Discrimination

Not that I claim to know more than Pope Benedict's first-person Nazi expertise, but his claim that Nazis were about atheism is somewhat bizarre:

The Pope used this speech to warn Britain about "aggressive forms of secularism" and "atheist extremism" in society. He recounted Britain's stand against the Nazis, then stated "As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the Twentieth Century."

In a few short sentences, Benedict threw down a gauntlet by linking the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany with atheism. While, to be fair to the Pope, the Nazis had no real love for Catholics, Nazi Germany was a religious state. The Nazis drew upon both Christianity and Pagan influences. Nazi paraphernelia proudly proclaimed Gott mit uns (God with us). Nazi propaganda routinely referred to political enemies as atheists as a means to vilify them, and Hitler himself is reported by at least one close aid to have confirmed his Catholicism late into the war.

Not only has the Pope bought into the lie that the Nazis were atheists, but apparently he has forgotten the history of an organization he was part of, both as a member of the Hitler Youth and as a member of an anti-aircraft gun crew.

Speaking the lie to the Pope's claim are the various Nazi artifacts with Christian iconography and messaging on them.

Perhaps the Pope should have talked about Stalin. After all, the Soviet Union was an atheist totalitarian regime. But perhaps Stalin did not suit the Pope's purpose for various unknown reasons.

Must see: the (not quite) official Bodygroom website. (Warning: Adult material. Not recommended for children under 13 -- or men with sexual orientation anxiety disorder, unless they're safely protected by healthy doses of righteous homophobia, in which case they actually might enjoy some vicarious pseudo-homosexual visioning in a safe and totally virtual and completely heterosexual manner. If you are a man who has felt onset of effeminate symptoms, there are treatments available. Ask your doctor, but only after you've put your clothes back on. Not valid in Canada or the Virgin Islands.)

[via Suzanne Reisman]

There's an email going around, calling for a boycott of the new NBC show, "The Book of Daniel."

Despite receiving nearly a half-million emails, NBC still intends to
begin their new series The Book of Daniel next Friday. While NBC
refuses to release the sponsors of the program, AFA has identified 10
potential sponsors. Send them an email asking them not to sponsor the
show. Ask local advertisers on your NBC affiliate to pull their
advertising from the local station if they carry The Book of Daniel.

The network is promoting "The Book of Daniel" as a serious drama about
Christian people and the Christian faith. The characters include:
Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest; his alcoholic wife;
his son, a 23-year-old homosexual Republican; his daughter, a
16-year-old drug dealing daughter; a 16-year-old adopted son who is
having sex with the bishop's daughter; his lesbian secretary who is
sleeping with his sister-in-law; and a very unconventional
white-robed, bearded Jesus who talks to the priest.

I don't know. This actually sounds kind of funny. But wait, it's a drama. Let's get a different take:

"I honestly don't think it's going to be nearly as controversial as some people may now be afraid of," he declares. "It just has the courage to deal with some of the real issues that go in on people's lives."

Like, for instance? Quinn laughs as he recites a litany.

"Well, I'm an Episcopalian priest who struggles with a little self-medication problem, and I have a 23-year-old son who's gay, and a 16-year-old daughter who's caught dealing pot, and another son who's jumping on every high school girl he sees, and a wife who's very loving but also likes her martinis.

"I can't tell you how many people have said to me, `Hey, that sounds like my family.'"

Don't forget the Rev. Daniel Webster's recent cruel loss of another son to leukemia. Or the kookie extended family that, among other things, is about to put Daniel's priesthood (and parish) in jeopardy by forcing him into business with the Mob.

Or the fact that he has regular visions of, and frequent conversations with, a flesh-and-blood Jesus Christ.

Let's see if we can figure out just what's offensive. That the father of a gay son might have a personal relationship with Jesus? Or that a priest might be fallible? (Hey, it's only pills. The real world offers worse.) Or that homosexuality exists? (So many people fighting shame.)

Back to what makes Wildmon wild with outrage.

The writer for the program is Jack Kenny, a practicing homosexual who
describes himself as being "in Catholic recovery," and is interested
in Buddhist teachings about reincarnation and isn't sure exactly how
he defines God and/or Jesus. "I don't necessarily know that all the
myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true," he said.

Aidan Quinn, who plays Rev. Webster, said if the show offends some
Catholics, "I don't really care..."

Take Action Now! Time is Short!

Well it's not on for a week, so aside from noting your calendar or programming your Tivo, there's not much to do but wait.

