Connect with us

God Hates Fags Is The Heart Of The Religious Right



From Fred Phelps to Tony Perkins to Bryan Fischer to Rick Santorum to Rick Perry, “God hates fags” — the concept — is at the very heart and soul of the Religious Right.

Say what you will about the Westboro Baptist Church, at least they are straight forward about their argument. Fred Phelps doesn’t go around hiding his hateful message in code phrases such as “protecting marriage” or waste time talking about how his organization is only trying to defend “family values.” They cut straight to the point. God hates fags. Simple. Concise. It takes people like Tony Perkins the entirety of his Hardball segment to put a well honed shine on precisely the same message.

This nuance is the mark of a quality hate group. While it is impossible to take the Westboro Baptist Church seriously, organizations like Focus on the Family maintain their popular legitimacy by being sneakier about their hate. They operate through slander, and construct elaborate narratives designed to paint the LGBT community as sinister and depraved. It is important they not be seen as the mean spirited thugs they truly are, but as heroes, fighting on behalf of the Lord in the war on moral decay. Only then can their own motivations escape scrutiny.

But the work of fantasy creation is hard and perpetual. In order to create the monsters their campaign requires, they must always be super imposing their version of reality on the world. This effort is much like trying to blow up an inner-tube with a hole in it; it will only stay inflated for as long as someone is breathing hot air into it. Every mild-mannered same-sex couple who wishes only to adopt must be somehow transformed into dire threats to society. Every gender non-conforming teenager must be marginalized and painted as maladjusted threats to community tranquillity. Every moment must be tinted and reprogrammed to reflect their basic assertions. This is the job of people like Tony Perkins. He constructs the argument.

Tell me if this sounds familiar.

Gays shouldn’t be allowed to do [whatever the topic of discussion happens to be] because they have never been allowed to historically. It will lead to acceptance of the “homosexual lifestyle.” This acceptance will cause the destruction of society.

Why will not being awful to gay people destroy society?

Because homosexual behavior is immoral, and doing anything other than throwing rocks these degenerates amounts to willing support of immorality.

And why is this behavior immoral, and not just, you know, none of anyone’s business?

Because God says so, and don’t argue, because if you do, it means that you are discriminating against Christians, and our right to deprive people of their civil rights in accordance with Jewish laws written thousands of years ago. We believe it, so you have to too.

In summary, God hates fags.

Shockingly, some people require more proof than the biblical interpretations of Fred Phelps and Rick Santorum. After all, there is a vast portfolio of things that piss off God. The Bible takes a decidedly hard line on adultery for example, yet somehow Newt Gingrich’s propensity for double-booking his penis isn’t so much of a problem.

“Bearing False Witness” is also kind of a no-no, yet that doesn’t stop Rick Santorum from lying his ass off whenever the moment suits him.  How are those on the fence supposed to understand how dangerous homosexuality really is? Can someone produce a little evidence of this homosexuality provoked global carnage?

Friends, this is where things get ugly.

Meet Bryan Fischer. Mr Fischer hosts a radio show, and has long worked with the American Family Association (SPLC-certified hate group) as Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy. Mr. Fischer was a massive Rick Perry supporter, and as part of the AFA helped sponsor Rick Perry’s prayer rally held back in August. He is also an AIDS denialist.

That’s right. AIDS Denialism is a thing. In America, AIDS denialism is the notion that rather than AIDS being caused by HIV, AIDS is instead brought on either by the “unhealthy nature” of homosexuality, or as punishment from God, or most probably, both. I’ll let Mr. Fischer explain. From The Huffington Post:

“The reason HIV was invented as the cause of AIDS is it was a way to get research money,” [Bryan] Fischer, who serves as Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association (AFA), said on his “Focal Point” radio show. “If AIDS is caused by behavior…there’s no money in that because you just tell people, ‘Hey, stop doing the behavior.’ So that’s why they have to find some bug that they can blame it on.”

I know. Shocking, right? What the hell is he talking about? HIV dosen’t cause AIDS? Since when? How on earth would this horrifying person justify such absurd nonsense? Further explanation can be found in this post from the AFA blog, in a post authored by Mr. Fischer.

Gays around the world have been all atwitter over my reporting on Peter Duesberg’s theory that HIV does not cause AIDS. Duesberg, who is a molecular biologist at UC Berkeley and one of the leading virologists in the world, argues, persuasively in my view, that HIV is a harmless passenger virus. (His credentials are impeccable: he isolated the first cancer gene in 1970, and was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986.)

