Video: young child sings “Ain’t no homos gonna make it to Heaven”

You want religious brainwashing? Watch this video from Puffho, showing a boy of about five singing a vicious, anti-gay song.  Yes, he’s been coached, and may not even know what he’s singing, but some day he will. Note the loud applause he gets at the “homos” line.

This could have been filmed only in America: in other places the instruction is more insidious.

I weep for this child; had he been born into another family, he might have had a chance.

The congregation in the church, which has been identified as the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle Church in Greensburg, Ind., gives a standing ovation after the child sings, “I know the Bible’s right, somebody’s wrong…ain’t no homos gonna make it to heaven.”

PuffHo continues:

A number of high profile lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) bloggers and allies have re-posted the video, including Towleroad and Joe. My. God. All have noted that the child was undoubtedly coached by adults for his performance.

“Interview with a Vampire” author Anne Rice also posted the video to her Facebook page, noting, “In this country, Christians can teach toddlers to hate and to persecute, and we, through the automatic tax exemption for churches, foot the bill.”

This all reminds me of the song from the Broadway musical South Pacific, “You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught” (original cast version here). The 1949 song, which is a no-brainer, was quite controversial at the time (legislators in Georgia tried to ban it because it sanctioned interracial marriage), but composers Rogers and Hammerstein stuck to their guns.

You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!

Religion poisons everything.

_______

Bonus: Reader jaccobvanberingk posted this in the comments below, but I’ll put it here, too. It’s Kansas pastor Curtis Knapp, from the New Hope Baptist church, calling for the death of gays.  Good things guys like this aren’t in charge of the government, or we’d be killing gays like the Iranians do:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

201 Comments

  1. daveau
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:14 am | Permalink

    Technically, he is correct. No homos will make it to heaven. But sometime I wish there was a hell, for people like his parents.

    • daveau
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:23 am | Permalink

      The Spousal Unit is right. We need a new keyboard…

      • jbg
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:29 am | Permalink

        Technically that is a presumptive judgement on your part in many mainstream Protestant groups like Presbyterians. Catholics have different doctrines about homosexuality if you check the definitive catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
        It is a grave depravity and the Pope is quite clear that it is a threat to human civilization. Technically he is correct unless we consider extreme cases where biotech allows everyone to be homosexual and still produce children. However, they certainly do not pronounce damnation for homosexuals. You can’t generalize from these simplistic examples involving hoosier churches and various assorted hillbilly fringe groups like Westboro “godhatesfags.com” Baptist Church, obviously.

        • Kevin
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:39 am | Permalink

          Oh please. 60% of the North Carolina electorate voted to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Every single argument in favor of the amendment was religious.

          While there were a few small voices from some liberal churches opposing this overt hatred, the Catholics most certainly were not among them.

          It’s not “fringe”. Not in the least. It’s your neighbors who attend the “regular” Baptist churches, the Lutheran churches, the evangelical churches, the Catholic churches and most of the rest.

          Get your facts straight.

          • jbg
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:01 am | Permalink

            Sorry there Kevin but the statement is “No homos will make it to heaven” and my facts are accurate about Christian beliefs. North Carolina voting against gay marriage has nothing to do with this. The Pope may be against gay marriage but he is in favor of getting as many homos into heaven as possible as long as they follow the program of Catholic redemptions for sinful depravities just like murderers, rapists, child molesters and every other sinfully depraved or criminal person, and their pets. I don’t know where you are but my neighbors here in Wisconsin, mostly Presbyterians and Lutherans have similar beliefs but different programs for salvation.

            • Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

              That you should equate two people expressing their love for each other with murder, rape, and priestly relations with children demonstrates how evil you truly are more emphatically than anything else I could write.

              You are a disgusting, filthy bigot, as evil as any white supremacist neo-Nazi.

              b&

              • jbg
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:18 am | Permalink

                “You are a disgusting, filthy bigot, as evil as any white supremacist neo-Nazi.”
                “You” in this context is the Pope since that is the position of the Catholic church that I am informing you of. You are still responding to all statements with argumentum ad hominem. To make your position clear what you should write is: “The Pope is a disgusting, filthy bigot, as evil as any white supremacist neo-Nazi.”

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:26 am | Permalink

                jbg, you are absolutely correct in that that’s what I think of the Pope.

                But, since you’ve repeatedly expressed agreement with the Pope on these matters, I am most happy also clearly writing the following:

                You, jbg, are a disgusting, filthy bigot, as evil as any white supremacist neo-Nazi — or as evil as the Pope, for that matter.

                Or did you have some other way to describe those like you who cheerfully equate homosexuals with child-raping murderers who threaten the very fabric of civilization? I’m willing to entertain other suggestions.

                b&

        • Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:44 am | Permalink

          As is hardly surprising with a criminal organization that runs a global child rape racket as a perk for its own leadership, it should come as no surprise that the catechism you linked to is morally repugnant in the extreme.

          Homosexuality a threat to human civilization? What the fuck? Are you somehow suggesting that the mere fact that some people are homosexual means that everybody else will get infected with teh ghey and stop having children? That’s just so insane on so many levels I simply can’t imagine where to begin. Let me simply assure you that, despite decades of living life around gay friends, associates, and people I don’t care for, I’m still as straight as ever. Their sexual preferences have no more rubbed off on me than the variety of kinks various straight people have that turn me off.

          And you think that because the Pope doesn’t come out and say that homosexuals are damned to eternal hellfire somehow excuses him declaring them depraved deviants who constitute a threat to civilization itself?

          God damn but hatred such as you just spewed makes me sick.

          b&

          • jbg
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:18 am | Permalink

            Hey now Ben Goren, don’t blame me for quoting the Pope and church doctrines. Do you read everything as ad hominem assent? What I wrote was: “the Pope is quite clear that it [homosexuality] is a threat to human civilization.” If I write: Hitler was quite clear that Jews were parasites do you think I agree with that too? Unreal.
            http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-pope-gay-idUSTRE8081RM20120109

            • Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink

              When you blather such idiocy as, “Technically [the Pope] is correct [that homosexuality is a threat to human civilization] unless we consider extreme cases where biotech allows everyone to be homosexual and still produce children,” then yes. Yes I do think you agree with the Pope that homosexuality is a threat to human civilization (barring your weird SciFi fantasy about how you’ll still be able to bear the love child of your secret same-sex lover).

              If I write: Hitler was quite clear that Jews were parasites do you think I agree with that too? Unreal.

              If your next sentence were something along the lines of, “Technically Hitler is right unless we exterminate all the Jews before they can suck our blood dry,” then yes. Yes I would think you were Nazi scum who hated Jews.

              b&

        • daveau
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:10 am | Permalink

          What’s a presumptive judgement? That I need a new keyboard at home? I was raised Presbyterian, so don’t lecture me. It was not a generalization; it should be quite clear that I’m talking about this poor kid’s douchebag parents and similar, not everyone in every religion ever.

        • Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

          Oh, FFS. Homosexuals won’t make it to Heaven because it doesn’t exist.

          • Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:05 am | Permalink

            Christ, I was wondering when someone would make this comment!

            • Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:10 am | Permalink

              Um? helLO? Plus a few others….

              b&

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:22 am | Permalink

                Yes, I see that now. I was reading the comments in “geographical” order, which is not chronological order. I kept seeing reply after reply dealing with angels and heads of pins.

