Thursday, November 30, 2006

Fundies fume over flapping film.

The God Squad is in another dither. These people really spend all their time being angry, upset, furious and just downright nasty. The most recent film to infuriate these theological throwbacks is Breakfast with Scot which is based on the book of the same name.

A gay couple wake up one day to discover that they have been given custody of a 11 year old boy. The boy’s mother was the girlfriend of one of the men’s brother. She asked them to care to take custody if anything happens to her and while mildly plastered one night they agree. Now the mother is dead, the father off in South America and they are new found, albeit reluctant parents.

But to their dismay they discover the boy is enamoured with dressing very feminine. Now to the ignorant that means “homosexual”. But homosexuality is not about gender identity but about sexual orientation. A boy, at this age, preferring to dress as a girl, is probably a transsexual not a homosexual. That is he sees himself as a girl. Homosexual men see themselves as men but are sexually attracted to men. It is possible the boy is a transvestite which is a man who enjoys dressing as a woman. But transvestites are often heterosexual. I divert into that little discussion for the stray Christian who doesn’t know anything about these matters except what they believe the creator of the universe has told them.

The film could be interesting because gay parents would have just as hard a time dealing with this issue as straight parents. But from what I’ve read neither the film nor the book say the boy is gay. In fact one review I read said it was stated that he was too young to know. That sounds reasonable to me. So how do the drooling, rabid fundamentalists see this film?

There is a vile outfit of bigots called “Americans for Truth”. In other words they lie a lot. And their is entire raison d'être is to vilify and attack homosexuals. And good Christians give them lots of money in order to engage in their hate campaign. People who wouldn’t help an AIDS orphan in Africa are driven by their “love of God” to pour funds on a group founded with only purpose in mind -- to attack one group of people.

Peter LaBarbera is the head bigot at this group and he demanded that his fellow hating Christianists join their crusade to protest this film. What has most upset him is that the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team allowed their logo to be used in the film. In the story one of the men is a former hockey player with the team. So basically what this means is the team allowed the film to depict the hockey team and the fictional connection to the team. That’s it.

But LaBarbera starts to distort and lie, like a good Christian, right at the start. His headline about this film was: “Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Sponsors Gay Movie Featuring Homosexual 11 Year-Old.”

In one sentence the man manages to lie twice. And I don’t say he makes an error. He is a liar, he violates the very moral principles he says he stands for in order to campaign for his hatred. The team did not “sponsor” the film. In this context a sponsor is a financier. The hockey team financed nothing they allowed their name to be used. LaBarbera uses lying words to imply they financed the film. And he claims the film is about a homosexual 11-year-old. Apparently he doesn’t know the difference between transsexual/transvestite and homosexual.

He also refers to this as a “homosexual propaganda film”. Talk about projection. Everything the fundamentalist nutters do is about propagandizing for their antiquated mysticism. They are actually very open about this. If a fundamentalist plays friendly with a non-fundamentalist the main reason is to convert. Sure some don’t do this but most do. They have courses in their pathetic churches where they are taught these things. They call it “soul winning”. Remember the fundamentalist family we discussed earlier that acted as a host family for an exchange student for the express purpose of converting him and using him to establish a church in Poland? That is the tactic I’m talking about.

And I know this is true because I was one of them once. They will lie to people in order to convert them. Everything one does is supposed to have one purpose -- to witness and gain converts. So everything they do is propaganda, not so for mainstream churches by the way. And because they are incapable of having any motivation but propaganda they project their own motivation on to the others. Thus any film, book or television show that has a gay character depicted in any way but the most vile way possible is automatically “a homosexual propaganda film”.

LaBarbera is an instant expert on the film presumably through divine revelation since it is not yet completed. So LaBarbera has not seen it. But then facts play only the most minor of roles in the life of the fundamentalist. The main thing is fanaticism and hatred. Their temperament is very, very similar to that of the Islamists. They are born out of the same disease.

LaBarbera tells his hate-filled donors that this is a “story about open homosexuals and endorsing child homosexuality.” Endorsing child homosexuality? That lie ought to be good for some big cheques from the bigots.

With foam dripping from his jowls LaBarbera terrifies his funding base telling them: “As a work of homosexual propaganda, the film is clearly meant to target the last vestiges of resistance to normalized homosexuality among Canadians. In the book, the homosexual couple live in Cambridge, Massachusetts and are a chiropractor and magazine editor, hockey does not figure at all.”

Ah, that secret gay conspiracy at work. Clever these homosexuals. Why the changes? Well, for the same reason that The Birdcage, a remake of La Cage aux Folles, was filmed with an American cast, in English, in Miami instead of with a French, cast, in French, in Paris. The film depicts the men being Canadian because it’s be shot in Canada, the main star is Canadian and I suspect we’ll find it is a Canadian company doing the filming. It is being funded by Telefilm Canada. So maybe not a secret gay plot after all.

And why the ex-hockey player? Typical drama for a film. Film makers like to increase the dram in every way possible. If the two men were drag queens themselves there would be no drama in adopting a boy who dresses up. Make one of them a former sports players and it gets more interesting. And if you are filming in Canada what other than hockey could be the focus? But LaBarbera like other Religious-Right lunatics has to find sinister plots and cabals around everything they don’t like.

Paranoia and viciousness seem to go together. These people don’t need a Bible they need valium.


Blogger David said...

"Paranoia and viciousness seem to go together. These people don’t need a Bible they need valium."

eheheh.. priceless.