The breakdown in the immune system, which gives AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) its name, is caused, in Duesberg’s scientific opinion, by the cumulative damage done to the human body primarily through the use of alkyl nitrites, or “poppers,” in the homosexual subculture. Inhaling nitrites heightens the sexual experience and makes it possible to engage in multiple sexual episodes in a matter of hours.

See how that works? Conservatives require “proof” that being gay is immoral and will lead to the destruction of society. AIDS has served as that proof. It is used as the great gay boogyman by those unscrupulous and shameless enough to resort to using it. People like Tennessee State Senator Stacey Campfield, who last week said:

It is virtually — not completely, but virtually — impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex.

In other words, only filthy gay people get AIDS. Read David Badash’s superb take down of Stacey Campfield right here.

So who is this Peter Duesberg, scholar of the AIDS Denialism movement, the man who represents the cornerstone upon which the premise of AIDS denialism is based? Bryan Fischer is right. He does have outstanding credentials. He was in fact elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986, and was really was the first person to isolate a Cancer Gene. All true.

Keep in mind though, it wasn’t until 1987 that he started talking about this nutty AIDS denialsm stuff, and it wasn’t exactly well received in the scientific community. Steven Epstein goes into this in some detail his his excellent book Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge.

I’m going to edit this down, as the section is quite long, but I encourage any of you interested to read the entire thing. It really is worth it.

…PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] was unlikely to be receptive to Duesberg’s views. Yet by virtue of having been inducted into the academy a few years earlier, Duesberg enjoyed a privilege unique in the world of scientific research: NAS members generally could publish in the Proceedings without submitting themselves to the rigors of formal, anonymous peer review.

[Chairman of the editorial board Igor Dawid] eventually surrendered to the inevitable. “At this state of protracted discussion I shall not insist here—if you wish to make these unsupported, vague, and prejudicial statements in print, so be it. But I cannot see how this could be convincing to any scientifically trained reader.” In truth, what Dawid may have failed to see was that Duesberg could later use the very fact of having been published in the Proceedings as capital to advance his position.

Which is exactly what he did. But perhaps this is just an example of the scientific community expressing resistance to an unpopular or controversial idea. I turn to this investigation by Science Magzine to do the heavy lifting here:

This investigation reveals that although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses.

The main conclusions of Science’s investigation are that:

  • In hemophiliacs (the group Duesberg acknowledges provides the best test case for the HIV hypothesis) there is abundant evidence that HIV causes disease and death.
  • According to some AIDS researchers, HIV now fulfills the classic postulates of disease causation established by Robert Koch.
  • The AIDS epidemic in Thailand, which Duesberg has cited as confirmation of his theories, seems instead to confirm the role of HIV.
  • AZT and illicit drugs, which Duesberg argues can cause AIDS, don’t cause the immune deficiency characteristic of that disease.

In short, Peter Deusberg is completely full of shit. Not that it matters. Bryan Fischer has no interest in what is or isn’t true. He is interested only in advancing his view that homosexuals have brought AIDS on themselves. Only in this way can institutional mistreatment of the LGBT community be justified to the American people, religious or otherwise.

AIDS Denialism is monstrously dangerous, and displays a pathological lack of humanity. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa used the work of Peter Duesberg to justify his policy banning access to critical antiretroviral drugs, leading to around 343,000 preventable deaths and contributing the the unrestrained spread of the disease throughout the world. Countless millions of lives will in the end be impacted by these choices, justified by Peter Deusberg’s “unsupported, vague, and prejudicial statements.”

The view that AIDS results in the righteous deaths of immoral heathens can be traced all the way back to the source from which all the most lasting conservatives values stem: Ronald Reagan. In 1987 when after years of pretending that AIDS didn’t exist, and siting idly by while thousands of Americans died simply because he didn’t like homosexuals that much, Reagan finally managed to cough up this little nugget, at the announcement of his way-too-late initiative to fight the spreading epidemic.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, AIDS information can not be what some call ‘value neutral.’ After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don’t medicine and morality teach the same lessons.

What lessons would those be exactly? That homosexuals get what’s coming to them? The religious right has always seen AIDS as fitting punishment for the “sin” of homosexuality, and they will always resist giving up that notion, even if they have to distort scientific fact to do it, because for them, at the heart of it, God hates fags.

