Category: Old Dish

“Re: your post ““Love in Action:” Nonsense.

a) It’s sloppy and unfair to assume that bible study, even combined with “church activist” (whatever that means) supports an allegation (in this case, made by a wife with her own agenda, or perhaps as the article suggests by lawyers contriving a defense) explains homicidal homophobia (just as it’s sloppy and unfair to assume that attendance at Gay Pride and being a “gay activist” must have something to do with child molestation, because we all know those queers fetishize “boys”).

b) It’s sloppy and unfair to assume, based on what you’ve supplied, that this man’s (unidentified) church “demonizes” gays.

And c) It’s sloppy and unfair to assume that even deeply misguided teachings can explain the obviously deranged behavior displayed in this case. One of the things that distinguishes your thought and writing is that you generally eschew and frequently attack such sloppiness when the ox being gored is one of your own sacred cows. I respectfully suggest that this is an instance where, notwithstanding your eloquent writings to the contrary (especially on hate crimes), you don the cloak of victim a bit too readily. I fully understand the pain and anger imposed by your own (Catholic) and my (Mormon) hierarchies in teaching “hate the sin but love the sinner.” But I think we need to be careful not to go overboard (would you facilely ascribe the depravity of Matthew Shepard’s killers to their Mormon background? I doubt it.)”

The reader makes a fair point, and I’m guilty of sloppiness. But I would say that the source of this man’s terror that his son might be gay is obviously related to church doctrine that homosexuality is evil, can be “cured” and that, as the “reparative therapists” argue, is fixed by the age of three. The father was a “church activist” and regular at Bible study. The trauma inflicted on gay kids and teens is real; their pain is terrible; and much of it can be traced to what I believe is a distortion of the real message of Christianity. This is an extreme case; but its roots bear examining.

Robert A. George looks into the Bob Jones question.

It appears that the Bush administration, before anyone has even proposed legislation clarifying rules for interrogation of “enemy combatants,” has threatened to veto any military bill that does such a thing. Here’s the Statement of Administration Policy, issued yesterday:

The Administration understands that amendments may be offered to establish a national commission on the detainee operations or to regulate the detention, treatment or trial of terrorists captured in the war on terror. The Administration strongly opposes such amendments, which would interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war to answer unnecessary or duplicative inquiry or by restricting the President’s ability to conduct the war effectively under existing law. The Constitution and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, September 18, 201) provide the authority the President needs to conduct the war effectively and protect the American people. If legislation is presented that would restrict the President’s authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice, the President’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

The emphasis is in the original. Translation: Congress shall not interfere with the president’s right to supercede law and tradition and allow detainees to be abused and tortured. This is, as Marty Lederman observes, a throwing down of the gauntlet to Senators McCain, Graham and Warner, who want clearer, better rules for prisoner treatment. It’s also an indication of how passionately this administration believes in the abuse and torture of detainees in the war on terror.

Whatever happened to the jock strap?

CCTV has identified the bombing suspects. The bombs were real; the intent was the same; one suspect has been shot dead, but does not appear to be one of the four; the culprits will soon, one hopes, be found. London, my family tells me, is in a state of near-disarray – roads closed, public transportation facing a potential strike, and Muslims very edgy.

One father tries to cure his three-year old son of being gay; and eventually kills him. “He didn’t want him to be a sissy,” Shelton Bostic, the defendant’s Bible-study friend, testified. Yep: the guy was in Bible study. And this is what he learned.

“Why doesn’t Mel Gibson make a movie that is nothing but 2 hours of people hacking each other to death with machetes? For an auteur-ish touch, he could have the blood level gradually rise through the duration, until at the end the entire screen was scarlet. For extra “pull,” movie theaters could be asked to instal special sprinklers that shower the audience with blood from time to time.” – John Derbyshire, NRO. Rick Santorum could bring the whole family.

Here’s a splendid piece of splenetic rage. I disagree, of course, but it’s always fun to read someone go off. Sample:

The word “blog” is literally shorthand for “boring;” a vulgar, overused word that strikes your ear with the dull thud of a cudgel to the soft spot of a child. It’s an abbreviation used by journalism drop outs to give legitimacy to their shallow opinions and amateur photography that seems to be permanently stuck in first draft hell. Looking in the archives of the blogs, one would expect someone who has been at it for years to slowly hone their craft and improve their writing and photographs, since it’s usually safe to assume that if someone does something long enough, he or she will eventually not suck at it. Even with lowered expectations, you’ll get a shotgun blast of disappointment in your face.

And here I am, still sucking after all these years. Wait, there’s more:

Blogger: Term used to describe anyone with enough time or narcissism to document every tedious bit of minutia filling their uneventful lives. Possibly the most annoying thing about bloggers is the sense of self-importance they get after even the most modest of publicity. Sometimes it takes as little as a referral on a more popular blogger’s website to set the lesser blogger’s ego into orbit.
Then God forbid a blogger gets mentioned on CNN. If you thought it was impossible for a certain blogger to get more pious than he was, wait until you see the shit storm of self-righteous save-the-world bullshit after a network plug. Suddenly the boring, mild-mannered blogger you once knew will turn into Mother Theresa, and will single handedly take it upon himself to end world hunger with his stupid links to band websites and other smug blogger dipshits.

C’mon. Tell us how you really feel.

A guest on NPR insinuates that the Bush administration is somehow behind the Darfur genocide. I kid you not.

NUTTY RIGHT WATCH: The anti-Kinsey obsessives now have a new theory: porn causes the release of harmful “erototoxins” in the human brain. Bring ’em on, say I.

“A friend forwarded to me your your recent (July 16, 2005) comments about a possible upcoming Vatican document that may ban gay men from priestly ordination. After reading your comments, John Allen’s article, and the email from a gay priest who wrote about his own struggles, I find myself so incensed that words almost escape me.

I, too, am a gay priest. While I am no longer in active ministry (currently on a leave of absence), I can fully understand and identify with the pain and anguish that the priest expressed. Though I no longer function as a priest in the sacramental or adminstrative sense, I have always considered who I am and the work I do to be “priestly.” I am a professional “do-gooder,” a social worker with a non-profit mental health organization; I am active in my Washington, DC parish, teaching RCIA to those seeking the good news that Christ and the Church proclaim. Though conscious of my own sinfulness and shortcomings, I try to live my life in the light of the truth that my ordination forever changed the essence of my soul, calling me to “be there” for others, as Christ has been and always is “there” for us.

For the Church even to consider taking a position that gay men are “unfit” for priestly ordination must be called what it is. You labeled it as bigotry; indeed, such a statement would be an expression of indefensible bigotry and discrimination. It also would be an evil of immense magnitude. If the current Holy Father were to promulgate such a statement, I cannot tell you the range of thoughts and emotions such an action would engender in me (anger and dismay being at the top of the list). I would also feel great sadness for Benedict XVI himself, and I would fear for his salvation. To knowingly inflict such immense harm on part of God’s flock, doing so in his role as the Church’s Universal Pastor, would, I believe, place on him the burden of one day standing before the Lord in need of the boundless mercy and forgiveness that only God can give.

Like the priest who wrote to you, I feel I must do something, but don’t yet know what that is. While I reflect and pray for guidance on what that “something” is, I wish to thank you for providing an enlightened place in these “darkening times” for all gay men and women seeking to follow the light of Christ.”

Another gay priest recommended this book to me. It’s a biography of one of the great Catholic intellectuals and priests of the twentieth century, Henri Nouwen. And, yes, he was gay.