Connect with us

WATCH: New Christian Anti-Gay Movie Stars Pro-LGBT Equality Actors

Published

on

Audacity is a new anti-gay, Christian film with pro-equality actors. Is that an oxymoron?

Just when you thought you’ve seen it all when it comes to the anti-gay religious right’s hateful tactics, something new happens to surprise you. For example, how about a new movie with an anti-gay plot, starring people who support LGBT equality in real life? Yes, that’s really happening, and just for clarification, no, this isn’t a comedy.

Audacity, the new 55-min. film by executive producer Ray Comfort is currently available for download for $19.99 on the movie’s website. Its official release will be on August 2, but according to religious right-wing Charisma News, thousands have apparently flooded to audacitymovie.com to purchase the film since they launched their downloadable pre-release online.

Perplexingly, two of the stars, Travis Owens (Friday Night Lights, Sordid Lives: The Series) and Molly Ritter, support LGBT equality in real life. Both of them posted supporting messages on Twitter in response to the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling last month.

Screen_Shot_2015-07-23_at_3.18.59_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2015-07-23_at_3.21.34_PM.pngSo why did the actors sign on to a film with an anti-equality agenda? Owens gave an interview with the Friendly Atheist Podcast to clarify why and how he participated in the film.

“I think that I got the complete script about a week before filming,” Owens told the Friendly Atheist, “after some kind of rehearsals of scenes and I knew that, the only thing that I knew was that the goal, the mission of the movie was, from the beginning, to open up the conversation between religious people and gay people, and that to me sounds like a great starting point to something, you know, and that’s as basic as it was. So I was like, I am interested in that kind of topic of discussion and then it started to kind of form and evolve.”

Owens didn’t back out of the project after he knew what was really going on. Instead, he took it as an opportunity to challenge himself by acting in a role that is the complete opposite of how he is in real life.

“My little brother’s gay, my best friend’s gay, and my sister’s gay,” Owens continued, “and the first thing I did is took this project to them and said, ‘hey this is what it seems like I’m doing here,’ and they were excited for me. They were genuinely excited because A, they know that they want to see me do that role because they’re like that is so opposite of you that I’d be interested in even seeing you in that role, and I’m a comic. This is not a role that’s strictly for a comedic actor.”

When Hemant Mehta, aka the Friendly Atheist, asked Comfort if he was aware of the actors’ views on LGBT rights before filming, Comfort gave them the following answer:

“We were looking for good actors. That was the criteria, rather then what they believed. Often Christians like to ‘keep it in the family,’ but years ago I learned that isn’t always a good idea. I went to a dentist because he was a friend rather than because of his ability, and it was a painful mistake. We were aware that even a few seconds of bad acting is very painful, and so we chose the actors solely by merit. Travis and Molly are both excellent actors and wonderful people. They are also extremely professional, and we really enjoyed working with them and getting to know them. What they believe is their business. In America we have the freedom to have differing convictions and still get along. That’s healthy.”

That seems like a very professional way to handle the situation, however that hasn’t stopped Comfort from calling foul to all the negative reviews his movie has gotten on IMDB. The average review score is currently 3.1 out of 10 stars. 

Screen_Shot_2015-07-23_at_3.18.11_PM.png

Just how did the movie get a score higher than zero? Well, it has the support of the typical anti-LGBT crowd flaunting their praise. Take a look at these anti-gay activists in this screenshot from Audacity’s website: 

Screen_Shot_2015-07-23_at_3.23.59_PM.png

Screen_Shot_2015-07-23_at_3.24.34_PM.png

 

Jeremy Hooper at Good As You calls Ray Comfort a “longtime anti-gay propagandist,” and notes Comfort says the point of the movie is how gay people can and should be “free of their sin.”

Hooper adds, “this is not just a simple movie. This is cause that Comfort is pushing into Christian churches. That is what Ray Comfort’s work is all about: evangelization. He creates content for the purpose of pulling people to his view. It’s political (though he’d see it as spiritual).”

Camille Beredjick, also at Friendly Atheist, posted a lengthy review, concluding the “target audience is not ‘homosexuals’ seeking to repent, but supportive Christians who aren’t doing enough to marginalize and harass their LGBT friends and family.”

Here’s the trailer:

 

 

Screen_Shot_2015-07-23_at_3.47.27_PM.png

 

Image, top, via Facebook

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

Published

1 hour ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

President Joe Biden gave an nearly-unannounced, last-minute, live exclusive interview Friday morning to Howard Stern, the SiriusXM radio host who for decades, from the mid-1990s to about 2015, was a top Trump friend, fan, and aficionado. But the impetus behind the President’s move appears to be a rare and unsigned statement from the The New York Times Company, defending the “paper of record” after months of anger from the public over what some say is its biased negative coverage of the Biden presidency and, especially, a Thursday report by Politico claiming Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger is furious the President has refused to give the “Grey Lady” an in-person  interview.

“The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau,” Politico reported. “Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview.”

“In Sulzberger’s view,” Politico explained, “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.”

But it was this statement that made Politico’s scoop go viral.

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“’All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.'”

Popular Information founder Judd Legum in March documented The New York Times’ (and other top papers’) obsession with Biden’s age after the Hur Report.

Thursday evening the Times put out a “scorching” statement, as Politico later reported, not on the newspaper’s website but on the company’s corporate website, not addressing the Politico piece directly but calling it “troubling” that President Biden “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.”

Media watchers and critics pushed back on the Times’ statement.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“NYT issues an unprecedented statement slamming Biden for ‘actively and effectively avoid[ing] questions from independent journalists during his term’ and claiming it’s their ‘independence’ that Biden dislikes, when it’s actually that they’re dying to trip him up,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch.

Froomkin also pointed to a 2017 report from Poynter, a top journalism site published by The Poynter Institute, that pointed out the poor job the Times did of interviewing then-President Trump.

Others, including former Biden Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon, debunked the Times’ claim President Biden hasn’t given interviews to independent journalists by pointing to Biden’s interviews with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and a 20-minute sit-down interview with veteran journalist John Harwood for ProPublica.

Former Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, now a media critic who publishes Stop the Presses, offered a more colorful take of Biden’s decision to go on Howard Stern.

The Times itself just last month reported on a “wide-ranging interview” President Biden gave to The New Yorker.

Watch the video and read the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

 

 

Continue Reading

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

4 hours ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

20 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.