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink

                Well, there’s good and much deserved chastisement in there. “Angels/pins” remark only applies to the stuff dealing with doctrinal differences.

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

                No worries. I like threading to preserve the flow of a conversation, but it obviously can result in the kind of confusion it just caused you.

                As has oft been writ, “Those who forget USENET are doomed to re-implement it…poorly.”

                Cheers,

                b&

        • truthspeaker
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink

          What churches teach is irrelevant to the point daveau was making: nobody goes to heaven because there’s no such thing as heaven.

        • Posted May 31, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

          “It is a grave depravity and the Pope is quite clear that it is a threat to human civilization. Technically he is correct unless we consider extreme cases where biotech allows everyone to be homosexual and still produce children.”

          You and Ratty seem to both think that if they’re not stopped, everyone will want to be homosexual. Now that’s an extreme case.

          And a turkey-baster is “biotech” now? Gay men don’t have to give birth to children – we can leave that to the lesbians, and many do.

          Can you please explain how my husand and me – 8 1/2 years now, and every intention of “till death do us part” – are “a grave depravity”?

          • Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

            It’s about time somebody from teh ebil ghey faction showed up for this fight. I mean, it’s not like it’s just us straights who care about civil liberties for y’all….

            b&

            • daveau
              Posted June 1, 2012 at 5:01 am | Permalink

              I’m pretty sure Bunny falls into that category, and he’s been all over this thread. He may not have officially outed himself here, but he sure has over at PZ’s place.

              • Posted June 1, 2012 at 5:21 am | Permalink

                I like being a little depraved with the right people.

                Religionists should keep their fingers out of my marriage, though. Unlike them, I only inflict pain on consensual partners.

              • Posted June 1, 2012 at 5:23 am | Permalink

                “consenting”, dammit

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

          “It [homosexuality] is a grave depravity and the Pope is quite clear that it is a threat to human civilization.”

          Really? Civilization is the chief threat to human civilization. 7 billion fracking people and you want MORE??? Homos aren’t the threat. Sheesh what a idiot.

    • jbg
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      Well daveau what you wrote was: “Technically, he is correct. No homos will make it to heaven.” Regardless of your Presbyterian upbringing that is not Presbyterian doctrine. This is a good example of a presumptive judgement about salvation as ridiculous as stating no murderers will make it to heaven. You must have skipped Sunday school more than I did.

      • Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:21 am | Permalink

        You have no clue why David wrote that, do you?

        Here’s a hint: read my own response at #3 below.

        Oh — and you’re not going to Heaven, either, regardless of what any church’s doctrine might claim.

        b&

      • daveau
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink

        Lighten up, j, homosexuals cannot go to heaven because there is no such thing as heaven. They cannot go to hell, either. Again, quite clear from the context. Are you letting your emotions cloud your reason? Or are you trolling?

        I was dutiful in my sunday school attendance, and even went to vacation bible school in the summers. The church I went to was extremely liberal, so it took me quite a while for me to recognize them for the lying greedy dickfors that they were. My current beliefs do not include much Presbyterian doctrine.

        • Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

          Well, it was obvious to me what you meant from the first. Especially given your following comment about hell.

          Odd that religious commenters are so blinkered that they assume everyone accepts the existence of heaven (and, likely, God), even on a bl— website where the majority of commenters are unbelievers…

          /@

          • daveau
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

            Maybe I just assume that everyone here accepts the non-existence of heaven, so it could be entirely my fault… 😉

            • Caroline52
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

              well, your meaning was clear to me too. So much so that I didn’t even see the ambiguity and couldn’t make out at first what were the replies to you were even talking about.

              • daveau
                Posted June 1, 2012 at 5:12 am | Permalink

                One would have to be stupid as dirt, or trolling to not get my meaning. I couldn’t figure out what the hell he was on about, either. Especially since he responded to my comment about needing a new keyboard, instead of the germane bit.

    • gbjames
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      There ain’t no body gonna go to Middle Earth, either.

      • Sigh
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

        Nonsense, that’s in Ireland.

        • gravelinspector
          Posted June 1, 2012 at 1:50 am | Permalink

          New Zealand, surely?

  2. Diane
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:14 am | Permalink

    They’ve been debating this on WGN for the past hour. Lots of callers are defending the concept of “gays are sinners” and quoting bible teachings as their justification.

    • raven
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:00 am | Permalink

      Lots of callers are defending the concept of “gays are sinners”

      According to xian mythology, so are they sinners.

      It basic xian doctrine that all humans are born sinners and deserve to go to hell. Your get out of hell card is believing jesus is god.

      • raven
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:05 am | Permalink

        According to the same magic book of mythology, disobedient children, nonvirgin brides, blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, atheism, and breaking the sabbath are all in the same class as being gay, death penalty offenses.

        Selling your kids as sex slaves, buying sex slaves (Solomon had 300), owning slaves, or having 700 wives (like Solomon) are all OK.

        Xian morality is an oxymoron. If they actually followed their magic book, they would all be in prison in our society.

        • Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:13 am | Permalink

          Let’s not forget cotton-poly blends or bacon-wrapped shrimp with cheese dip…those’re abominations, too, and I think (but could be worng) that they get the death penalty, as well.

          Jesus was worse, of course. Not only did he explicitly demand all non-Christians be sacrificed at his altar (Luke 19:27), but in the very Sermon on the Mount he condemned to infinite torture everybody who’s ever looked lustfully upon a woman and failed to immediately gouge out his own eyes and chop off his own hands (Matthew 5:27-30).

          Considering that, it would seem that only gay men and straight women have a chance at avoiding eternal damnation. Bet the Christers didn’t see that one coming, eh?

          b&

          • JonLynnHarvey
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:55 am | Permalink

            Friedrich Nietzsche’s comment on Matthew 5- “it is not really the eye that is meant”.

            • Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

              Oh — you mean it’s a euphemism for the chap’s one-eyed trouser snake… 😮

              /@

          • kagekiri
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

            You forgot about straight blind men, blind lesbians, and amputees or people born without hands.

            Also, holy crap, cheeseburgers are actually not Biblical allowed with the whole milk+beef thing.

            Man, I was Christian for years and didn’t quite put that together; I just remember people saying “scientifically, eating beef and drinking milk together decreases your calcium uptake: wow God knows so much about biology!!” Hilarious.

            You’d think the basics of germ theory would’ve been way more obvious to God and far more useful to man than “You get less calcium if you eat beef while eating dairy” or “undercooked pork is bad, so never eat pork”. Christian obliviousness is unparalleled.

            • Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:37 am | Permalink

              Actually, the injunction is against boiling a kid (young goat) in its own mother’s milk. Strictly speaking, there’s no Biblical injunction even against boiling a kid in the milk of a goat, so long as the milk didn’t come from its own mother.

              How did that get turned into a ban on milk and meat at the same meal?

              Well, how sure are you that the milk you’re boiling the kid in came from a different mother? Therefore, no boiling kids in goat milk.

              How sure are you that the milk you’re boiling the kid in is cow’s milk, not goat milk? Therefore, no boiling kids in any kind of milk.

              How sure are you that the meat you’re boiling in milk is really from a lamb and not a kid? Therefore, no boiling of any kind of meat in any kind of milk.

              Lather, rinse, and repeat to the point that it’s not uncommon for ultra-orthodox Jews to have two separate kitchens complete with two separate sets of dining implements and even two separate dishwashers….

