As noted in the last post, Sandy Rios thinks liberals are liars for holding the entirely reasonable opinion that war in Iraq has been a failure. The Culture Campaign appears to believes that anyone who does not believe a murderer who changes his story is indifferent to truth.
The context is once again the Laramie Project, a play based on the brutal 1998 murder of homosexual Matthew Shephard in Laramie, Wyoming. At trial, one of the defendants, Aaron McKinney, offered a "gay panic" defense, i.e., that he could not control his rage when the victim made a sexual advance. Since that time, McKinney has changed his story and claims that the murder resulted from a drug deal that went wrong. The Culture Campaign blog concludes that "truth doesn't seem to matter--even to out educators" because everyone does not prefer the convicted murderer's new story like they do.
Reasonable minds might differ about whether McKinney way lying at trial, whether he is lying now, or whether both stories are lies. What is not in doubt is what is in the play, that he offered the "gay panic" defense at trial. This is the truth regardless of Culture Campaign's attempts to mislead. Maybe he offered that defense because he thought he was justified in killing a gay man who made a sexual advance. That is bad. On the other hand, maybe he offered that defense because he and his lawyer thought that a jury composed of citizens of Laramie would think it was alright to kill a gay man who made a sexual advance. In its own way, that is much worse.
In an earlier diatribe about the Laramie Project, the Campaign claimed that the convicted murderer's new story "conclusively established" the falsehood of his earlier one. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. The changed story proves that he is a liar. It does not prove which time he lied.
Showing posts with label Culture Campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture Campaign. Show all posts
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Angels in America
North suburban Deerfield High School has given Culture Campaign another play to target with homophobia.
"What Do a Black, Homosexual Drag Queen, a Gay Couple and an Angel with 8 V****as Have in Common?
Answer: They are all characters from a play studied by students at Deerfield High School last year...
From "Laurie Higgins Summarizes Kuschner's Debauched 'Angels in America'" by Laurie Higgins, posted 8/23/07 at Americans for Truth
Angels in America is filled with obscenity, primarily forms of f**k."
It is unfortunately true that angry alienated people sometimes don’t use nice language. In the Culture Campaign's vision of education, students only read literature in which the characters are polite and happy to be Americans. Perhaps they would prefer "Gone with the Wind" in which all the Blacks are happy to be slaves and wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthful.
Personally, I think it is important that young people learn about people who feel alienated from American society.
"And although it addresses forgiveness (albeit not in a Christian sense, but rather, interpersonal forgiveness),"
I was not aware that interpersonal forgiveness is some sort of pagan forgiveness. I guess the Christian sense is where an agonizing bloody sacrifice is required before forgiveness can be granted.
"compassion, community, and AIDS,"
That sounds suspicious.
"it is primarily a pro-'gay' treatise"
I love the use of the term "pro-gay" to describe a work that empathizes with the pain and sufferings of the victims of aids. I wonder whether the Campaign would describe "Schindler's List" as a "pro-Jew" movie or "To Kill a Mockingbird" as a "pro-Black" book.
"with heavy-handed leftist politicking (e.g., explicit criticism of the Reagan administration) and sacrilege."
Oh my God!!! They criticize Reagan!!! Angels in America clearly suggests that it was not "Morning in America" for everyone during the 1980's.
"The plot revolves around two couples: married Mormon couple Harper and Joe whose marriage is disintegrating in large measure due to Joe’s repressed homosexuality, which he eventually acts upon: and a homosexual couple, Louis and Prior, who has AIDS. Louis leaves Prior due to his AIDS and has a month-long affair with Harper’s husband Joe. Roy Cohn — the infamous, unscrupulous, foul-mouthed, closeted, Republican lawyer — is also a central character who dies of AIDS. "
I wonder how the Campaign would feel if one of the characters was a leading evangelical minister who preached against homosexuality while secretly frequenting gay prostitutes.
"....Now isn’t that edifying for students?"
"What Do a Black, Homosexual Drag Queen, a Gay Couple and an Angel with 8 V****as Have in Common?
Answer: They are all characters from a play studied by students at Deerfield High School last year...
From "Laurie Higgins Summarizes Kuschner's Debauched 'Angels in America'" by Laurie Higgins, posted 8/23/07 at Americans for Truth
Angels in America is filled with obscenity, primarily forms of f**k."
It is unfortunately true that angry alienated people sometimes don’t use nice language. In the Culture Campaign's vision of education, students only read literature in which the characters are polite and happy to be Americans. Perhaps they would prefer "Gone with the Wind" in which all the Blacks are happy to be slaves and wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthful.
