pm ET)
      1 1
      Oh, no!!! She worked for the ACLU!!! Unclean!!! Unclean!!!

      That's actually a plus in my mind.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (October 06, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
        2
      When do we reset the MMFA stopwatch?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (October 06, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
      2 1
      It never fails with the right-wing. TERRIBLE!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by stefiz (October 06, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
      1  
      he entire federal government is going to have to be fumigated some day when these deviants and degenerates are finally sent packing



      i guess adulterers are not deviant or degenerate enough for the GOP
      Report Abuse
    • Author by neokevin3 (October 06, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
      1 4
      Media Matters is a bit of a farce in the first place. What gives with an organization whose task is to attack one political parties correctness? Secondly, when Media Matters gets so many of the facts wrong, how are they any better than the wrongs that they say others are making. It just makes them yet another in the long list of leftist hypocrites. Apparently Media Matters would have you understand that Jennings checked the exact age of the teenager in question, as to whether he was 15 or 16 when he found out that he was having sex with a much older person. Jennings ended up apologizing it and admitting that he made a mistake, so apparently Jennings thought he had broke the law and made a mistake. But Media Matters is so thrilled that Jennings may not be so wrong since technically he turned out to be 16 and not 15 and in Mass it was ok for a 40 year old guy to have sex with a 16 year old. But not ok for Mark Folley send sexy emails to male pages over the age of 16. Leftists strain at gnats and swallow camels.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (October 07, 2009 11:20 am ET)
           
        No sex occurred. Most likely, Jennings learned that fact in his subsequent conversation with the young man. All Jennings has said is that in retrospect he could probably have handled the situation better. However, he did handle it, giving the young man advice and counseling, possibly directing him elsewhere for further counseling. It was apparently effective, if we are to take the word of the person who would know best.

        MMFA is NOT citing the age as a sole defense of Jennings. They are citing it as a fact that we all now know to be true that continues to be misrepresented in the media. Those members of the media keep citing the wrong age and alleging that it was a sexual contact because it works better for their narrative. It should be their job to incorporate facts as they become known, such as the age of the young man and his statements that there was not a sexual encounter.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (October 07, 2009 11:23 am ET)
           
        One other point:
        Secondly, when Media Matters gets so many of the facts wrong, how are they any better than the wrongs that they say others are making. - neokevin3

        I'm pretty dismissive of assertions made without evidence. Dismissed.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (October 07, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
           
        You claim that MMfA gets its facts wrong. Please provide proof of that happening. Ever.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (October 06, 2009 5:31 pm ET)
      4 2
      The right wing's "values" are not MY values!

      Their narrow-minded, ignorant view of the bible is their ONLY justification for wanton discrimination against homosexuals. The bible wasn't even slapped together well by the medieval committees.

      The right has NEVER PROVEN any harm by homosexuals to society, or marriage. But, they keep up the chants. Of course, their complete dismissal of the facts of science proves they are pathological liars, incapable of the least bit of tolerance of others. (I guess that also makes them sociopaths.)

      These "organizations" apply words like, "family" and "values" to their titles like they were the sole owners of true morality, and that they know better than any of us how to raise our families. Not to mention they claim they channel god and Jesus, so we're supposed to do anything they tells us, or god will get us. Well, here I am.

      I don't see a homosexual agenda, but I DO see a right-wing agenda to turn this country into the United States for Jesus!

      They are the American Taliban trying to push their shariah on our society. They should be resisted at all levels, at all times.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by sherrib (October 07, 2009 12:25 am ET)
        1  
        SLRTX, please allow me to share my narrow-minded, ignorant views with you. I am a Christian. It is not my religion, as God does not care about religion, but it is my Faith that makes me a Christian.
        My Faith is one of love because as a Christian I am supposed to be "Christ-like" and the Bible (you really need to do some in depth research on the compilation of the Bible, it is amazing and was not "slapped together" by medieval committees) is full of scripture on how we are to love EVERYONE. The God of the Bible loves everyone no matter their race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc., etc. BUT, the Bible is clear about what God considers sin and He does hate sin. (For God SO LOVED the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believed in Him would not parish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16) Being a Christian does not make me or anyone else perfect, I am so far from it, no matter how hard I try, I fall short, but when I stand before God, (and we ALL will be in the presence of God-believe it or not-the Bible says, "every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord) I will have to answer for the way I lived and the choices I made.
        I know, most reading this are screaming, "Hypocrit!" Again, I am not perfect and I don't think I am the slightest bit better than you or ANYONE else; I know I'm not in God's opinion either.
        If I haven't completely lost your attention I will further explain my Christian faith by explaining that, as the Bible says, what makes Christians different from other religions is, first and foremost, love as opposed to hate. Second, Most "religions" claim that you are "required" to do "good works" for entrance into heaven, and in some religions those good works mean killing those who disagree with them. No one can "work" their way into heaven. If we were required to work our way into heaven, how much work is enough? Are you still there? So what do I, as a narrow-minded Christian, believe is my ticket into heaven? Simple: I believe that God sent His Son, Jesus, through a virgin birth, to live, teach about the love of God, and then died on a cross, taking on the sins of the world, that whosoever (me, you, everyone!) believed and trusted in him, would have eternal life in heaven. This is THE ONLY WAY! The choice to believe or not is yours, but again, we will all stand or bow before God and now you can't say, "No one told me"
        Report Abuse
        • Author by SLRTX (October 07, 2009 11:08 am ET)
             
          I used to be a full-scale fundamentalist, so you aren't telling me anything that I haven't read or heard before.