              Yes, these people are utterly insane. But hey — at least they’re not boiling any young goats in the goat’s mother’s milk!

              b&

              • daveau
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:49 am | Permalink

                Stop! You’re making me hungry.

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:03 am | Permalink

                Sadly, I had no luck finding any recipes for kid boiled in goat milk…this is the best I could come up with:

                http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Mensaf-Jordanian-Lamb-Stew/Detail.aspx

                Sorry!

                b&

              • daveau
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:26 am | Permalink

                Lamb in goat’s milk. I should still be eligible for heaven, right?

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink

                Whether or not you’d land in heaven would depend on the chef, I should think….

                b&

              • daveau
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

                I don’t expect to land there, I just want to maintain my eligibilty.

                Oh, forget it. That’s long since gone.

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

                I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the prohibition on a kid seethed in its mother’s milk was actually a “kindness to animals” thing, that boiling the kid in what was meant to nourish it was too ironic a perversion of the natural order. But I could be wrong.

                And I forget the Hebrew word but I think it means “fence” or “hedge”, to put a bit of overkill in all commandments to make quite sure of not breaking them – hence the extension of that to never mixing meat and dairy.

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

                If I remember right, the first historical record of the prohibition being a kindness sort of thing is in some speculation by Philo — the early first Century Jewish philosopher who managed to invent Christian philosophy without ever noticing Jesus.

                There’s good reason to think that a rival cult boiled kids in their mother’s milk as a ritual sacrifice, probably playing off the whole “that which gives life brings death” power trip sort of thing. The proto-Jews then created the rule to differentiate themselves from those evil cousins of theirs who lived on the other side of the valley and who totally weren’t at all like them, neener neener. Most of the kashrut code can be traced to that sort of thing.

                b&

              • Posted June 1, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

                The word I wanted is gezeirah:

                “A gezeirah is a law instituted by the rabbis to prevent people from accidentally violating a Torah mitzvah. We commonly speak of a gezeirah as a “fence” around the Torah. For example, the Torah commands us not to work on Shabbat, but a gezeirah commands us not to even handle an implement that you would use to perform prohibited work (such as a pencil, money, a hammer), because someone holding the implement might forget that it was Shabbat and perform prohibited work. The word is derived from the root Gimel-Zayin-Reish, meaning to cut off or to separate.”
                JewFAQ

  3. Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:16 am | Permalink

    I can’t bear to watch that, but I do have to observe that the lyric in question is actually true. Of course, ain’t no straights gonna make it to Heaven, either — or to the Elysian Fields, or Never-Never Land, or Narnia, or any of those other places.

    If any of us want to see Heaven, we’ll have to make it real here on Earth. Some of us are trying to do just that, but it’s damned hard with bullshit like this being spewed all around us.

    b&

    • jbg
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:39 am | Permalink

      So if they are just stating the actual truth, as opposed to just the truth or the virtual truth, then why are you upset about it? They have a right to make fun of whatever they want and there is nothing hateful in the statements. Of course you can find that in any number if Indiana towns in the various churches of the Aryan nations if hateful is what you want to be upset with on youtube.

      • Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:48 am | Permalink

        The fact that you share the same hateful delusions as the motherfucking sons of bitches in the video doesn’t mean that none of you are bigoted assholes incapable of conducting yourselves in a civilized manner.

        b&

      • Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:48 am | Permalink

        Ah, I thought you were just misinterpreting daveau’s initial comment, but now I see you’re being deliberately obtuse.

        • daveau
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink

          Therefore: trolling.

      • truthspeaker
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

        There’s nothing hateful in the statement “ain’t no homos going to make it to heaven”?

        • darrelle
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:02 am | Permalink

          No, you are confused. That is a display of love. Christian Love, to be specific.

          • Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:04 am | Permalink

            Is this “Christian Love” anything like “Christian Science”?

            b&

            • Linda Grilli Calhoun
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:13 am | Permalink

              Christian love is EXACTLY like Christian science. L

            • darrelle
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:16 am | Permalink

              Indeed they are. Both are based on the premise that any sufficiently authoritative authority figure is capable of pulling anything it can think of out of its ass and imbuing it with reality.

            • JonLynnHarvey
              Posted June 1, 2012 at 6:35 am | Permalink

              Oooooh!! Ben, I wish I had thought of that.

          • Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink

            Is Xian Love the source of the saying “love you to death”?

      • Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

        They aren’t saying that out of a commitment to truth.

        They are saying that because they think there is a heaven, and filthy homos won’t be allowed. Nyah, nyah. That is hate.

        I know you can see the difference.

      • Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

        You think those religiots are making fun of the existence of heaven? You are truly deluded.

  4. Bruce S. Springsteen
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:17 am | Permalink

    We can only hope the little fellow turns out to be gay, and mad as hell.

    • Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:19 am | Permalink

      I was thinking how heartbreaking it would be if he has an older sibling who is gay and just starting to come to terms with it.

  5. bonetired
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    I wish really that I hadn’t heard that appalling sound clip. Bigotry naked and unashamed by who ever had brainwashed that child.

    • darrelle
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:12 am | Permalink

      I found the visual much more disgusting than the sound. Of course the sound is necessary context to develop the full measure of disgust from the visual component.

  6. Stan
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:20 am | Permalink

    I had forgotten what a great song this is. This latest story is a sad reminder of how silly we Americans appear on the world stage. Bravo to Anne Rice for making the obvious connection to one of the ways our tax system promotes religious hatred by giving religious organizations a free ride. It’s high time to take tax exempt status away from any organization that openly promotes bigotry and inequality. I see that as the first step in a legal battle to deny tax exempt status to the BUSINESS of selling “salvation”.

    • tomh
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      I’d be happy if they just enforced the laws already on the books and took tax-exempt status away from religious organizations that engage in political advocacy. There are plenty of preachers telling their flock who to vote for.

  7. NotTheFace
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Shocking.

  8. jbg
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    Hoosiers do the darndest things. At least they weren’t throwing snakes at the kids. So charge them with hate speech crimes, child abuse and add extra counts for whoever enabled these hoosiers with internet access.

    • daveau
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:50 am | Permalink

      I don’t think any of that is illegal in Indiana.

    • tomh
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      jbg wrote:
      So charge them with hate speech crimes, child abuse

      There is no such thing as “hate speech crimes” in the US. As for child abuse, in most states religions are exempt from many child abuse statutes.

      • Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink

        I am not sure US doesn’t have the equivalent of hate-speech laws. A few years ago an Indian student at Purdue was jailed for years just for the “crime” of posting some hate-filled threats to a politician (Bush, if I remember correctly), even though no real threats could be demonstrated. Given that last fact, the laws under which this was deemed a crime must have been rather indistinguishable from anti-hate-speech laws.

        • raven
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

          Death threats are felonies under US law. It’s considered correctly, as more a form of terrorism than a form of free speech.

          There is no 100% reliable way to distinguish a serious death threat from a nonserious death threat. Unless the target is attacked and/or killed. Then it was a serious threat and it is also too late.

          In practice, there are so many death threaters that people and the FBI have to pick and choose and guess which ones are “serious”.

          You have to be a bit crazy or stupid to get put in jail for death threats. Although there are plenty of people doing long time in the prisons for it.

          • Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

            Death threats against presidents are yet another category again. So much so that I not only wouldn’t joke about them, but I wouldn’t even quote or paraphrase one to give an example of what you don’t want to do.