Personally, I think it is important that young people learn about people who feel alienated from American society.
"And although it addresses forgiveness (albeit not in a Christian sense, but rather, interpersonal forgiveness),"
I was not aware that interpersonal forgiveness is some sort of pagan forgiveness. I guess the Christian sense is where an agonizing bloody sacrifice is required before forgiveness can be granted.
"compassion, community, and AIDS,"
That sounds suspicious.
"it is primarily a pro-'gay' treatise"
I love the use of the term "pro-gay" to describe a work that empathizes with the pain and sufferings of the victims of aids. I wonder whether the Campaign would describe "Schindler's List" as a "pro-Jew" movie or "To Kill a Mockingbird" as a "pro-Black" book.
"with heavy-handed leftist politicking (e.g., explicit criticism of the Reagan administration) and sacrilege."
Oh my God!!! They criticize Reagan!!! Angels in America clearly suggests that it was not "Morning in America" for everyone during the 1980's.
"The plot revolves around two couples: married Mormon couple Harper and Joe whose marriage is disintegrating in large measure due to Joe’s repressed homosexuality, which he eventually acts upon: and a homosexual couple, Louis and Prior, who has AIDS. Louis leaves Prior due to his AIDS and has a month-long affair with Harper’s husband Joe. Roy Cohn — the infamous, unscrupulous, foul-mouthed, closeted, Republican lawyer — is also a central character who dies of AIDS. "
I wonder how the Campaign would feel if one of the characters was a leading evangelical minister who preached against homosexuality while secretly frequenting gay prostitutes.
"Then there is the black, homosexual, drag queen nurse with the heart of gold, Belize, and the Angel with eight vaginae whose visits prompt sexual arousal and orgasm. Heaven is a dreary place that looks like San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake and people sit around on crates playing cards. The Angels say that God has abandoned man."
If feeling abandoned by God is sacrilege, then Jesus was guilty on the cross."....Now isn’t that edifying for students?"
It could be. The Campaign certainly has not provided enough information for any thinking person to reach a conclusion about the value of studying the play as a work of literature.
I suppose I could summarize the Old Testament as a book about a violent vengeful desert god who periodically orders wholesale slaughter of people who have the temerity to live in the lands where he wants his followers to live, who demands that his followers be willing to slaughter their own children, whose misogyny leads one of his righteous followers to offers his young daughters to be gang-raped. However, I would still think it a work worth studying.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Culture Campaign's Position is Always Conclusive
One thing I love about fundamentalists of the Culture Campaign's ilk is their concept of proof. When there is the slightest evidence for their position, they trumpet it as conclusive proof of whatever they believe. While most people might be tempted to take a convicted murderer's statements with a grain of salt, the Culture Campaign is happy to embrace them as gospel when they provide some ammo for their right-wing homophobia.
The post titled "Gay Activist Bullies Get Their Way at New Jersey High School" concerned a controversy over a production of the Laramie Project, a play about the 1998 murder of Matthew Shephard in Laramie Wyoming. Shephard, a homosexual, was brutally beaten, tied to a fence, and left for dead. He was found after eighteen hours and died five days later. The play examines the reaction of the town to the crime and to the "gay panic" defense offered by Aaron McKinney who claimed that homosexual abuse as a child caused him to overreact to a sexual advance from Shephard. (For the record, my son appeared in a high school production of the play which I thought was terrific. Not surprisingly, the Culture Campaign opposed that production as well.)
Despite the fact that McKinney said that Shephard's homosexuality motivated him to commit the crime, the Culture Campaign now claims that "it has since been conclusively revealed that Shepard's murder was never about his homosexuality." (emphasis added) And what is the source of this irrefutable proof? The killer changed his story! McKinney now says that drugs and robbery were the only motives. The Culture Campaign is convinced that he lied at trial, but now there apparently can be no doubt that he is telling the truth. Among the law enforcement officers and the community at large, there are differences of opinion about which story is true, but the Campaign finds the current word of the convicted killer (and admitted liar) to be "conclusive."
In addition to blatantly disregarding any rational understanding of the word "conclusive," the Campaign has missed a major point in the play. The very fact that McKinney and his lawyer thought that the "gay panic" defense would buy them some sympathy with the jury was symptomatic of the bigotry and prejudice that somehow makes violence against homosexuals "understandable." They thought that McKinney could exploit the same kind of hatred and intolerance that assured the acquittal of Whites who lynched Blacks in the days of Jim Crow.