Of course, if this kind of thing offends you....

What can you do:

Print out the AFA pass along sheet and distribute it in your
Sunday School class and at your church this Sunday. Ask your pastor to
urge members to call their local NBC affiliate asking the station
not to air the program.
http://www.afa.net/passalong/pdf/nbc_bookofdaniel.pdf

Contact local advertisers on your NBC affiliate and ask them to
pull their advertising from the local affiliate if it carries the
show. (By Federal Law, NBC cannot force the local affiliate to air the show.
The
local affiliate has the option not to air the program. Federal Law -
47 C.F.R. 73.658(e))

Send an email to ten potential sponsors asking them not to sponsor
The Book of Daniel.
https://secure.afa.net/afa/afapetition/takeaction....

Forward this information to your family and friends.

Finally, would you consider a small financial gift to help AFA
continue this battle? Click here to help.
http://www.afa.net/donate.asp

Outrage doesn't come cheap, you know.

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

Consider it forwarded. Now if you're the impatient type, you can go right now to RateItAll and join in on the trolling of the show. All the good Christians are there.

I wonder how the gay community would respond if this was a story about homosexual characters being cast in such an unfavorable light. My, how the tide changes when it's an "unpopular" segment of society (we Christians) who are being offended. The show's writer sees his work as creative and "edgy" ... I find it discriminatory and oppressive. I am respectful of the gay community ... I'd appreciate their being respectful of the Christian community.

Yes, because we all know that gays have never ever been stereotyped in our popular culture. And we know how Christians are such an oppressed majority.

Anybody of real faith knows that this is not the case and one of the real struggles of faith is that Christ has the Sovereign right to say "no" to our pleas and prayers, and that He does not pop up out fo the blue when we want Him to.

One might think one's faith could not be shaken by a tv show, either.

Once again it's open season on Christians and Jesus Christ! They're the drug-addicted, perverted hypocrites. And the King of Kings and Lord of Lords is dethroned and belittled in portrayals of His appearances to a clueless cleric! Have you noticed the networks never serve up programs about hypocritical Muslim or Jewish clerics? Think about that.

I think about how few Muslims and Jews there are in the American television market.

Still, I wonder at all this todo about a television show.

Does this demean a man of God?

Not a bit, says the 46-year-old Quinn, who, Chicago-born and of Irish descent, has taken the vows for his first series after a diverse career in made-for TV movies, theater and feature films (including "Legends of the Fall" and "Michael Collins"). Diverse? He may be the only actor whose credits include Paul McCartney, Benedict Arnold AND Robinson Crusoe.

Now Quinn plays a priest who must be taken on his own human terms – a good man who wants to do right by his family and flock, keep up necessary appearances, and cleanse his soul.

"He is caught up in the modern malady of extreme busyness and stress," Quinn says. "But he can have moments of great lucidity and humor, and he cherishes his moments of quiet in the church, and in prayer."

Communing with his inner self takes the form of those tete-a-tetes with Jesus – a loving, good-humored comrade whose robes-and-beard style stands apart in the starchy, posh suburb just outside New York City where "Book of Daniel" is set.

Jesus is demonstrably there for Daniel _ but delivers no easy answers even when, in a frequent state of befuddlement, he seeks them.

"You know it doesn't work that way," Jesus reminds him.

"Yeah," Daniel sighs. "I just don't know why."

This doesn't sound all that outrageous. But then I'm one whose childhood was tainted by reruns of The Flying Nun, so you can't trust me.

Aidan Quinn, the star of the show, discovered some differences between Episcopalian and Catholic approaches:

Quinn, who calls himself a non- observant Irish Catholic, went miles to understand his character, an Episcopalian. After attending Episcopal services in New York, New Jersey and California, he came away impressed. (The pilot was shot in L.A.; the series, in New York.)

"The ministers all had sermons that dealt with social issues relevant to the local community, and they dealt with them in a brave way, with a sense of humor."

Not so with the Roman Catholic church, according to Quinn.

"There are exceptions, but for the most part the sermons are pretty dry and boring. Basically, they're more focused on what you're doing wrong and what a sinner you are."

So there you have it. If you're offended by the premise, or have no sense of humor when it comes to religion, are just too shaky in your faith, or just don't care for network dramas, stay away.

As for me, I don't normally watch much network television any more, but I just may have to tune in next Friday and see what all the fuss is about.

