General Pace

On "Christian News Wire", Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas writes:

Years ago, I wrote of the pathetic condition that we are experiencing today as our nation bows to the homosexual agenda. Institution after institution has caved to their perverted juggernaut that is running rampant today. No one dares to have the moral courage like General Pace to say the self-evident truth, lest they face the fierce wrath of the sodomites and the moral cowardice of his feminized peers.

Links added by me for my amusement.

You know, my father was a marine, as was my uncle. My grandfather was in the army air force. I work with military personnel professionally sometimes. I suspect if you called any of those men, or any of General Pace's peers, "feminized", they'd hand you your face.

He was forced to regret his statement that "homosexuality was immoral."

Let me be blunt: I think it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that anyone can force General Pace to do anything, except for the President. After all, they're the ones with the nuclear bombs, flamethrowers, and bazookas, and all we have are harsh words.

I'd also like to point out that General Pace didn't say he changed his mind or in any way disagrees with what he said, but rather, only that he feels he would have done better to focus on other aspects of his opposition to gay people serving their country.

Whether America wants to face it or not, tyranny of thought, belief, and practice is in full swing. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to dissent is being monitored and controlled by the “powers that be.” [cut by TF] ... More and more the lawless are securing their crooked grip upon the sword of civil government and are beginning to wield it against anybody who has the nerve to stray from their politically correct reservation. Meanwhile, we are drowning in a sea of blood and perversion as the "sheeple" of America worship the "Emperor's New Clothes."

I couldn't have summarized my opinion of the present administration better. And remember, "politically correct" means to be deferential to the views and desires of those in power, and those in power are presently evangelical christian republicans. (Or at least they claim to be. Mr. Bush doesn't actually go to church, after all, unlike Mr. Clinton or Mr. Carter.)

Focus on the Funk

Focus on the Family ran an article titled Gay Activists Take Aim at Tony Dungy, subtitled Indianapolis Colts coach's Christian pro-family beliefs challenged.

Of course, it's not Mr. Dungy's "Christian pro-family beliefs" that are being challenged, it's his choice to appear at a fundraiser for an anti-gay political organization. It's hard to tell that from the article though... it says:

Jim Buzinski, co-founder of OutSports.com, a Web site aimed at the homosexual audience, claims that Indiana Family Institute (IFI) is a political organization.

"He is speaking at the dinner next week in front of group that is very much a political organization," Buzinski said.

IFI President Curt Smith said neither the dinner nor the award is political.

Notice that they try to confuse you by observing oppenents' remarks that IFI is a political organization, but then saying the dinner and award are not political; firstly, tha's comparing apples and oranges, and secondly, I personally consider it untrue, as a fundraising dinner for a political organization is, in my opinion, a political dinner.

Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family Action, said gay groups would like to silence anyone they perceive as opposing the gay agenda -- even a celebrated athlete or coach.

It's called "Christophobia."

First of all, it's flatly untrue that gay activists are trying to silence Mr. Dungy. He's entirely entitled to speak in front of IFI if he wants to. And, IFI is entirely within their rights to have their dinner and give him an award. We're merely making our displeasure known.

As for calling "Christophobia", I consider that remark to be bigoted hatemongering, a disgusting slur against innocent gay and lesbian people throughout the nation. Many gay and lesbian Americans are Christian.

Dungy was not available for interviews, but the Colts organization issued a statement saying that the coach is free to speak to any group he wishes.

"The club does not take positions in political issues in which it is not directly involved," the statement said. "The Colts do not endorse any political or religious position taken by any group that any Colts employee decides to speak or lend his or her name to."

However, the Colts haven't objected to IFI's use of their logo to advertise the event.

Ann "Long Hands" Coulter fails to make nice

Ann Coulter defends calling John Edwards a "faggot":

"'Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."

Of course, it's not true about it not being offensive to gay people. (It's "gay people", not "gays", by the way. "Gay" is an adjective, not a noun.) Of course, Coulter is also being disingenuous in that she clearly knows it's a pejorative term used against gay people, as evidenced by her previous usage of it: (From wikipedia)

On July 27, 2006 American Republican pundit Ann Coulter said that the former Vice President of the United States (Al Gore) was a "total fag", and that former President of the United States (Bill Clinton) was a "latent homosexual", while being inteviewed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

According to Slate:

A spokesman for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the comments "wildly inappropriate." Rudy Giuliani harmonized, saying the comments "were completely inappropriate." Mitt Romney's spokesman slammed Coulter's quip as "an offensive remark."

So, even if we accept her pretense that she didn't at the time know what an incredibly, fantastically offensive word it is for her to have used, she has no excuse not to know now, and the fact that she hasn't apologized leads me to believe that she is a hatemongering bigot.

I suggest you should ask yourself why she was invited to speak at an event attended by Republican presidential candiates - and why they chose to attend an event at which she was invited to speak - given that she has a history of making these sorts of remarks.

Newsflash: Hillary Clinton does something unsurprising

"Lifesite" delivers to us the astonishing news that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a political liberal. Yup, that's right folks, I know it's such a shocker. They write:

During the revealing intro and speech, Clinton is revealed as more of a homosexual activist than the activist leaders themselves,

Somehow I have a problem with the idea of calling her a "homosexual activist", given that she's heterosexual. Doesn't that make her a "heterosexual activist for homosexuals"?

moreover she is shown to be the prime mover behind fighting attempts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

And here I thought the prime mover was Nathan Lane...

...but seriously, the definition of marriage has radically changed many times in human history. The Bible mentions six different kinds of marriage, not including a consentual union of one man and one woman, none of which would be legal today. Practically every concievable type of "marriage" has been practiced by one group or another: societies have been observed in which women are "married" off before even being concieved and may be bartered by their "husbands" as currency; societies have been observed in which all men practice ritual homosexuality and only visit their wives for reproductive purposes. As gay Americans, we find such societies to be bizarre and distasteful, but their existence demonstrates that the contemporary idea of the heterosexual nuclear family has not been an unchanged standard for all of human history. Marriage as we know it today came about in the 20th century, with women obtaining equal rights and the Supreme Court ordering that interracial couples must be permitted to marry. Marriage has withstood countless changes over the hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and will continue long after gay people have joined the ranks of married couples.

Clinton herself admitted her "agenda" was synonymous with the homosexual agenda.

Ooh, the big scary gay agenda again.