The post titled "Gay Activist Bullies Get Their Way at New Jersey High School" concerned a controversy over a production of the Laramie Project, a play about the 1998 murder of Matthew Shephard in Laramie Wyoming. Shephard, a homosexual, was brutally beaten, tied to a fence, and left for dead. He was found after eighteen hours and died five days later. The play examines the reaction of the town to the crime and to the "gay panic" defense offered by Aaron McKinney who claimed that homosexual abuse as a child caused him to overreact to a sexual advance from Shephard. (For the record, my son appeared in a high school production of the play which I thought was terrific. Not surprisingly, the Culture Campaign opposed that production as well.)
Despite the fact that McKinney said that Shephard's homosexuality motivated him to commit the crime, the Culture Campaign now claims that "it has since been conclusively revealed that Shepard's murder was never about his homosexuality." (emphasis added) And what is the source of this irrefutable proof? The killer changed his story! McKinney now says that drugs and robbery were the only motives. The Culture Campaign is convinced that he lied at trial, but now there apparently can be no doubt that he is telling the truth. Among the law enforcement officers and the community at large, there are differences of opinion about which story is true, but the Campaign finds the current word of the convicted killer (and admitted liar) to be "conclusive."
In addition to blatantly disregarding any rational understanding of the word "conclusive," the Campaign has missed a major point in the play. The very fact that McKinney and his lawyer thought that the "gay panic" defense would buy them some sympathy with the jury was symptomatic of the bigotry and prejudice that somehow makes violence against homosexuals "understandable." They thought that McKinney could exploit the same kind of hatred and intolerance that assured the acquittal of Whites who lynched Blacks in the days of Jim Crow.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
How I Lost My Commenting Privileges
I believe that the comment function was turned off at Culture Campaign after I opined on a post titled Activists Criticize Blood Banks For Discriminating Against Gay Men. The post concerned an AP story describing the efforts of the Red Cross, the American Blood Centers and the American Ass'n of Blook Banks to rescind an FDA rule requiring the rejection of blood from any donor who ever acknowledge having engaged in male-to-male sexual conduct. Based on advances in blood screen techniques, the blood organizations favored a one year prohibition on blood donation.
The Culture Campaign's had the following take on the this story: "Gay activists seem to be willing to go to any lengths to eliminate all reminders that homosexual behavior is not equivalent to heterosexual behavior - even at the risk of people's lives. Thank God the FDA is standing strong against this insanity." Contrary to the Campaign's paranoia (and despite being posted at FoxNews.com), the story did not contained the slightest suggestion that gay activists were in any way involved. According to the story, the blood services wanted the rules changed in order that they need not reject valuable blood donations.
Since the Culture Campaign had conjured the gay activists I asked a question along the lines of "Is it possible for you to read any story without seeing the bogeyman of the gay agenda.?" Although, I cannot say that this is the one that inspired the disabling of the comment function, I am sure that it is one of the last ones that I was allowed to post.
It seems to me that it would be very desirable for our culture if people could read a news item and limit the conclusions they draw from it to conclusions that are supported by the facts which are reported in it. I am not saying that anyone should accept a story uncritically and believe the facts as reported without question. Surely further research is in order if inaccuracies or bias are suspected. But, at the very least, someone who is seeking cultural improvement should avoid gratuitously inventing gay activist bogeymen with malevolent objectives and inserting them into stories about the Red Cross trying to maintain blood supplies.
The Culture Campaign's had the following take on the this story: "Gay activists seem to be willing to go to any lengths to eliminate all reminders that homosexual behavior is not equivalent to heterosexual behavior - even at the risk of people's lives. Thank God the FDA is standing strong against this insanity." Contrary to the Campaign's paranoia (and despite being posted at FoxNews.com), the story did not contained the slightest suggestion that gay activists were in any way involved. According to the story, the blood services wanted the rules changed in order that they need not reject valuable blood donations.
Since the Culture Campaign had conjured the gay activists I asked a question along the lines of "Is it possible for you to read any story without seeing the bogeyman of the gay agenda.?" Although, I cannot say that this is the one that inspired the disabling of the comment function, I am sure that it is one of the last ones that I was allowed to post.
It seems to me that it would be very desirable for our culture if people could read a news item and limit the conclusions they draw from it to conclusions that are supported by the facts which are reported in it. I am not saying that anyone should accept a story uncritically and believe the facts as reported without question. Surely further research is in order if inaccuracies or bias are suspected. But, at the very least, someone who is seeking cultural improvement should avoid gratuitously inventing gay activist bogeymen with malevolent objectives and inserting them into stories about the Red Cross trying to maintain blood supplies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