Image, top, by boris.rasin
Benjamin Phillips is a Humor Writer, Web Developer, Civics Nerd, and all around crank that spends entirely too much time shouting with deep exasperation at the television, especially whenever cable news is on. He lives in St. Louis, MO and spends most of his time staring at various LCD screens, occasionally taking walks in the park whenever his boyfriend becomes sufficiently convinced that Benjamin is becoming a reclusive hermit person. He is available for children’s parties, provided that those children are entertained by hearing a complete windbag talk for two hours about the importance of science education, or worse yet, poorly researched anecdotes PROVING that James Buchanan was totally gay. If civilization were to collapse due to zombie hoards or nuclear holocaust, Benjamin would be among the first to die as he has no useful skills of any kind. The post-apocalyptic hellscape has no real need for homosexual computer programmers who can name all the presidents in order, as well as the actors who have played all eleven incarnations of Doctor Who.

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.


‘I Feel a Little Bit Dumber for What You Say’: The Nine Worst Moments of the GOP Presidential Debate



The second Republican presidential debate was mired in in-fighting and personal attacks by the candidates,  a vow to wage physical war against Mexico, hate against LGBTQ people, an insistence the U.S. Constitution doesn’t actually mean what the words on the page say, and a fight over curtains.

Here are nine of the worst moments from Wednesday night’s debate.

The debate itself got off to a rough start right from the beginning.

Multiple times candidate cross-talk made it impossible for anyone to make a point, like this moment when nearly half the candidates talked over each other during a nearly two minute segment as the moderators struggled to take control.

READ MORE: ‘I Don’t Think So’: As GOP Debate Kicks Off Trump Teases Out the Chances of Any Candidate Becoming His Running Mate

Vivek Ramasway got into a heated argument with Nikki Haley, leading the former Trump UN Ambassador to tell him, “Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber for what you say.”

Ramaswamy launched an attack on transgender children.

Moments after Ramaswamy attacked transgender children, so did Mike Pence, calling supporting transgender children’s rights “crazy.”

He promised “a federal ban on transgender chemical or surgical surgery anywhere in the country,” and said: “We’ve got to protect our kids from this radical gender ideology agenda.”

Former New Jersey Governor Cris Christie described the First Lady of the United States, Dr. Jill Biden, who has dedicated her life to teaching, as the person President Biden is “sleeping with.”

South Carolina Senator Tim Scott and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, as CNN’s Manu Raju noted were “one-time allies,” after “Haley appointed Scott to his Senate seat,” until they started “going at it at [the] debate.”

“Talk about someone who has never seen a federal dollar she doesn’t like,” Scott charged. “Bring it, Tim,” Haley replied before they got into a fight about curtains.

Senator Scott declared, “Black families survived slavery, we survived poll taxes and literacy tests, we survived discrimination being woven into the laws of our country. What was hard to survive was [President] Johnson’s Great Society, where they decided to take the Black father out of the household to get a check in the mail.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, currently leading over everyone on stage, said practically nothing for the first 15 minutes. He may have said the least of all the candidates on stage Wednesday night. But he denounced Donald Trump for being “missing in action.”

Watch all the videos above or at this link.




Continue Reading


‘I Don’t Think So’: As GOP Debate Kicks Off Trump Teases Out the Chances of Any Candidate Becoming His Running Mate



Donald Trump, again refusing to participate in a GOP debate, teased out the fate of every candidate on stage Wednesday night: he will choose none of them as his vice presidential running mate.

The ex-president who is facing 91 felony charges in four criminal cases across three jurisdictions and is now also facing the dissolution of his business empire, brought up the running mate question around the same time the debate on Fox News was kicking off.

“It’s all over television, this speech,” Trump falsely claimed, referring to his live remarks at a non-union shop one day after President Joe Biden stood on the picket line with UAW workers.

READ MORE: ‘Apparently You’ll Never Believe Us’: House Republican Melts Down After Reporter Questions His ‘Evidence’ Against Biden

“You know, we’re competing with the job candidates,” Trump said, mocking his fellow Republican presidential candidates after he scheduled an event opposite the debate he refused to attend.

“They’re all running for a job,” he continued, as the audience began to boo.

“They want to be in the, they’ll do anything,” he continued. “Secretary of something.”