            For better or worse, many types of direct criticism of sitting presidents have too often been interpreted as threatening, the First Amendment be damned.

            b&

  9. herewegoagain
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    Sheesh! I can only imagine the turmoil of the secretly gay members of this church, those poor beleaguered folk trying to “pray away their gay feelings.”

  10. Linda Grilli Calhoun
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    “I weep for this child; had he been born into another family, he might have had a chance.”

    Well, maybe he does have a chance.

    When Neil deGrasse Tyson asked the question, “What is the difference between the 93% of Nobel Prize winners who are atheist and the 7% who are not?”, I took notice.

    I asked myself that same question when I discovered Nate Phelps. Why, of Fred’s 13 children, did he alone get out and become a voice of reason?

    It seems to me that if we can approach finding some answers to the origins of these differences, we can perhaps affect the environment in ways to support growth and change.

    It’s why I am fascinated by the “Why I Am an Atheist” series. It’s why I wrote the dissertation I did.

    Ideas, anyone? L

    • Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:39 am | Permalink

      I find that the ability to question is the origin of those who get away from religion. If people are assured it’s okay to question, then they have a much better chance. Some people are lucky enough to realize they can question without any external prompting, some aren’t.

      • Linda Grilli Calhoun
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:08 am | Permalink

        I am reminded of an article I read in Discover magazine several years ago that was written by a med school professor. One of his first-year students arrived believing that men had one less rib than women.

        Rather than laugh out loud or blow coffee through his nose, he led her through an analysis of why that could not be true. I had nothing but admiration for him; I’m afraid my reaction would have been, “How in the hell did you manage to get admitted to med school?”

        We need to be careful when we are questioned to answer in such a way as to not discourage those who really are trying to learn something
        (as opposed to those who are trying to sell something).

        I’m not sure that I always have that capacity.

        L

    • jbg
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:50 am | Permalink

      “What is the difference between the 93% of Nobel Prize winners who are atheist and the 7% who are not?” Atheism. As opposed to that 7% which includes people like Barack Obama, MLK, Mother Teresa, and some very famous scientists:
      http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/nobelistsgod.htm

      • Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:06 am | Permalink

        That page starts out perpetuating a lie that Einstein himself raged against — specifically, that Einstein was a religious godbot.

        “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

        And Mother Teresa made it quite clear in her diaries that she didn’t at all believe in any gods, Jesus explicitly included. Not that I have any sympathies for the Bitch of Calcutta whose stock in trade was excruciating death for her innumerable victims; for better or worse — and certainly for worse — she was an atheist, through and through.

        Care to spew up any more blatantly transparent lies today? Or maybe you’ll just keep up with the hate speech.

        b&

        • jbg
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:29 am | Permalink

          I see. Mother Teresa and Albert Einstein were atheists.

          • truthspeaker
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink

            Einstein, based on his statements, was probably a pantheist. He certainly didn’t believe in the traditional Jewish God, the Christian God, or any personal God.

            • Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

              Einstein’s atheism was as explicit as it gets, as demonstrated by my quote above. His “God” was a poetic turn of phrase that meant exactly the same thing that Sagan meant with his favorite word, “Cosmos.”

              And Teres’s private writings, published since her death, make it pretty clear that, though she wanted to believe, she just couldn’t bring herself to.

              http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655720,00.html

              Cheers,

              b&

            • jbg
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

              Einstein, based on his statements, certainly didn’t believe in the traditional Jewish God, the Christian God, or any personal God.

              Is correct despite what Richard Dawkins writes in God Delusion: “Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own” Which is the kind of mendacity you get from Dawkins. Einstein believed in an impersonal god like a Deist or pantheist. Dawkins also lumps Carl Sagan in the atheist category. Dawkins keeps trying to expand the definition of atheism to the point where he is like a Mormon in going back and performing his blessing on historical figures. But worse he actively rewrites history which Mormons do not do with their dead relatives.

              • truthspeaker
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

                Sagan was indisputably an atheist.

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

                Why do you keep lying, liar?

                “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

                b&

              • jbg
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

                “Sagan was indisputably an atheist.”
                Sorry to inform you but that is incorrect.
                Sagan was agnostic found this entire grown militant atheism a source of irritation as he found it interfered with his role as an educator.
                http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/atheism-is-very-stupid-carl-sagan.html

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

                Well, I’m glad Carl defines his terms well, like a good philosopher or scientist. But that’s a narrower definition of “atheist” than is generally used, or understood, by most regular commenters here; “strong atheist” rather than “weak atheist”. There is some good discussion of these terms, and “agnostic”, in the comments to posts on this site a little while before you started commenting here. Search for “Neil deGrasse Tyson”. But let’s not reopen that can of worms.

                Anyhow, in the broader sense, Sagan was an atheist, and very certainly not-a-theist.

                /@

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

                “God does not play dice with the Universe”
                – Einstein

                The dice are a figure of speech. So it God.

                Three words that rescue Einstein from a charge of theism, or even deism.

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

                *is

          • Sajanas
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink

            Einstein was most assuredly an atheist. Why doesn’t Ben Goren’s quote convince you? There has been a very concerted effort by people of many religions to claim Einstein because he was so influential and iconic.

            As for Mother Teresa, I find it hard to believe she could believe in the same God she was supposed to, when people gave her 150 million dollars, and she opened convents rather than turning her death watch into an actual hospital.

            • DV
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink

              In fact, she couldn’t believe. The problem of theodicy did her in. She was basically faking it for 50 years.

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

                Concerning Teresa, I wonder if she wasn’t playing up her doubt. I do remember from that piece in Time, that she was told that all the great Saint experienced a “dark night of the soul” (more aptly termed a remission, where in logic and reason, for a time, won out). Was she playing her doubt for effect? That is certainly an uncharitable view of her behavior, but uncharitable is really all I have for her.

                I suppose it is just as possible that she just needed a Clergy Project to help resuce her from her shitty career choice.

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted June 1, 2012 at 12:09 am | Permalink

                Ack, fellas, we don’t *want* Mother Teresa! Let the religionists have the evil old bitch. I’d rather try justifying Stalin than Mother dying-in-agony-is-good-for-your-soul Teresa!

                (I can just see the godbot trolls a few years from now – “Hitler… Stalin… Mao… Pol Pot… Mother Teresa”).

              • DV
                Posted June 1, 2012 at 7:07 am | Permalink

                Playing up her doubt for effect? Who was her intended audience if she kept it secret for 50 years?

                Nah. More likely she was just the run-of-the-mill closeted atheist clergy too invested in her profession to come out.

          • DV
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:33 am | Permalink

            Teresa said:

            “What do I labour for? If there be no God — there can be no soul — if there is no Soul then Jesus — You also are not true”

            “I utter words of Community prayers — and try my utmost to get out of every word the sweetness it has to give — But my prayer of union is not there any longer — I no longer pray.”

            There’s more where that came from in Ben’s link below.

            • DV
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:34 am | Permalink

              or above

            • Posted June 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

              DV,
              She could have been playing up the doubt to her “handlers.” I know she wrote regularly to a priest, or some such shaman who reassured her that her doubt proved her belief. But as I said, I could be over interpreting here. Forgive me, she seemed like a drama queen.

      • Linda Grilli Calhoun
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:13 am | Permalink

        This is a non-answer.

        You clearly don’t even understand what I’m actually asking.

        Just because a tiny minority of scientists makes unfounded statements doesn’t make them true.

        The mental processes needed to reach a valid conclusion are developed by learning and practice.