November 30, 2006

Blogger Lucian's daughter said...

The post on Americans for Truth (
year-old.html) clearly notes:

"Excerpted from Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Sponsors Gay Movie Featuring Homosexual 11 Year-Old, by Hilary White, published Nov 24, 2006, by Lifesite News"

The headline and all the information in the post comes from LIFESITE NEWS, not Americans for Truth. It is simply a post linking to the article which was written by HILARY WHITE, not Peter LaBarbera.

The foam seems to be dripping from your jowls, not Mr LaBarbera's.

November 30, 2006

Blogger GodlessZone said...

Lucian’s Daughter: Thanks for posting. This is very illustrative. First, it shows that you have a very interesting definition of lying. It is lying if you originate the lie but not lying if you repeat it. So any Christian is allowed to repeat these claims without fear of being dishonest? The law doesn’t see it that way. If one libels someone they are liable for that. If one merely repeats the libel they are also liable for that.

Now if I were to say that Priscilla J. was convicted of stealing from her employer (which I am not saying) that would be a lie wouldn’t it? If I read that claim, don’t bother to verify it, and then repeat it, is it suddenly more truthful? Or is it still a lie?

Now why would you be so strong defending LaBarbera for spreading these lies? Could it be because the blog you participate in (a Right-wing Christianist blog) has also reprinted these falsehoods without verifying the facts? Except the blog you work with went even further. It attacked the film saying: “Whether this is ignorance or indifference to the incredible spiritual and physical destructiveness of anal intercourse, it is despicable to normalize it to children...” Of course nothing in the film mentions anal intercourse. That was sort of made up along the way as well.

Your personal blog links directly to LaBarbera along with several other web sites obsessed with attacking gay people. But then like most Jesus addicts you spend a lot of time attacking gays on your own web site don’t you?

So not only did LaBarbera repeat the lie by the web site you work with did as well. And so did other Christianist sites.

And this brings up a tendency among you extreme Christians. Why are you so quick to repeat rumors and distortions? I remember one Christians “think tank” which wrote antigay tracts based on their “research” and then it turned out they did no research at all and merely reprinted material from fundie groups in the US. Not only did they just reprint it but they repeated the same errors verbatim from the original including misquoting, getting the names of authors wrong, etc.

You did not challenge the main point of my post -- which is whether they lied about the film. You merely claimed that LaBarbera was not the first Christian to make the lie publicly. Your entire defense is that other Christians lied first not that the claims are true. I agree. Other Christians lied first. LaBarbera lied as well. And lots of other Christians have repeated the lie and no doubt more will do so. Included on that list is the blog you work with. Now how does this “rebuttal” of yours show that Christians are honest? Oh, never mind, it doesn’t.

December 01, 2006

Blogger David said...

Doesn't the bible say "Do not bare false witness"? I read that somewhere.. pretty sure that relates to what you're talking about NGZ. But then these fundies aren't Christians are they? they're Biblicans.

(Thanks indioheathen, that description fits so perfectly with what I've thought for some time now)

December 01, 2006

Blogger Lucian's daughter said...

I don't think "lying" was the main point of your commentary - I think the main point was to smear Christians who believe that homosexuality is sin.

As for the use of the word "sponsor": It was Hilary White's choice of words, LifeSite's choice of titles, but you say nothing of her/LifeSite and castigate only your personal favorite of adversaries. Disingenuous.

In my opinion, "sponsor" is not the most accurate term to use, but it's certainly not a "lie." The Toronto Maple Leafs team name and uniform/logo are financial assets, and teams normally liscense those assets for a fee. In this case, those assets are on loan, or donated, which is a backdoor means of providing financial support, which essentially constitutes financial sponsorship.

However, the more important issue is the behavior and ideas being promoted in the film: that male homosexual behavior is normal and no big deal, that two men can make as good a "family" as a husband and wife, that a little boy's sexual confusion should be encouraged rather than corrected. Bible-believing Christians understand these messages to be a lie and we are extremely disappointed in team management for their lack of wisdom.

December 02, 2006

Blogger Lucian's daughter said...

make that "license"

December 02, 2006

Blogger GodlessZone said...

Fundie "Lucian's Daughter" is really grasping at straws. She dismisses the points I made and tells me what point I actually intended to make. Psychic abilities or maybe prayer revealed it to her. My point was the article was filled with distortions, falsehoods and lies. That was my point and is still my point.

Then she really grasps at straws to prove that the Toroton Maple Leafs were really sponsors after all. Why? Because they would license their logo to be used -- normally for things like T-shirts, or items for sale to fans. And therefore that logo is a "financial asset" therefore if the logo appears in the film that is the same thing as giving the film the assets and "essentially constitutes financial sponsorship". Problem is that for publicity purposes the team does not charge for the use of the logo. For instance if a magazine writes an article about the team and shows the players in uniform they are not normally charged to do this. It's publicity. Appearances in films, magazine articles, newspapers and such things are normally considered publicity and not considered licensing.

As for the nonsense she spouts from her silly book well she knows what she can do with it. It is no more relevant to the facts of life than the Qu'ran, the Egytian Book of the Dead or horoscopes. It is ancient nonsense written by people ignorant about the most basic principles of reality. And it reflects that. That she is so befuddled as to think it makes sense is her problem but it has no place in a modern society.

December 02, 2006


Post a Comment

<< Home


Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites