What GLAAD and Muslim Extremists Have in Common

GLAAD is the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation. The OIC is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, a 56-state organization which constitutes the largest voting bloc in the UN. At first glance, the two groups would not seem to have much in common—particularly when one considers the general antipathy toward homosexuals in the Muslim world.

Upon further consideration, however, there are some interesting similarities between the two groups. For example, both are in the anti-defamation business. So as not to exclude bisexuals and transgenders, GLAAD no longer uses the full title, but its mission—to protect the gay community from derogatory criticism—remains unchanged. Likewise, the mission of the OIC is to protect Islam from criticism. Its main focus over the last ten years has been a campaign to create universal anti-blasphemy laws which, if passed, would make the defamation of a prophet a criminal offense not only in Riyadh and Islamabad, but also in London and New York.

GLAAD failed in its recent attempt to have Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson consigned to the outer darkness. And although the OIC has managed to pass several anti-defamation resolutions in the UN, it has not yet succeeded in making blasphemy a hate crime in the West. Nevertheless, both groups feel that time is on their side and both have exerted a powerful influence on what is considered acceptable discourse.

How influential? Well, suppose someone told you a joke beginning with the words, “A priest, a rabbi, a minister, an imam, and a lesbian walked into a bar….” If you’re like most Americans, you’re probably thinking, “Whoa! Stop right there!” We’re all used to jokes about priests, rabbis, and ministers, but the addition of the Muslim and lesbian characters introduces an element of caution. We immediately realize that someone might take offense. Moreover, we understand that there could be negative consequences for laughing at such a joke.

We would be right to worry. For example, in British Columbia a stand-up comedian at a comedy club was fined $15,000 by the courts for making a joke at the expense of two drunken lesbian patrons who were heckling him. The owner of the club was made to pay a fine of $7,500. The consequences of making a joke about Islam are even more intimidating. Monty Python star Michael Palin recently admitted that he won’t parody Islam because “there are people out there without a sense of humor and they are heavily armed.” Molly Norris, a Seattle cartoonist, was a bit slower in grasping the new situation. When she tried to initiate an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” contest a few years ago she was hit with a death fatwa issued from Yemen by the late Anwar al-Awlaki. On the advice of the FBI, Norris quit her newspaper job, changed her name, and went into hiding. Norris might have avoided her fate if only she had read what the Ayatollah Khomeini had to say about humor. To wit: “An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.”

Jokes are still allowed in PC America, but only if they conform to stringent—if unwritten—guidelines. In their own way, the public opinion enforcers in America are every bit as prudish as the virtue police in Saudi Arabia, and every bit as vigilant. One of the prime examples of the neo-Victorian censors is CNN’s Piers Morgan, a moral exhibitionist who loves to cloak himself in the trappings of “enlightened” virtue, and whose favorite put-down for those who disagree with him is “How dare you!”

“How dare you!” is not exactly an invitation to rational discussion. It means, rather, that certain ideas and opinions are not fit for public discussion and will not be tolerated. The response of GLAAD to Phil Robertson was essentially of this nature. They didn’t use the occasion of his remarks to open up the discussion on same-sex marriage, but to try and shut it down. Instead of asking for equal time in GQ magazine, they asked for Robertson’s head. They wanted to put Robertson’s opinions beyond the pale and their own opinions beyond discussion. In effect, they were saying “How dare you!”

Another similarity between activist pressure groups like GLAAD and activist Muslim groups like the OIC is that both are highly intolerant of diversity—diversity of opinions, that is. Before looking at the ways dissent is handled in Muslim countries, however, it’s important to realize that Robertson was not the only target of gay activist ire. The larger target is the belief system that informs his opinions. Gay pressure groups and their allies in the media and the courts do not simply object to one man’s views on homosexuality, they object to orthodox Christian teaching about homosexual behavior. And they plan to make those teachings every bit as unacceptable as an off-color joke told about lesbians in a Vancouver bar. If you doubt this, consider the case of Reverend Stephen Boissoin, a youth pastor in Alberta who in 2002 wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper that was critical of the “gay agenda.” He was sentenced by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to a lifetime speech ban prohibiting him from ever saying anything disparaging about gays again, whether in public or in private, in print or in a sermon. He was also required to write a false letter of apology renouncing his religious views on homosexuality.

Speaking of lifetime bans, columnist Mark Steyn narrowly missed having one imposed on him by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission—not for the crime of homophobia but for the crime of “flagrant Islamophobia.” The Canadian Islamic Congress filed complaints against Steyn in 2007 after excerpts from his book America Alone appeared in Maclean’s magazine. In consequence, Steyn was hauled before the Human Rights Commission. As he recounts it, the statutory penalty if he was convicted was that “Maclean’s … and by extension any other [Canadian] publication would be forbidden henceforth to publish anything by me about Islam, Europe, terrorism, demography, welfare, multiculturalism, and various related subjects. And that this prohibition would last forever….”

In some parts of the world such as Canada and Sweden, it is now a crime to criticize homosexual behavior. It has long been a crime in many Muslim countries to criticize Islam or Muhammad, and numerous Christians languish in jail for violation of the blasphemy laws. De facto blasphemy laws are now in effect in parts of Europe. Lars Hedegaard, president of the Danish Free Press Society, was put on trial for the crime of offending Muslims because of remarks he made in a private conversation about widespread sexual abuse in Muslim families. He was found guilty and fined approximately $1,000. In Austria, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a member of Pax Europa, was convicted by a court for the crime of “denigration of the teachings of a legally recognized religion.” The specific denigration was to refer to Muhammad as a pedophile during the course of a seminar presentation. There have been numerous similar “heresy” trials throughout Europe.

Most of us do not wait for a court summons before learning to curb our tongues. We quickly sense what can and cannot be said about topics such as Islam and same-sex marriage. Most of us, in short, begin to practice self-censorship at the first sign of jeopardy. In Orwell’s 1984 this is called “Crimestop”: “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.” Thus, even among those who were willing to defend Phil Robertson’s right to freedom of expression, many felt obliged to make a gesture of submission to the reigning orthodoxy by registering their disapproval of his “crudity.” Have they never seen videos of a gay pride parade? Have they ever remarked on the crudity thereof? Probably not. There are some crudities it’s safe to talk about and some it is better not to notice. An efficient police state is not one in which the police stand at every corner, but rather one in which people learn to police their own words and thoughts. And this is the direction in which our society is headed if it continues to make obeisance to the extremist demands of gay activists and Muslim activists.

In retrospect, it is clear that gay activists have always wanted much more than tolerance or a “place at the table.” They want to be at the head of the table and they want you to submit your values to theirs. The game is no longer about gays being allowed to come out of the closet, it is about putting Christians into the closet. Christians can believe what they want as long as they keep quiet about it, but they must not be permitted to bring their antiquated ideas about sexuality into the public square.

Christians who mistakenly believed that gay rights advocates were only seeking parity would be just as mistaken to believe that Muslim activist organizations such as the OIC, CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, and other “civil rights” groups are merely asking for equal treatment or that they will be satisfied once their current demands are met. The word Islam, after all, means “submission,” and one of the central tenets of Islam is that non-Muslims must submit to Muslims (see, for instance, verse 9:29 of the Koran). Those who think that Islam has progressed beyond this ancient view should consult historian Bat Yeor’s book The Dhimmi—her account of the subordinate condition to which Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands have been forced to submit over the centuries. The dhimmitude laws are similar to the Jim Crow laws in the South before the civil rights era except that they are based on faith, not race. Christians and Jews are not required to renounce their faith under dhimmitude, but they are required to keep it to themselves. In practice, however, the rule of dhimmitude is so onerous and oppressive that the Jewish population of the Muslim Middle East has almost entirely disappeared, while the Christian population has decreased from 20 percent in 1900 to 2 percent today. Much of that decrease has taken place in recent years due to a revival of traditionalist Islam and along with it an attitude of disdain for Christians.

Eventually, Christians in the West will discover that, as with the ever-expanding demands of the GLAAD activists, there is more than meets the eye when Muslim activists request that their prophet be accorded a little more respect. It is not just criticism of Islam that is offensive, but the public espousal of any competing creed. While Christians in American may think that they have little to worry about because of the small size of the Muslim population in the U.S., it’s worth reflecting on the fact that gays make up only two to three percent of the population, and gay activists only a sliver of that. Nevertheless, gay activists are close to controlling the national agenda in certain key areas. This is in large part because they have the backing of left-leaning educators, bureaucrats, and opinion-makers. But these powerful forces have given every indication that they will throw their full support behind the Islamist agenda as well.

It goes without saying (or it should, anyway) that this is not an indictment of all gays or all Muslims. Not every gay feels compelled to follow the extremist party line set down by GLAAD and similar groups. Likewise, not every Muslim welcomes a world where the OIC calls the shots on freedom of speech and religion. If blame must be assigned for the current atmosphere of intolerance, it should fall most heavily on the shoulders of the relativists in the courts, media, entertainment, and academia who have smoothed the way for the extremists.

Editor’s note: This essay first appeared January 20, 2014 in Aleteia and is reprinted with permission of the author.

William Kilpatrick

By

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

  • jacobhalo

    Did you hear about the gay midget? He came out of the cupboard.

    • Valentin

      That must be one nasty cupboard.

  • Steven Jonathan

    Piers Morgan’s response to Phil Robertson would have been very funny if he weren’t serious. There is no mirth in the culture of death-
    The homosexualists and the Muslims don’t have reasoned arguments but they have the backing of a gigantic army of professors, public schools, media personalities and a billion ignorant people willing to shout down opposition- These tyrants have our children, and what are we going to do about it?
    Phil Robertson’s was a strange and wonderful triumph over the GLAAD Nazis, how sad that a backwoods duck hunter has taken the moral lead on this issue in this increasingly fatherless country.

    • Adam__Baum

      And not a peep from the Episcopacy.

    • uncle max

      Things I wish I could see but never will – Phil Robertson says something nasty about muslims and they get a gang together and go down to the bayou after him, and not only the Robertson family but also some alligator hunters team up and guess who is never seen or heard again until a few months later when alligator poop is examined.

      THAT would be a reality show I could relate to.

    • This was a man who thinks men should marry underage girls. He’s your moral hero?

      • Steve Frank

        Roberston said men should marry 15 year olds in states where it is legal for them to do so with parental permission. If the marriage is legal, the girl is not “underage”.

        Why do you have so much hate for people who believe men should be able to marry 15 year olds in states where it is perfectly legal to do so?

        • Because a man who believes you should marry a 15-year-old girl is no moral hero.

          • Objectivetruth

            Kettle, meet pot….

            And a man who believes two men can marry is no moral hero.

            • Steve

              Obj, i enjoyed ur discussion w rob. Thank u for keeping it on a loving christian level. Im impressed by ur ministering to him re the eucharist and 10000 good points of the church. Im lay director of our parishs crhp (christ renews his parish) retreat this spring. As such my witness is on descipleship. My friend, urs are the words of a true disciple!

              • Objectivetruth

                We all need help on our journey back to Christ, I certainly did. Rob seems like a good man, someone that could bring many gifts back to the Church. Good luck with your retreat!

          • Objectivetruth

            C’mon, Rob, really? You’re a pro gay activist making a moral judgement on marriage on a Catholic website? You don’t see the irony?

            • Explain the irony to me.

              • Objectivetruth

                Sigh…!

                C’mon Rob, I don’t want to play this game with you anymore. You know perfectly well what I’m talking about (re: your pro gay marriage views.) a gay, pro gay marriage man commenting on the morality of marrying 15 year olds.

                Once again though, Rob, why do you spend so much time on Orthodox Catholic websites? And please, don’t explain to me again your fighting the good for gay equality.

                I believe the Holy Spirit has guided you here, Rob. You seem like a good guy, Rob. You’re a cradle Catholic, come back home to Mother Church and you’ll find rest in the Bark of Peter. OK…it seems your wrestling and struggling with the Church on its teaching on homosexuality, but what about the other 99% beautiful doctrinal teaching of the Church? How about the Eucharist? Why throw all that away?

                • Objectivetruth

                  (Cont) C’mon home, Rob! We’re all sinners over here, including myself. But the peace and joy found of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church is a zillion times more satisfying then any of my sins.

                  Find what we’ve all found…..JOY!

                • Obj, I understand you think it’s ironic for a gay man to be commenting on morality. But you didn’t explain why, and in response to my question you still haven’t.

                  This is your usual practice. You either insult me or state your disagreement, but when I ask you WHY I am wrong or ask you to SPECIFY a flaw in my reasoning, you never, ever do.

                  Meanwhile, why is it so hard for you to believe that I want to correct errors and misconceptions about facts related to gay people?

                  • Objectivetruth

                    OK….I can accept that!