        What are the precursors to that learning? L

        • Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

          Yes, very obviously they are atheists, but how so?

          What’s the breakdown of the atheism of Nobel Laureates by the prizes they won, I wonder.

          /@

      • Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:26 am | Permalink

        always quite pleasant to see another theist who has no problem with spreading lies, which demonstrates that even *he* doesn’t believe in what he claims.

        I’m going to assume you are a Christian, jbg. Mother Theresa advocated for allowing people to suffer, she also seemed to not have as much faith as you might claim. And other Christians, well, jbg, they all think that those who don’t agree with their particular sect will be damned, and none of them have any evidence they are more right than the next. So, I have little reason to think that any of you do.

        • Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

          Ceiling Cat seems quite tolerant of jbg so far… I’m surprised he hasn’t invoked rool #2 yet.

          /@

      • JonLynnHarvey
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:35 am | Permalink

        That webpage is rather distorted. A lot of the alleged God-believing Nobel scientists there are either deistic or using God as a metaphor for a supreme mystery.

        On the one hand:
        Charles Townes (#6) on this list is indeed a conventional Christian theist (though very liberal and supporter of gay rights!!) (I am personally acquainted with Townes- he’s a wonderful gentleman.).
        Likewise Heisenberg (#3) was a Lutheran Christian.
        #7 Arthur Shawlaw, also a moderately traditional Christian.

        On the other hand,
        #5 Millikan is saying ” Let me, then, henceforth use the word God to describe that which is behind the mystery of existence and that which gives meaning to it.” That’s a kind of modernistic panentheism of a kind taught by some at Harvard Divinity School but hardly traditional belief, and some would say pragmatically not that distinguishable from atheism.
        #4 is Erwin Schrödinger who has been well-documented to be an atheist. I suspect in the 3rd ES quote he is engaging in a kind of Einsteinian pantheism.
        #2 Max Planck was a champion of a kind of broad religious sensibility- of religious emotions- what some call a “religionist” (that word has been used many ways)- but he did not believe in a personal God!!
        #1 Einstein- ditto what Ben Goren said. Einstein’s views are similar to Max Planck. He was fond of parts of the Bible and was a generic celebrator of religiousity, but again in no sense a conventional theist.

        Ben Goren, you and I were on opposite sides of the fence re Bart Ehrman and Jesus, but I totally back you on this one.

      • truthspeaker
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink

        Of those three people you mentioned, only one of them is not a complete douchebag.

    • chrislrob
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:57 am | Permalink

      This is true. Problem is, many times in fundamentalist churches people are told that questioning is okay, but that all of the answers are in scripture or are revealed through prayer.

      They are not told to ask questions *about* the bible or to look at church doctrine with a critical eye *without* referring to the bible. No. They always put their bible-goggles on first. So they have the sense that they are questioning, but they don’t realize that the key is to question the bible itself.

    • theobromine
      Posted June 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

      Pardon the pedantry, but it’s worth noting that Nate is not the only child of the odious Fred Phelps to have left the family and the church. At least one other brother left before Nate, and there is also a sister who left but later returned (though she has not actually been accepted back – the church and family continue to ostracize her, last I heard).

  11. darrelle
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    Disgusting. If the adults cheering that child on had any decency at all they would be ashamed of themselves. The adults cheering this child on deserve no respect whatsoever until such time as they might acknowledge how immoral their behavior has been. Which for the large majority will be never.

    There is no reason to engage in a dialogue with such people. The probability of moving them towards a more moral position towards LGTBs is too low to warrant serious consideration. The best way to confront them is with mockery, scorn and ridicule. They are pathetic, but I don’t empathize with them at all.

    • lanceleuven
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:31 am | Permalink

      To paraphrase ‘If you had any decency at all you’d be ashamed of yourself’- I like that. I like it a lot. I hope you don’t mind but I might have to use it next time the right opporunity arises.

      • darrelle
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:08 am | Permalink

        Your making me blush. Somebody must have said that before.

        • lanceleuven
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink

          Yeah, I’m sure the sentiment has indeed been expressed before, but the brevity of the way you said it struck a cord with me. Sorry for making you blush though 😉

    • lamacher
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:58 am | Permalink

      Perhaps we could send in the ARRT (Accomodationist Rapid Response Team)to speak with them (in an accomodating way, of course). Good luck with that!

      • darrelle
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:07 am | Permalink

        “. . . ARRT (Accomodationist Rapid Response Team) . . .”

        That is awesome.

        • Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

          Ah, but, is ARRT another way of knowing?

          /@

          • darrelle
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

            Hah!

            • Caroline52
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Permalink
          • Caroline52
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

            * chuckle *

            / @

  12. Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:11 am | Permalink

    There ain’t no heteros in heaven either. They are all neuters (or they would be if there were such a place).

    • Tim
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      I think when someone advocates for the government to do anything in his capacity as an employee of any organization, the tax-emempt status of that organization should be immediately revoked.

  13. Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    This is indeed very sad. I was raised as a Southern Baptist here in South Georgia. I remember a pastor who encouraged racist jokes about African Americans. That was the first time I started doubting and it would not be the last time. The churches here are starting to put up signs for “Vacation Bible School”. When I see those signs in my head I read “Vacation Indoctrination School”. Glad I was able to give up my belief in Magic years ago. I hope some of the children in this church start doubting someday.

  14. Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Ah South Pacific, the first musical I was ever in. I do wonder that we were allowed to sing this particular song at our high school in rural Pennsylvania; we weren’t allowed to say “damn” in “Nothing like a dame”. But we did anyway at the last showing 🙂

    Hatred is indeed passed along. It’s a shame that this isn’t considered child abuse, to teach a child to be so ignorant and hateful. I do find it amusing that Christians have to claim that their god hates only the sin, when that’s so patentely untrue if one actually reads the bible. Always good to have a religion that is so based on lies, hate and fear that they never can agree on much of anything.

  15. Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    Surely that is nothing more than child abuse. Submerging children in hatred is religious extremism at its worst. The parents need locking up in a mental asylum.

    • lamacher
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:00 am | Permalink

      Better to drop them off on Spitzbergen some November morning!

  16. Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    It’s terribly sad to see a child being raised
    to hate like that. The sustained and hearty
    applause he received is truly disgusting.

    I have to wonder; if there was such a place as
    heaven, would jeering at those you believe are to be excluded help or hurt your own chances of being admitted to the great gated community in the sky? It might have glass houses, you know.

  17. Neil
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    Galling to think that this church hate speech is funded in part with our tax dollars, thanks to the “charitable” gifts income tax deduction. How I wish that could be terminated.

  18. Billybob
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    If you have to be taught to hate, who was the first teacher.

    We are bigots by nature.

  19. Caroline52
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    Ineluctable chance being what it is, this kid may in a few short years discover he himself is gay.

    What the adults in this video are doing is not only hateful — it’s child abuse.

    –perhaps even more so than raising a child to believe in the reality of hell is child abuse: at least this kid’s religion offers him some hope of avoiding hell.

    Thanks for reminding us of that beautiful song from South Pacific. I hadn’t thought about it in twenty years.

    • raven
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

      What the adults in this video are doing is not only hateful — it’s child abuse.

      It is probably legal child abuse.

      One of my minor complaints about fundie-ism is that they set their kids up to fail.

      Then the kids fail.

      On average fundies have lower IQ’s, lower education levels, lower socioeconomic status, and higher levels of social problems like teenage pregnancy than the general population.

  20. David T.
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    From many of my posts, I’m against ridiculing religious people for believing in the sky fairy. When I watch this video, I seriously question my thoughts. I’m not saying moderates should be ridiculed, but these people should be mocked for holding some passage in Leviticus as the valid when they ignore 95% of the rest of it. For those arguing that Paul was against it in the new testament realize that people who gossip also won’t make heaven according to him, so if that’s true we’ll see 95% of christians in their make believe hell.

    • chrislrob
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:38 am | Permalink

      Well, it’s frustrating to see this kind of nonsense and ridicule is a good way to take out that frustration. But we try to resist ridiculing people directly because it’s not a good way to get them to think seriously about their beliefs.

      I have taken to challenging Christians to be MORE religious. “I don’t think you’re keeping the Sabbath holy ENOUGH… Shouldn’t you be plucking out your eye right now? Don’t you think you should be stoned to death for that? No? Why not? It’s in the bible…”

      • darrelle
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

        “Shouldn’t you be plucking out your eye right now? Don’t you think you should be stoned to death for that? No? Why not?”

        I’m confused. That sure sounds like ridicule to me. I approve, but didn’t you just imply that you don’t?

        • chrislrob
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

          Heh. I thought someone might ask that. I guess my tack is to wonder why they choose to focus on some parts of the bible and not others. To highlight hypocrisy. To challenge obvious contradictions. My tone isn’t derisive, but curious.

          Sometimes I think we can fall into the trap of deciding that many believers are stupid and beyond help. Once we decide that, all we can do is laugh. But I think we can challenge them to be consistent within their own beliefs or justify why they are not. And since most of them are not going to decide that adulterers or fried catfish-eaters or Sabbath day grass-mowers deserve terrible punishments, they have to admit that they do not agree with what the bible says about those things, right? So what makes other things in that same book or books so special? And by what divine right do *they* get to determine which things are special?

          I won’t claim it’s THE answer, but it has laughing at them beat all hollow.

          • Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:59 am | Permalink

            Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance, or the effectiveness of laughter and ridicule at increasing said dissonance.

            Cheers,

            b&

            • lamacher
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

              To quote Mencken: “One horse laugh is worth ten thousand sylogisms. It is not only more effective; it is vastly more intelligent.”

          • darrelle
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

            Thanks. I agree that the line of attack you describe is a pretty good one. But I don’t agree with this.

            “I won’t claim it’s THE answer, but it has laughing at them beat all hollow.

            There is some pretty good evidence that ridicule is effective on this very issue. Aside from the direct target of the ridicule, there are all the 2nd, 3rd, and so on, party observers that may ultimately benefit as well.

            “Sometimes I think we can fall into the trap of deciding that many believers are stupid and beyond help.”

            I’m sure that some non believers do sometimes write a believer off, for good, but I seriously doubt this is a real detriment. I think the majority of non believers would be willing to extend a helping hand, or kudos, at the first sign of a believer’s breaking the spell. There are plenty of examples of that happening. Until such a sign I see no reason why ridicule should not be considered a useful tool.

            • chrislrob
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

              Okay, so I’m no authority on this. Can you direct me to the studies of ridicule leading to religious de-conversion? And I’m usually trying to sway the person I’m talking to. There is usually no audience of people that I can convince by laughing at the other person. Maybe Penn Jillette gets chances like that, but I rarely do. I wonder if all of these third-party observers are changing their minds or if they are a choir being preached to?

              “I’m sure that some non believers do sometimes write a believer off, for good, but I seriously doubt this is a real detriment. I think the majority of non believers would be willing to extend a helping hand, or kudos, at the first sign of a believer’s breaking the spell.”

              I think it is a real detriment. I don’t want to wait until I see a sign of the spell being broken, I want to break it myself.

              • gbjames
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

                Then do it your way, yourself. But don’t whine about other people using ridicule and mockery of bad ideas when the choose to. There is plenty of opportunities for you to demonstrate how effective your strategy is. We look forward to hearing of your successes.

  21. Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    On Children
    Kahlil Gibran

    Your children are not your children.
    They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
    They come through you but not from you,
    And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

    You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
    For they have their own thoughts.
    You may house their bodies but not their souls,
    For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
    which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
    You may strive to be like them,
    but seek not to make them like you.
    For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

    You are the bows from which your children
    as living arrows are sent forth.
    The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
    and He bends you with His might
    that His arrows may go swift and far.
    Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;
    For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
    so He loves also the bow that is stable.

    • DV
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink

      Who is the archer? And why the capitalized pronoun?

      • Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

        Well, God, obviously. But equally obviously, He’s just a metaphor… 😉

        /@

        • DV
          Posted June 1, 2012 at 7:13 am | Permalink

          Equally obviously, it was a rhetorical question. 🙂 But I doubt “He” was a metaphor in Gibran’s mind. The bow and arrow are metaphors, but God, if a metaphor, would be a metaphor for what? Hmm… could it be.. evolution?

      • KP
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

        Make no mistake, Gibran is god-soaked. But his poetry is still beautiful and not especially preachy. The “god” or “He” could be a metaphor for anything, as written.

      • zendruid1
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

        The last stanza is clearly a sop to the pious reader.

        Now, the second stanza is what resonates with me.

  22. raven
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    What is going on here is real simple.

    Fundie xianity is based on pure hate.

    No hate, no fundie xianity.

    They use it as an organizing principle and motivating force.

    This is standard tribalism and it is very old.

    I doubt if they really give two hoots about the gays. They just have to have an outgroup to hate.

    We’ve all seen it. Hate the Jew, Moslem, black person, Asian, atheist, Catholic, gay, Eastern European, Southern European, German, Bosnian, Sunni, Shi’ite, Hindu, etc.. ad infinitum.

    The targets change and different tribes have different targets, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that your tribe has someone to hate.

    • raven
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:13 am | Permalink

      Needless to say, any religion that is based on hate is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

      The fundies never, ever miss a chance to demonstrate this.

    • zendruid1
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

      Well yeah, anyone on the straight & narrow path to hebbin feels he has every right to kick the laggards over the side.

      Abrahamic religions need a perpetual enemy to justify their existence.

      You want to really please god? Kill a stranger.

  23. Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    I’d like to point out that this song exists, but not exactly as sung by this child:

    http://grooveshark.com/songWidget.swf

    I’ve never heard the “homo” version, but this version’s pretty great because it asserts that “When you get to Heaven you won’t have nowhere to spit,” a doctrine I have yet to find in the Bible.

  24. mikespeir
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

    Maybe. Unfortunately, it works the other way around, too.

  25. raven
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    It’s Kansas pastor Curtis Knapp, from the New Hope Baptist church, calling for the death of gays.

    Doesn’t it say somewhere in the Ten Commandments that you aren’t supposed to kill people?

    This minister doesn’t even know the basics of his own religion!!!

    OTOH, the fundies only have the Eight Commandments anyway, having thrown out the ones about killing and lying.

    • Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      Killing isn’t wrong when it’s what God wants. Just ask William Lane Craig.

    • truthspeaker
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:50 am | Permalink

      Actually it says not to murder people.

      • Sajanas
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:23 am | Permalink

        And isn’t breaking any commandment punishable by death?