While driving down the highway the other day, I heard a radio advertisement for a week-long television news series on the AIDS epidemic in the black community. I nearly caused an accident when I heard that one of the days of the series was going to be devoted to “Understanding ‘The Down Low’�. I can’t explain to you how angry I was, not only that a series on AIDS in the black community felt the need to focus on this, but also that we continue to lean on this idea as a replacement for real honest conversations.

But alas, let me attempt to explain my irritation.

“The Down Low� is defined as the phenomenon of straight, often married or committed, black men cheating on their wives or girlfriends with other men. With thanks to J.L. King and his book On The Down Low, millions of black women tuned into Oprah with notepads in hand, taking notes and looking for signs that their husband or boyfriend might be cheating on them with men. Suddenly, “The Down Low� has become this huge catch phrase, encouraging black women to be paranoid and homophobic but not mindful of their own safety and health.

“The Down Low� is not new. For goodness sakes, didn’t we all read E. Lynn Harris’ Invisible Life? Even THEN it wasn’t new. When white men do it, we call it being in the closet. When black men do it, they get a catchy new urban phrase. Guess what? In my book it’s called CHEATING.

“The Down Low� allows us to perpetrate the false notion that being black and male is synonymous with being straight. If people weren’t demonized for being anything other than straight, maybe they wouldn’t feel the need to sneak around.

The black community is not a monolith. Contrary to popular belief the black community is no more or less homophobic than any other community, despite the fact that the Right has done an excellent job of presenting us this way, and of exploiting the homophobia in our community (thereby advancing their agendas and alienating us from our potential allies). But the concept of “The Down Low� furthers the existing homophobia in two ways. First, by putting the focus on who men are cheating with, instead of just on the fact that they are cheating. And secondly, by making black women unnecessarily paranoid that black gay and bisexual men are lurking around corners like predators ready to pounce on their husbands.

“The Down Low� makes Black women into witless victims, and encourages us to spend our time trying to determine whether our husband or boyfriend is making too much eye contact with his male friends, instead of taking care of ourselves, and using some basic common sense. I hate to admit how many black women I know that have taken to reading popular garbage promising to show them all the “signs� that their significant other is “on the down low.� Why not spend the time examining the signs that your relationship needs work and so does your self-esteem?

Recall the Vice Presidential debates, where neither Vice President Cheney, nor Senator Edwards had any idea about the impact of AIDS in the black community. The problem is not going away any time soon, (especially if we’re relying on those yahoos to fix it), and our continual focus on “The Down Low� obscures the actual meaningful conversations we should be having.

As black women we should be talking about not basing our senses of self-esteem and self-worth on other people. We should be talking about sexuality and identity. We should be talking about being accepting of all people, LGBTQ, omni-, pan-, and polysexual, green, purple, and orange. We should stop believing that it’s better to find a person who treats us like dirt, than to be alone. We should be talking about communicating with our partners, and entering into relationships of mutual trust and respect. We should be talking about sex education, contraception, and learning to love ourselves first. We should be talking about honesty, and personal responsibility.

A catchy urban phrase did not bring AIDS into our communities and getting rid of the phrase won’t take it away. But at least then we can address the real issues with some self-respect.

Kudos to the radical right for making Americans more afraid of gays than of Osama bin Laden. Appealing to people's fears, the Karl Rove machine drew out the vote in several key states, including Ohio, and got their candidate, who expressed so well those homophobic attitudes, re-elected.

What I find shocking is how people, including the media, the politicians and even thoughtful political thinkers and observers, so easily have fallen into an easy, passive and/or intimidated acceptance of what, to me, seems like a rather obvious instance of the majority trying to oppress the minority in a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause or the Amendment providing "equal protection of the laws," as stated in the United States Constitution. Isn't it curious how mainstream something like anti-homosexual attitudes have become, such that (presumably) reasonable people automatically backpedal away from any judgment of such attitudes, as if homophobia were just another political plank, like tax policy or term limits? In fact, it seems that homophobia has become politically correct.

There are many examples of this. What provoked this post, however, was David V's Left2Right piece [found thanks to activistgradgal] on what he perceives as the danger of the word "homophobe":

I confess that the use of 'homophobe' as an epithet troubles me even more than that of 'racist' or 'anti-semite'. Unlike the latter terms, 'homophobe' does not merely characterize someone as prejudiced; it suggests a psychological diagnosis of his attitude. Now, I believe that some such diagnosis can be literally true: some people really do have a neurotic aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals. The standard explanation of homophobia is that it is what psychoanalysts call a reaction formation: the homophobe is repressing his own homosexual thoughts and feelings by mounting an excessive aversion to that which, in fact, fascinates or attracts him. I take this explanation seriously. But for that very reason, I take the term 'homophobia' to have a descriptive content more specific than that of 'racism' or 'anti-semitism', and this descriptive content makes the term especially problematic when used as an epithet.