                    But what about coming back to the Church? Like I said, you might not agree with certain teachings on the Church right now, but we’re all on journey. Let’s set that aside for right now. What about the 10,000 other beautiful teachings? Just start with the Eucharist….mind blowing!!!!!

                    Have you ever watched Father Robert Barron’s “Catholicism” DVD series? Incredibly well done, I highly recommend it. I’ll warn ya……you’ll fall back in love with the Church again!

                    You don’t have to take the full swim back across the Tiber just yet, Rob. But maybe come to the waters edge again. See where it leads you.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    And if I’ve insulted you I apologize.

                    Here’s something you might want to try. Find a local parish and when it has Eucharistic adoration. Go spend 15 minutes in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Sit quietly with your thoughts, or speak to Jesus. Tell him your thoughts, concerns, worries. thank Him. Even ask him “Jesus….are you truly there?!” Or just sit there quietly listening. We can all use some quiet! Do this once a week, for just 15 minutes. See where it leads.

                    • That would be an interesting experiment. I’ve been following the discussions over at strangenotions.com (a Catholic site for dialog with atheists) and I’m afraid it hasn’t made any inroads into my skepticism. Do you think your suggestion would work if I went into it with a sincere heart but a skeptical mind?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Sure.

                    • Well, if you like, get my email address from my blog and I’ll let you know how it goes.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      OK…..I’ll check it out.

                • I posted this elsewhere, but it’s relevant to our interactions. During my time at Crisis Magazine,people keep accusing me of things, but when I ask them to point out the evidence for their accusation (easy enough to do in a cut-and-paste world!) they always find some evasive way not to.

                  If you really do believe in objective truth (as I do), you should be willing to back up your accusations with evidence. If you’re not willing to make that effort, then don’t make those accusations.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            It only needs to be observed that Nature herself points out the age of marriage; whenever man becomes fit for the reproduction of a being similar to himself, he is then fit for marriage.

      • Steven Jonathan

        Rob, When did I say that Phil Robertson was my moral hero? If you look at what I said, You will see I said “how sad” that a guy like Phil is taking the lead on this moral issue. Who are your moral heroes Rob?

      • fredx2

        He makes a joke during his canned public speeches. He does not actually recommend that men marry 15 year old girls. It is so like liberals to take a joke and twist it into a serious recommendation that men should marry underage girls. Here is the joke:
        “You should marry them when they are about 15 or 16. because they will pluck your ducks for you. If you wait and marry them when they are 20, they will pick your pocket.”
        it is corny, bad backwoods humor, but get real. It’s a joke, dude.
        And in Louiisiana, he was talking about when it was legal to marry girls of such an age, and if it is legal, they are not “underage”

        • That would be so convincing if he hadn’t actually married his married his wife when she was 15. Given that fact, it’s hard to see his comment as a joke (unless of course he considers his own marriage a joke). Looks like you’ve been fooled by someone’s spin.

          • Art Deco

            What’s your complaint? That he and his wife had the spunk and the skill to maintain a marriage from adolescence to old age?

            • My complaint is that a man who thinks men should marry young girls has the gall to describe gay people in foul and demeaning terms. That’s my complaint.

              • Adam__Baum

                They married and remain so almost fifty years later. Who are you to judge?

                • As long as you’re as supportive of long-term same-sex couples, I’ve got no quarrel with you.

                  • John200

                    As a homo”sex”ual troll, you have a quarrel with everybody, including yourself.

                    Fight on. I hope you win.

                    • If you can substantiate your accusation with quotes from what I’ve actually posted, then I’d be much obliged, because then I could adjust my words and prevent future misunderstanding

                    • John200

                      You have a record of your own words. But leave that aside.

                      You’ll want to adjust your heart and mind and soul. Then the words will come.

                      Other commenters are giving you good advice. I hope you win.

                    • In other words…you decline to “substantiate your accusation with quotes from what I’ve actually posted.”

                      That really does speak for itself.

                    • Here’s the thing about my time at Crisis Magazine. People keep accusing me of things, but when I ask them to point out the evidence for their accusation (easy enough to do in a cut-and-paste world!) they always find some evasive way not to.

                      If you really do believe in objective truth (as I do), you should be willing to back up your accusations with evidence. If you’re not willing to make that effort, then don’t make those accusations.