          Nothing is wrong with faith. I have faith.

          But, I know the difference between faith and certainty. The two are mutually exclusive.

          He who is certain their way is THE ONLY WAY as you say, does not express faith.

          In your certainty, you discriminate against your fellow man. Isn't that plainly going against your own religion?

          Your type cherry picks bible quotes to justify discrimination, but you refuse to see the bigger picture. Look at the quotes below. Your religion is not my religion. You are a religion of fear, hate-mongering, and narrow-mindedness. No different from the Taliban.

          Let the culture wars begin. Bring it on.

          “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?” Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

          “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? (Matthew 5:43-47 )
          Report Abuse
        • Author by keenanjay (October 07, 2009 11:52 am ET)
             
          Try not to be so thin skinned. Christians who don't discriminate and who believe in god as love are cool with most everybody. You're harmless as Wikkans. You're centered on the happy half of the bible, the baby in the manger, Jesus doing magic tricks, long romantic walks on the water that turn into fishing trips with the guys and a generally positive message.
          Christians who believe that the Bible, word for word is absolute truth and persecute others for failing to believe the same are problematic because they tend to turn their disapproval into condemnation and divisiveness.
          People should be vary of practicing a violent, Middle Eastern religion and worshiping a genocidal desert god. People who believe that the Bible is literally true are not “Country First,” they're “Bible First.” These are the folks who take the Old Testement literally and in this part God is an "insecure, rage-filled hybrid of Bobby Knight and Suge Knight. He’s been alive forever and He has anger issues. He’s like John McCain if John McCain could fart hail. He’s pro-slavery, pro-polygamy and homophobic and he’ll kill you for masturbating."
          So, yeah. Believe in supernatural beings but also believe in being kind to your fellow humans who occupy your here and now.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by SLRTX (October 07, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
             
          sherrib - try this out.

          Here's a product of your intolerant religion.

          If you are as compassionate as you claim, you'll read it and weep.

          But if you are as "convinced" of your religion as you appear to be, you'll probably agree with Aaron McKinney.

          http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_13464996

          You and your type push your intolerance on us then wonder why we have such a reaction.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by sherrib (October 06, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
        2
      Hear no evil, see no evil, only speak evil and make sure that all the fact are not presented. Media Matters – Facts Don't.
      Farah, Michelle, Laura, Gateway Pundit, Worldnetdaily, thanks for giving us credible facts that can substantiated!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (October 07, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
        1  
        sherrib -

        And to be convinced that a magical person who can walk on water and raise the dead is to you a "credible fact that can be substantiated"?

        After all, you claim to be "convinced", which by definition is not faith. Right?

        You can have faith that Jesus walked on water and raised the dead. But you don't have PROOF of that enough to be convinced.

        Again, that is why the rest of us have this strong reaction to your type.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (October 07, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
        1  
        sherrib -

        Do you have strong faith? Check this out. I love these guys.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E&feature=related
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cpmondello6930 (October 06, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
      1  
      As a homosexual, I hope there is a "Homosexual Agenda"....the same kind of "agenda" is what got other minorities equal rights, including Christians..otherwise they would still be fed to lions in a public arena as entertainment for the masses.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (October 07, 2009 7:50 pm ET)
           
        Then by all means, I'm for your agenda!

        The other side's too dogmatic, full of fear and hate.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Ruby (October 07, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
      1  
      The Bible doesn't even condemn homosexuality.

      The verse most often cited is leviticus. The Old Testament condemns just about everything (working on Sundays, eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, etc.) So unless all of those count, then none of them do. It's a wash.

      Jesus never once talks about it (even though it was most certainly happening in his day) and the only mention of it in the New Testament is by Paul (who was just a regular dude, not divine). And this passage by Paul is one of the most hotly debated passages by both Biblical scholars and linguists. The word that is often translated as "effeminate" in this passage (and interpreted as a condemnation of homosexuality) is also translated in other places to mean "weak" (as in, weak in one's faith).

      So to claim that the Bible definitively condemns homosexuality is a bit of a stretch.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (October 07, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
        1  
        Amen Ruby.

        And that's not including the fact that this so-called "moral values" fundamentalist movement has twisted the religion of, "turn the other cheek" to, "let's go find someone else's cheek to slap!"

        More fun with bible quotes. See, I can pull selected quotes of the "unerring word of god" too! C'mon all you fundamentalists. Either you believe your own god, or you don't. Which is it???

        "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Matt. 7:3–5; Luke 6:41–42)

        AND

        "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess." (Matt. 23:25)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Ruby (October 07, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
          1  
          Did you see Rachel Maddow last night talking about the movement to make the Bible more "conservative" in message?

          One example they used was changing "scribes" to "elites" and "Pharisees" to "intellectualls".
          Report Abuse
          • Author by SLRTX (October 07, 2009 4:29 pm ET)
            1  
            Yep. I was aware of this several days ago.

            But, if they change it (again), would that make the bible more, or less, the "unerring word of god"?

            How many changes does that book need, in order to make it more "unerring"?

            You can reason with a rabid dog. You need to go after it with force. We need to go after these fundamentalist Fascists using their own ammunition.
            Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.