“They even say VP, I don’t know,” Trump said. “Does anybody see any VP in the group? I don’t think so.”

Watch below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Careening’ Toward ‘Risk of Political Violence’: Experts Sound Alarm After Trump Floats Executing His Former General


Continue Reading


‘Apparently You’ll Never Believe Us’: House Republican Melts Down After Reporter Questions His ‘Evidence’ Against Biden



Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) became defensive and accusatory after repeatedly being unable to answer a reporter’s questions in a press conference Wednesday, held to announce what House Republicans claim is “evidence” against President Joe Biden.

A shortened version of the video posted by the news organization Heartland Signal went viral, garnering nearly one million views in under three hours on the social media platform X.

“Mr. Chairman, question about the timing of all of this,” began an NBC News reporter identified by Mediaite as Ryan Nobles. “You’re talking about a two-tiered system of justice. If I’m not mistaken, on August 7, 2020 Bill Barr was the attorney general and Donald Trump was the president, so explain to me where the two-tiered system of justice comes into play. And then the WhatsApp message you have, I believe, is dated June 6, 2017. Joe Biden is not vice president or even a candidate for president at that time. So where is the direct connection to some sort of criminal malfeasance within these two pieces of evidence?”

RELATED: ‘Everybody Has Seen That’: Fox News Host Smacks Down Republican Pushing Biden ‘Burismo’ Video People ‘Not Talking About’

Chairman Smith could not only not answer any part of those questions, he appeared to forget a portion of them.

“Well, I think the facts speak for themselves,” Smith replied. “There’s over 700 pages of examples of, where people should be very concerned, when you’re talking about um, ah, – what was your first question?”

Smith went on to say, “It doesn’t matter who’s in the White House,” after being reminded them President at that time was Donald Trump. “We need to make sure that the Department of Justice works for all people and doesn’t treat those who are politically connected or wealthy much differently. And unfortunately, we have several examples that came forward by the two IRS whistleblowers, that proves that people are treated differently because they’re politically connected.”

“Are you suggesting that Joe Biden being the president now, is unfairly treating Donald Trump in his indictment?” Nobles asked.

Again, Smith did not answer the question.

“What I’m talking about is the 700 pages that we have before us, which is all the information that came from the IRS whistleblowers, and that’s what we’re releasing right now,” Smith replied, again not answering Nobles’ question. “And I’ll tell you, I would encourage everyone in this room to look at those 700 pages. If you think it’s okay, with what’s in it, then we live on two different planets.”

RELATED: ‘You F**ked Me – I Know It Was You’: Top House Republican ‘Exploded’ at McCarthy After Losing Chairmanship

“Can you explain the timing of the August 6 WhatsApp message? Why is that evidence of some wrongdoing?” Nobles continued..

“I’m not an expert on the timeline,” Smith admitted, before pivoting to say, “I would love to have President Biden and his family to tell us about all the timelines, because it’s really, really unfortunate that we see so many meetings and so many phone calls that involved around official activity that the Vice President has been participating in, and then big sums of money follows later –”

“But he’s not the president or the vice president at that time. Where, where’s the wrongdoing? He wasn’t even a candidate for president,” Nobles pointed out.

“He was a candidate – ” Smith claimed.

“On August 6 –” Nobles began before Smith interrupted him.

“So apparently apparent – what source are you with?” Chairman Smith asked Noble.

“I’m with NBC,” the reporter replied.

“So apparently, you’ll never believe us,” Smith charged.

“I’m asking you a very direct question,” Nobles explained. “You presented a piece of evidence that you say came on August 6, 2017, that demonstrates that Joe Biden was using political influence to help his son. He wasn’t a political figure at that time. The first WhatsApp message you put up, where yo talk about the brand,” Nobles explained. “I’m completely open minded about this. I’m asking you specifically, how does that demonstrate that there was some sort of political influence being put over him, if at that time, he is not a political – he’s not an elected official?”

“I’m definitely not going to pinpoint one item,” Chairman Smith said defensively.

READ MORE: ‘Jaw Dropping’: Democratic Senator Slams Tuberville’s ‘Open’ Talk About ‘White Supremacy’

“You presented it!” Nobles acclaimed. “It was the first thing that you brought up.”

“So apparently, you don’t agree with that. So report that you disagree with it. I’ll take the next question. Yes?” Smith said, refusing to answer any of Nobles’ questions.

Watch below or at this link.


Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.