      • Posted June 1, 2012 at 5:10 am | Permalink

        This is correct, according to readers of Hebrew I’ve talked to. Consequently, it is a tautonomy: “don’t do any unjustified killing”. And according to the reprehensible instructions later, killing homosexual men is a *justified* killing … Incredible that we still have people taking this seriously!

  26. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    Lots of atheists would agree there are no “homo sapiens” in heaven.

  27. Steve Smith
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    which has been identified as the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle Church in Greensburg, Ind.

    It gets worse“:

    Among those to condemn the video was outspoken lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocate Dan Savage, who alluded to the death of Billy Lucas, a Greensburg teen who allegedly committed suicide after being the target of anti-gay bullying

  28. KP
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    I saw this on The Friendly Atheist website yesterday. I am so disgusted with Christianity, I can barely contain it. Shame on that entire religion. Shame, shame, shame. Pure evil.

  29. DrBrydon
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    I feel sorry for the kid, not the least reason being his having to live with this video for the rest of his life. My impression is that children of very devout parents (or ideologically committed parents, which is much the same thing) often wind up less committed, if not opposed, to their parents’ beliefs. This has been a problem from Massachusett’s Bay to Israeli kibbutzim. At some point he may very well conclude that a more tolerant attitude is appropriate. The internet doesn’t forget, though.

    I think Anne Rice is exactly right. It is time we stop underwriting these schools for bigotry.

  30. jbg
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    “This could have been filmed only in America: in other places the instruction is more insidious.” Uhhh, I do think there are plenty of films, photos, booklets and websites out there with everything from having parents putting explosive belts on their kids to dropping them off at the local Rambo-boy soldier training film fest. That covers much more than basic religious indoctrination last time I checked. Death to America continues to be a popular and global non secular way to raise your kids with good old fashioned family values. I really don’t see a bunch of hoosiers acting stupid in church as that big of an outrage or existential threat.

    • darrelle
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

      First, your point is trivially true. So much so that you seem to be the only person to have an issue with the point JC was making.

      That you apparently think that we should measure the merits of our society against the absolute worst examples of humanity, and be satisfied with being better than those, instead of against the better tomorrow that we hope to be able to achieve, may explain why.

      You really come across as a person with religious convictions interfering with your ability to reason. This can be clearly seen in every counter argument you have presented in this thread. With each of your arguments you just dig yourself a deeper hole and you don’t even understand why the people here have responded to you in that way.

      • jbg
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

        The statement is: “This could have been filmed only in America: in other places the instruction is more insidious.” I am pointing out that this is obviously false and a ridiculous statement on multiple levels. It is trivially true only inasmuch as hoosiers do not really exist outside of America. Do you think outside of America they do not produce and openly, not in any way insidiously fyi, promote things like madrasas which advocate genocide against Jews along with terrorism and general Death to America? That is just one example. To be so upset about hoosiers acting stupid in Church with a little kid singing about no homos in heaven strikes me as more than a bit ridiculous. What the hell do you think they do at home? Have gay bash kumbaya sleepovers with guys who look like Bobby Knight yelling at them about being real men? For all I know they probably do that and I do not care because there are much bigger things to get upset about than how hoosiers and hillbillys behave in private.

        in·sid·i·ous   [in-sid-ee-uhs] Show IPA
        adjective
        1.
        intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan.
        2.
        stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy.
        3.
        operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.

        • darrelle
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

          As I feared, you did not understand my fairly straight forward response. I understood your first comment. Repeating it with greater emphasis was not necessary.

  31. jbg
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    I did not realize what a big big topic this is.
    Mary K Baxter for example, she saw homosexuals in Hell. That is a great band name, Homos from Hell or at least a good Christian metal song.

    • Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      I’m rather surprised Ceiling Cat hasn’t yet come down on you like a ton of bricks for posting that repugnant hate-filled video fantasy that ends with an exhortation to join in the Sinner’s Prayer.

      b&

      • jbg
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

        Of course for you my posting any content means it represents my personal beliefs and values. Much like the statement “Nazi scientists concluded the negro race was proven less intelligent and inferior just like Jews. However, Jews were acknowledged as highly intelligent but in a devious verminous manner consistent with social Darwinian in-breeding.”
        Reflects my personal affirmation in the conclusions of German scientists.

        • Posted May 31, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

          Oh, stop being so coy. You made clear at the very top of this page that you agree that the Pope is correct that homosexuality is a threat to the existence of the species and that you consider homosexuality as heinous as murder and priestly conduct with minors.

          If that video doesn’t represent your views, be an adult and state so unambiguously right here right now.

          Do you, or do you not think homosexuals are destined for Hell? Do you, or do you not approve of divine torture for homosexuals? Do you, or do you not consider homosexuality a crime on a par with murder and child rape?

          Or do you repudiate the earlier statements you’ve made to that effect earlier in this thread?

          None of this, “I’m just raising points” or “I’m just asking questions,” or else I’m liable to just ask a question about when you stopped beating your wife.

          b&

          • jbg
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

            Ben Goren, are you incapable of following and reading the very clear links I am thoughtful enough to provide about the Pope’s statements on gay marriage? : He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper “settings” and that “pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman.”

            “This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself,”
            Since you are challenged by reading and understanding basic English I think you should do some remedial work before you post any more stupid questions.

            • Posted May 31, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

              Fuck the Pope. We all know he’s the head of an international child rape racket and the personal protector of quite a few child rapists.

              You’ve recently been trying to play the “I’m just reporting what the motherfucking sonfabitch asshole in Rome says, don’t blame me” card.

              I hope this makes clear that we don’t give a good goddamn what the Pope says. If he really wants us to know what he thinks, he’s welcome to come here and post for himself.

              What we’re asking you, repeatedly, is whether or not the Pope speaks for you.

              Does he? Or do you have a conscience of your own?

              But it’s pretty clear that you’re not going to answer that question, at any costs, because you’ve already made clear that you’re a homophobic bigot and you don’t want to admit as much. Well, at least you’re ashamed enough of your bigotry to try to cover it up…that’s a start. Maybe next time you’ll have the sense (though clearly not the decency) to not even open your mouth at all in the first place.

              b&

              • jbg
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

                “What we’re asking you, repeatedly, is whether or not the Pope speaks for you.”

                We? Who is there with you, your Mexican secretary Honey Snatchez for rant dictation? No, the Pope does not speak for me. But I do have a distant relative that he likes to use as a reference when he has to get tough with rouge Bishops: http://www.amazon.com/Compendium-Theologiae-Moralis-Volume-Edition/dp/B00694L2TE

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

                No, “we” are Ben, and me, and other commenters on this thread.

                You still evade and dissemble.

                Please, just answer the direct questions you’ve been asked.

                /@

              • jbg
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

                Well, Mr. Ant what is it about “no the Pope does not speak for me” that you find evasive or dissembling?

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

                Ant can of course chime in for himself, but it’s clear to me that you’re still evading the whole question of what YOU think.

                If the Pope doesn’t speak for you, then why on Earth do you keep informing us of what he says?

                My money’s on you being in lock-step agreement with the fucking motherfucker and you not having the balls to admit it.

                b&

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

                “Rouge Bishops”?

                Not to be confused with Lipstick Lesbians?

              • Caroline52
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

                + 1

                /@

              • Caroline52
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

                + 1

                / @

              • Posted June 1, 2012 at 5:59 am | Permalink

                @ jbg : What Ben said.

                And its Dr Ant, if you please.

                /@

              • Posted June 1, 2012 at 6:01 am | Permalink

                @ Caroline : You keep using my sig… ?