                    • John200

                      It hurts to be brought up so sharp.

                      If you learn something from it, the temporary pain will be worthwhile. If not, then not.

                    • This is clearly something you want me to understand, but it seems incredibly vague to me. In the spirit of your sincere wish to enlighten me, could you, please, clarify?

                      In the meantime, if you really do believe in objective truth (as I do), you should be willing to back up your accusations with evidence. If you’re not willing to make that effort, then don’t make those accusations.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    No, I’m not “supportive”, unless by supportive you mean acknowledging that it is a mental illness, or in some cases, where it’s elective, just a plain old sin, such as in the corrections environment, where “gay for the stay”.is well known.

                    • Ah, well, then I guess I do have a quarrel with you, because when you say, “They married and remain so almost fifty years later. Who are you to judge?” that’s not really your guiding principle — or rather, it is when it comes to approving of adults marrying kids , but not when it comes to adults marrying adults.

                      You really should clarify these things.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      They were both of age. This isn’t Mohammed marrying Aisha at6 51 when she was 9. Now try some straight thinking.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      This poor fellow’s quarrel with the Christian religion is a pea-shooter skirmish compared to the all-out-war he’s waging against his conscience in the name of overturning The Immutable Order of Things. If it weren’t so sad it would be amusing.

              • Valentin

                A guy shoving his dick up someones rear end deserves to be called foul.

          • Valentin

            Both the Church and many Catholic countries around the world allow girls to marry at age 14 and boys at age 16 that’s around the time when boys and girls are able to have children. It was also a Jewish tradition in Switzerland during 1500’s or so because that was the age at which boys and girls tended to get horny and they figured it would be better for them to get married at that age than to be lured into fornication.

        • James Anderson

          Yes he did. Because at that age they’re too inexperienced to answer back.

  • Guest

    If Catholics started to live as Catholics some of this nonsense would be stopped. Catholics vote immorally, judge immorally, legislate immorally, and much more. They claim to be Catholic yet reject the most fundamental truths. How can society improve if Catholics are no different than the pagans and hedonists?

    • Adam__Baum

      Different? In large cities, that have that sort of spectacle, they are at the head of the parade. Both of them.

      Think of Nancy Pelosi, defiantly marching in a “pride” parade, and then sheepishly dawning the veil.

      • Guest

        It is beyond reasonable.

    • Valentin

      That’s interesting I usually think of the world being divided between faithful Catholics, Pagans, and Protestants (that includes Muslims and rabbinic Jews). But I do not know where I would fit Hedonists in those categories except maybe a sort of selfish paganism.

    • R. K. Ich

      I’m still baffled why certain blockheads who bear apostolic authority (I won’t utter Abp. Dolan’s name out of respect … oops, blast!) applaud and publicly affirm “gay-friendly” churches.

      It’s not as if these bishops are merely showing Jesus is the Friend and Physician of sinners, and the church is His hospital for those diseased with all kinds of maladies of the mind and soul (including same sex attraction).

      This PC rubbish, meant to get the ardent opponents of the Faith to “like” Mother Church, is as absurd as poor Jews in Dachau waving around SS flags to make Nazis like them more. “If the world hates you, know ye that it hated Me before…”

  • Objectivetruth

    From the Catholic Catechism:

    “2473 Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. “Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God.”

    As Catholics, with our baptismal promise we are called to martyrdom and witness to the truth of Christ, on homosexuality and Islam.

    • Paul Sho

      Thank you, sir.

  • Art Deco

    Our problem in America, is, as always, the legal profession and the culture of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie in which they nestle. These types fancy the autonomy of the hoi palloi should be subject to their discretion in all venues.

  • poetcomic1

    Russia passes a law to prevent homosexuals from actively recruiting young people and children in schools. This is the sum total of Russia’s famous ‘gay-oppression’. Meanwhile, the gay club, bathhouse, s&m etc. scene in Russia is wild and ‘wide open’ and anything goes. The mass media can easily verify this if they wanted to. Meanwhile everyone ‘knows’, thanks to the media, that Russian gays are ‘oppressed’.

    • Poetcomic1, you’re simply wrong. The law led to the arrest of someone simply for waving a rainbow flag during the Olympic torch relay. That had nothing to do with “actively recruiting young people and children in schools. “

      • poetcomic1

        And the law in America led to the conviction of a bakery for refusing to make a wedding cake.

        • Which has nothing to do with your mistaken belief that the “sum total” of the Russian law is “to prevent homosexuals from actively recruiting young people and children in schools.”

          • poetcomic1

            I was speaking of the law. If it is over-zealously used that is the issue and not the law itself, whether in U.S. or Russia.

            • James Anderson

              So let’s arrest Jews. Or black Americans. Or Roman Catholics.

              • poetcomic1

                Spectacular non sequitar. …………….huh?

  • uncle max

    Molly Norris, the Seattle cartoonist forced to go into hiding for making fun of islam – surely the democrats should cite her as an example of the ‘War On Women’ (WOW).

    For any who remember the world wide muhammad cartoons rioting in 2005-2006 – no newspapers or magazines were willing to publish them in this country, and with one exception they all stated that the reason for this were that they didn’t want to ‘offend the islam community’ or some such hooey.

    One exception – The Boston Phoenix. I think it was February 6, 2006 in an editorial they flat out stated that the reason they were not publishing the cartoons was their fear for the physical safety of their employees and the safety of their building.

    If there are others that I don’t know about – please correct me.

    • Adam__Baum

      “If there are others that I don’t know about – please correct me.”

      Are you including familial honor killings?

  • cestusdei

    I have found no one more intolerant then a homosexual activist.

    • Objectivetruth

      There are many threats and attacks by the gay activist community against Catholic Parishes that receive very little exposure from the liberal media. See below an article on a Catholic Parish in Massachusetts that was openly threatened to be burned by gay activists:

      http://massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12b/acushnet_church/

    • Rich

      I have found this group of people right here on this website to be JUST as intolerant as any described above. Say what you will, most of the folks here who are loving all these comments and this sad excuse of an article, are simply celebrating a reason to hate.

      • cestusdei

        You are a prime example of the article. You label as “hate” any disagreement with homosexuality. That gives you the perceived right to persecute us.

      • Objectivetruth

        An exerpt below from the Catholic League website, concerning two occasions wher members of the gay terrorist group, “Act Up”, attacking priests and spitting out the Holy Eucharist at Mass:

        “Act Up, a radical gay group, stormed Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on June 5. One of the homosexuals, who was dressed as a priest, proceeded to perform a mock marriage of a gay couple while others screamed, “Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice.” Their stunt was also marked by violence: Monsignor Patrick Jacquin was pushed to the ground, trampled and kicked in the neck. The terrorists said they were marking the first anniversary of France’s first gay wedding; the courts subsequently nullified the union.
        This is not the first time these gay activists have engaged in Nazi-like tactics. In December 1989, Act Up members invaded St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, breaking up a Mass and spitting the Communion wafer on the floor.”

        • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

          The founder of Act-Up publicly admitted his indebtedness to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Kampf in German = Jihad in Arabic, loosely rendered “struggle.”

          • Objectivetruth

            It was announced today that newly inaugurated New York City mayor Bill Deblasio is boycotting marching in this years St. Patrick’s parade because parade organizers won’t allow LBGT groups to march. One must really allow this to set in: the NYC mayor won’t march in a parade because the Catholic organizers won’t allow openly gay participants to participate in a parade honoring a Catholic saint on his feast day. It will be interesting to see how the media approaches this story.

            • Adam__Baum

              “It will be interesting to see how the media approaches this story.”

              As they always do, as stenographers.

        • Guest

          Simply demonic. This deviant behavior is to be expected when unnatural desires and acts rule people’s lives.

        • fredx2

          I was there the day in 1989 when Act Up did that. All of a sudden, during the Mass, they started hollering and running up the aisles. Cardinal O’Connor was ready, however. He simply raised his hands and started leading the crowd in the Our Father. The whole cathedral drowned them out. The police removed them, and the mass went forward.
          Also, around that time, the news media sometimes set their cameras up about 6 rows back to film O’Connor’s homilies, just in case he said anything controversial. One day he said the devil was real. – standard Christian docrtine for the last two thousand years – and the papers had a conniption. The next day, if I recall correctly, the New York Post had a huge picture of the devil on front page, with the headline “O’Connor says the devil is real!”

          • You must realize is that in 1989, when people are dying, and those people hear self-proclaimed Christians say that it’s GOOD that they’re suffering and dying, that one can only expect the reaction to be equal to the provocation. I can only hope that both sides are more compassionate today.

            • Objectivetruth

              Good point. I remember no one really knew how to react, and the disease (AIDS) had no cure or treatment. Much hysteria, especially at that time it was perceived (somewhat falsely) as being extremely infectious. Gays that contracted the disease were treated too much as lepers from the 15th century. But to the Catholic Church’s credit, they did step in and become involved in the care and treatment. I’ve been involved with Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity for twenty years. They ran (and still do) many homes specifically for dieing AIDS patients. Many of these patients were ostracized and stigmatized for the disease, with many medical professionals afraid to treat them and family abandoning them.. but the MC sisters fearlessly and lovingly treated them, never turning one needy AIDS patient away. As volunteers, we sat by their bedsides, trying to comfort them in any way, using wet cloths to keep their dried out lips moist. I recall in the 90’s without the benefit of the new immunotherapies, we had a patient a week die at the home. Thankfully, that’s been stemmed with new pharma cocktails. But because of the love and care of the Missionary of Charity nuns, these patients actually died peaceful, beautiful deaths.

            • DD

              Please do not explain away evil behavior. You refuse to accept the gravity of the situation. If you only view reality from through the lens of those acting wrongly then you will justify grave evil.

            • Objectivetruth

              Also though Rob, (and maybe the activists did not know the gravity of what they were doing) there’s no justification for desecrating the Eucharist. Even if they did not believe in the Eucharist, they did know the absolute sacredness of the sacrament to Catholics. It was a pure “thumb in the eye” of desecration, and they probably consciously knew that or they wouldn’t have done it.

            • Objectivetruth

              I was very involved in the Catholic Church’s response to the HIV/AIDS crisis in the late 80’s and early 90’s. (see my other posts) And the Catholic response was not to judge how the person contracted AIDS, but how are we going to help these very sick people. Myself and other young volunteers looked to try and emulate then Blessed (now saint) Father Damien of Molokai, who lived with and helped the Hawaiian leper colonies in the 19th century. We didn’t care how the patients contracted AIDS, only that as Catholics filled with the Holy Spirit we wanted to help our neighbor in the name an love of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and Catholics very much quietly and without recognition helped members of the gay community with AIDS. But the media and press mentioned very little of this. But we didn’t care. We did what we did out of love of neighbor, and love of Jesus Christ and His beautiful bride, the Catholic Church.

              • That’s great. If more people had been like you, ironically, the gay movement wouldn’t be as powerful as it is now, because it had to mobilize in the face of indifference and outright hostility from the straight mainstream. Thank you for your service.

                Of course, it would also be good if so many members of the Church hierarchy didn’t promote misinformation about condoms, but we can’t hold the whole Church responsible for some bishops and cardinal spreading falsehoods.

                http://www.badscience.net/2010/09/the-pope-and-aids/

                • Objectivetruth

                  Interesting article. But I do believe Pope Benedict’s comments are taken out of context. Concerning abstinence, I think that people think that the Catholic Church with a stern, condemning voice, waggling finger is always saying “Abstain!! Don’t have sex outside of marriage!!” But reading Benedict’s quote in the article (and I’ve become an armchair “theologian” on Benedict, reading him much) I believe what he is saying is “Embrace first the joy and love of Christ….seek ye first the kingdom of God!” In other words, by embracing and falling in love with Christ and His Church first, your heart changes and conforms to Christ. And things such as sexual relations are then seen through the lenses of Christ. Sorry if this might seem a little confusing, but on my own personal experience, the more I reached over the years for Christ’s love in the teachings of the Church, the more I viewed sex in a purer, more “sacred” way. It’s tough too try and explain in a posting, but I found greater peace.

                  Also, Rob, check out this article from the British journal “The Lancet”, comparing seat belt use to condom use. It’s interesting. Basically the tone of the article is seat belts have given a false sense of security and therefore encouraged riskier driving habits, consequently traffic accidents have not decreased. He makes an interesting comparison to condom use:

                  http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)09109-6/fulltext

      • Guest

        Truth is hate to those who hate truth.

      • Guest

        The ubiquitous use of the word hate is a gay propaganda tool. It has become nothing but an empty charge used to try and win an argument. Do you know what hate authentically is?

      • Valentin

        Guess what I hate homosexuality because it screws up peoples rectums as well as their lives. I have known a “gay” guy who was separated from his wife. What about the true marriage and his wife? Is that all flushed down the drain because he wanted to wear funny looking ear piercings and talk with a lisp? People hear talk about what is right and wrong not what is “tolerant”.

    • Valentin

      A teenage girl in Maryland received death threats for speaking against “gay marriage” at a court decision.

  • Paul McGuire

    This whole idea that gays are somehow lacking in tolerance themselves because they won’t accept certain offensive language from Christians is ridiculous. It should never have reached the point where large numbers of Christians believe that it is proper to group the entire set of gays and lesbians together when cherry picking bible verses to mask hate.

    If someone wants to get up in public and say “You know, I disagree with same-sex marriage and I don’t think that it is proper” that is completely different than the hateful things we have been hearing. There is room for discourse but once you call an entire group of people degenerates then you can’t complain when they call you out for it.

    Notice that the one difference glossed over here is that nobody from GLAAD is suggesting that Christians should be killed for speaking what they believe. Nobody has found their shop bombed and reduced to ashes for saying that homosexuality is a sin.

    • DD

      Christians are not calling for violence.

      The gay lobby uses language as a propaganda tool. When authentic definitions are used they rebel and obfuscate.

    • Steve Frank

      “Cherry picking” bible verses? That’s a nice sleight of hand on your part Paul. The phrase “cherry picking” implies that someone is purposefully ignoring evidence that is problematic for the case they are trying to prove. If Christians are truly cherry picking bible verses to condemn gay sex, then that means they must be ignoring bible verses that approve of it. But there is nothing in the Bible that treats homosexuality positively or even neutral. Everything it says about it is negative. You may not believe the Bible is true, but you have no right to falsely frame the issue as if the real problem is that Christians are “cherry picking” Scripture. When it comes to homosexuality in the Bible, all the cherries on the tree are the same. No one is selectively picking them.

      • James Anderson

        ‘slight of hand’.

    • Valentin

      I find sodomy offensive. It is the sort of thing that’s done in prison and by tyrannical Roman and Japanese emperors to military officers. That fact that people are calling something ugly, disgusting and perverted when it is most certainly the case is by no means wrong. I don’t even need the Bible to tell me “gay sex” is wrong.

  • Sid

    Prof. Kilpatrick seems to be on a roll. Whether it’s homosexual activists or an Academy Award Best Picture nominee, everyone or everything he doesn’t like or agree with in the end seems to come back to a particular religion that he doesn’t seem to have a terribly detailed and developed understanding about – but apparently knows is responsible for or in alignment with just about everything wrong with the world.

    If only it were so easy.

    Professor, the article here has its requisite problems and lapses. Let’s take a breather and a step or two back to clean things up.

    • Guest

      Huh? What exactly is the problem you see?

  • Thaddeus J. Kozinski

    The New World Order satanists and psychopaths are our most powerful and influential enemies, not God-fearing Muslims. You’re playing right into their hands with this fear-mongering about Islam. Who do you think is creating, fomenting, and supporting “Islamic
    psychos and mercenaries?: Al CIAda.

    • Valentin

      Islam is another form of “Protestantism” it came centuries late. If you actually bother looking at the Quran you will notice that Islam teaches wildly different things from the Church as well as the law of Moses. It is not just something the NWO came up with how ever much they may support Al Quaeda. For example Islam teaches that because man never fell out of the garden of Eden that death was created by God rather than the Devil.

  • Valentin

    They both believe that Power and being right is the same thing, so do the feminists.

  • James Anderson

    Liar. Or fool. Take your pick. Either way this piece is disgusting.

    • DD

      What portion is disgusting?

      • Art Deco

        He’s a regular at a homosexual site called “Joe. My. God”. What’s ‘disgusting’ is that someone took exception to what he’s invested in.

        • James Anderson

          I see. You poor fools are all participants in the fag bashing industry.

          DD: Everything about it is disgusting.

          Art Deco: My husband and I will tomorrow celebrate our 44th anniversary. The work we’ve made together has gone around the US and the world. How you doin?

    • Art Deco

      Take it somewhere else. This is a serious discussion forum, not a sandbox.

    • R. K. Ich

      Usual leftist/progressivist response when unable to cogently deal with facts.

  • Conniption Fitz

    What do GLAAD and Islam have in common?

    One word – Misogyny.

    Even Lesbians hate and reject womanhood.

MENU