One problem with the term is that it can imply that the anti-homosexual is himself a repressed homosexual, thus implicitly branding him with his own iron, so to speak. The stigma of being a homophobe then incorporates the stigma of being a homosexual, the very stigma the term is supposedly meant to combat. I don't see how we can combat a stigma by covertly applying it.

The main problem, though, is that the term 'homophobia' isn't serious. Contrast 'homophobia' with 'xenophobia', which we apply when we literally mean that someone is motivated by irrational fear and suspicion of foreigners. We don't go calling people xenophobic for holding just any bias against immigrants, much less narrow-minded opinions on the subject of immigration. But people are nowadays called homophobic for all sorts of attitudes, whose actual motives the speaker is in no position to diagnose. When the term is thrown around in this way, it sounds like mere psychology-as-insult, too close for my comfort to calling someone mentally ill or retarded.

Like racism and anti-semitism, prejudice against homosexuals takes many different forms and has many different sources. No one seriously believes that every instance of anti-homosexual bias is or resembles a phobia.

It's this last sentence that strikes me as naïve. My own deconstruction of the word "homophobia" leads to a reading as "fear of same [-sex orientation"] — or: fear of homosexuals and or homosexuality. By definition, homophobia is about fear. Is this also the source of anti-homosexual bias? Let's examine further.

Can person A truly have reasonable, considered objections to what person B does in the bedroom? Can person A have truly reasonable, considered justifications for using that bedroom behavior as a litmus test for which rights that person shall have? I wonder. When I think about gays, I don't see the big deal. When I first moved to New York, I think I probably knew of maybe five homosexual men altogether — and one of them was Liberace — so it's not like I was raised among gays and thus am just speaking from some marginal, unusual exposure during childhood. I just don't see why anyone should feel threatened by gays.

My hunch is that this is really about gay men. Everyone knows how men get all turned on by seeing two women kissing. A threesome with two gals does not threaten a man's view of himself. On the contrary. No, this is about the queer guys.

Consider: The loudest cries we've been hearing against homosexuality have come from men and patriarchal cultures such as churches, the military and competitive athletics. Should this be a surprise? Any woman versed in Man knows something about the fragile male ego; many women (and men) have seen how uncomfortable men can get when around homosexuals, or just talking about homosexuality — the jokes, the nervous laughter, the macho posturing, or perhaps the jibes, the abusive ridicule, the aggressive posturing. (Hint: It's about fear of penetration. Straight men cannot fathom it, and don't trust men who actually do it — possibly to them!)

So here we have homo - phobia. Where does this homophobia lead? Often the stuff considered "harmless" by its perpetrators: jokes, ridicule, verbal taunts. But what about when tangible bias or violence is done? Does this suddenly transcend the fear in homophobia?

When a man gets all worked up over another man — gets worked up to the point of giving verbal abuse or inflicting physical harm — what is he doing but acting on fear? If he's not afraid, why should he go out of his way to attack another? "He could be trying to fit in with the group," I hear someone say. Well, dear readers, that is a good point. Maybe the gang members attacking the gay man are just trying to impress each other. But let us not forget why the gang even started this attack: one or more fears the gay man, for whatever reason, and the others join in because they buy into this same mindset enough to feel that the gay man is worthy of beating.

As for the good, obedient servant to such a culture, such as the church-going parishoner who may not have any personal feelings either way about homosexuality yet nevertheless disapproves of homosexuality because he or she is told she must disapprove, he or she is still representing a homophobic culture and expressing homophobic attitudes. Not everyone committing anti-homosexual bias is a homophobe per se, but he or she is expressing homophobic attitudes. Is that any better, really?

And I just sigh, wondering why they are all so afraid.

People can misuse any word, including "homophobe." To me, that does not disqualify the word from being accurate in most cases.

What I think David V and so many other men and women should do is spend more time examining their own fears and the origins of the fear-based attitudes codified by their patriarchal organizations, and spend less time defending them. If they weren't so afraid, this wouldn't even be an issue.

-media girl