                /@

              • DV
                Posted June 1, 2012 at 7:25 am | Permalink

                i hear crickets…

            • Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

              Who the fuck is the pope? I mean what fucking family does he have? Who is he to define family in just such way? How much sex does he have? I mean with consenting adults. Seriously he can run off at the jibs all he likes about family, but he realy is in no position to say anything authoritative about families and what destablisizes them, or strengthens them than the guy I saw at Wal-Mart today, standing out with a sign begging for change, with the sad well rehearsed story.

              Clearly the family, its composition and structure has changed over the years. In the Judeo/Christian tradition it hasn’t always been one man-one woman, leaving and cleaving. THere have been multiple wives, mistriesses, concubines, multi-generation homes etc. Gay and Lesbian arrangements have ALWAYS existed. All we suggest in the modern era is that they be recognized and respected. Not criminalized. Families have always had GLBT folks in them. Recognizing queer marriages will only strengthen familes.

        • darrelle
          Posted May 31, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

          Since you don’t seem to have much luck with people understanding your positions so far, why don’t you just clearly state what they are?

          Are you a christian, or other religious believer?

          Do you think it is OK to withold some of the civil rights our laws provide from LBGT people, because they are LGBT?

          Do you think it is OK to let people teach their children to hate others and to believe that those others are bad people that it is OK to deprive of certain rights?

          Do you think it is OK for people to do, or campaign for, such things without others voicing opposition?

          • jbg
            Posted May 31, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

            Luck or lack of it has nothing to do with getting people like Ben Goren to understand anything. What is it about: “To be so upset about hoosiers acting stupid in Church with a little kid singing about no homos in heaven strikes me as more than a bit ridiculous” that you not understand? How about, I find hoosiers acting stupid with their kids to be what I expect, which is one reason why I live in Wisconsin. This despite extended stays in the greater Gary metro area, Cal city and a few dozen weekend evenings in Michigan city. For some reason the far flung and diverse religious values there, such as in Naked City, were never major problems for anyone I encountered.

            • Posted May 31, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

              More evasion!

              /@

              • jbg
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

                “Do you think it is OK to let people teach their children to hate others and to believe that those others are bad people that it is OK to deprive of certain rights?”

                Obviously yes. What a stupid question. Unless you are a complete totalitarian. What is the alternative in a yes/no format, no it is not ok to LET people teach their children ….? No we should not let them say that some people are bad? Are you kidding me? If it is not ok what do you propose to do about it? Have their grade school teachers report them to the police like it is child abuse, as if they are not already swamped by real problems much less bullshit that idiots like you come up with because you are too stupid to understand basic language.

              • Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

                Ant didn’t ask if it should be made illegal, just if you think it’s okay.

                But your question makes clear that you also have no problem with parents teaching their children that niggers are filthy mud people who deserve a special necktie if they get too fresh with a white woman or that the only surefire way to keep Jews from destroying the financial solvency of the Fatherland is by killing the lot of them.

                We may agree that that shouldn’t be illegal, but only a truly twisted, fucked-up, deranged sociopath would think that that’s okay. Or, as you’ve made quite clear you think, that it’s okay to teach children that Jesus hates fags.

                b&

            • Tim
              Posted May 31, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

              You’ve really polluted this thread. What cowardly, tiresome troll.

              • gbjames
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

                Yes. I’m ashamed to share initials. Perhaps I can take solice in the fact that his are backwards. Like his views.

              • Old Rasputin
                Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

                It seems to me the best strategy in cases involving a commenter who is behaving in an intentionally obtuse manner with the goal only of riling up others (“trolling” as the kids say) is to simply ignore.

                @gbjames
                Nice.

  32. shakyisles
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    *Too sad to comment*

  33. Jeff D
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Friday morning, when I drive from Indianapolis southeast down Interstate 74, as I pass Greensburg, I will flip the bird in the general direction of that church.

    I’m saddened to say that little hate-mongering churches like that one are common here in the Hoosier State.

    • Posted May 31, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

      I grew up in Indiana, and some part of me will always consider it home, so I totally feel your pain dude.

  34. MadScientist
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    No one in that congregation is going to heaven either. When I’m told I’m going to hell I say ‘that’s nice, but you know you’re not going to heaven either.’

  35. papalinton
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    How about this bit of institutional Catholic hatemongering and homophobia?

    The context of this video is important – please read this.

On the 11th March 2012, every Roman Catholic parish priest in the UK was obliged to read out a letter from Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Archbishop Peter Smith. You can read the full text of the letter here…. http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2012/03/roman-catholic-bishops-letter-….

The letter is a response to the current coalition government’s plan to legalise same-sex marriage in the UK within the next few years. We already have Civil Partnerships, which are marriage in everything but name. But the government (which is one I am not particularly in step with on most matters) is determined to allow full equality to gay couples. It’s basically just a change of word. Religious organisations will not be obliged to recognise or celebrate such marriages. Yet the letter attempts to make out that there is some kind of unchangeable, inviolable definition of marriage which neither church nor state can alter. In doing so its implicit message is that same-sex marriages simply cannot exist and are evidently invalid. This attitude is one still prevalent in our society and one that needs challenging, in my opinion.

I only decided to attend the service less than an hour before it started. By the time I was sat in the pew, my intention was simply to video the priest reading out the letter, then post the video on YouTube to stimulate discussion. I stood up to start the video because I didn’t want it to seem like a secret action – I wanted people to know what I was doing. Once the letter had been read, I then planned to walk out of the church, possibly inviting anyone who felt the letter was an inappropriate thing for a church service to join me outside and discuss the matter.

The preacher rather cleverly took the wind out of my sails by choosing not read the letter, but inviting people to pick up a copy at the door as they left. I salute him for that move. You can hear that I was nonplussed by that and not sure what to do. Whether what followed was wise on my part I’m not sure. I felt that I had to make clear to the congregation why I was there and what I was doing. I never for a moment intended to upset or offend anyone, but in the heat of the moment, I may have done so. If I did, that’s a matter of regret. Those who know me, know that I am a gentle, courteous, caring person.

I have never before taken direct action, never been on a march or demo or taken part in any public protest. But the idea that an institution currently notorious for covering up the abuse of thousands and thousands of children by its representatives over many generations should condemn the public declaration of love and commitment between two people just because they happen to have similar genitalia was just too much for me. No doubt many people in this congregation are good, kind, generous, liberal people. But they need to take responsibility for supporting a corrupt and hypocritical organisation. That’s why I spoke out on this occasion. It was a very untypical action for me.

  36. papalinton
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    Here is another incident of institutional Catholic action fomenting xenophobic, prejudiced and bigoted intolerance of fine upstanding members in our community.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/catholic-church-marshalls-anti-gay-marriage-army/story-e6frfkvr-1226314176079
    Catholic Church marshals anti-gay marriage army
    Save this story to read later
    by: By AAP
    From: AAP
    March 30, 2012 12:39PM
    Church sends anti-gay letters to 80,000 parishioners
    Bishop claims it will lead to polygamy
    Rights advocates horrified by dramatic letter
    Download the letter here
    See the survey here

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/catholic-church-marshalls-anti-gay-marriage-army/story-e6frfkvr-1226314176079#ixzz1wQ4JqIEk

  37. Posted June 6, 2012 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    Personally, I agree with this kid. Not a single Homo sapiens will ever go to heaven.


%d bloggers like this: