Proposed legislation would impose the death penalty for some gay Ugandans, and their family and friends could face up to seven years in jail if they fail to report them to authorities. Even landlords could be imprisoned for renting to gay tenants.

The legislation in its current form would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. “Serial offenders” also could face capital punishment, but the legislation does not define the term. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act faces life imprisonment.

Anyone who “aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality” faces seven years in prison if convicted. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to homosexuals also could get seven years and anyone with “religious, political, economic or social authority” who fails to report anyone violating the act faces three years.

Nice to see an African nation so determinedly putting the lie to the old stereotype of such entities as socially backward and intellectually bankrupt.

*world’s feeblest applause*

Predictably, this two-for-the-price-of-one bazooka of bigotry detonated all over the Webbertubes and resulted in one of his gay students, Jordan Hunter, filing a complaint.

It turns out that the Geneva School Board have finally got together and voted unanimously to slap him on the wrist with a wet bus ticket. I mean Good Lod, not only did he have to say “sorry”(!) but they’ve informed him that if he keeps being a racist homophobe out loud using his speaking words he might, you know, one day lose his job(!!)

Very telling was the choice of words he used in his “apology”. He stated that he “used a very poor example of words to make [his] point” (oh ya think?) and that “The message I conveyed was insensitive and hurtful. This is not what I had intended.”

Well great. Maybe we all should run around ranting racist homophobic crap in public and then act all hurt and surprised that people get offended. I mean maybe we’re all retarded three-year-olds with Tourette’s, right? Maybe we don’t get that screaming BLACK FAGS at room full of young people might not get the dignified nods of acceptance and understanding that we were shooting for.

I’m going to file Dave under D for “dimwit” and the Geneva School Board under G for “gutless.”

Good day to you all.

Recently I received an email from “Matt,” who sent me this link followed by these subsequent comments:

(I hope that your site is devoted to exposing bigots of all persuasions. To cry bigotry when someone attacks atheists while ignoring the hateful remarks made by atheists about others seems, well … rather bigoted.)

I pulled the link and read Dick‘s tirade, and as much of a fan of Dick‘s writings and wider work as I am, I had to agree. Matt was right.

The guy has lost it.

Dawkins has finally, irrevocably crossed the line from “trenchant critic of religion and champion of atheism” to “drooling nutjob thousand-mile-staring hatemonger RARRAAR RELIGION RRARARARA”. He has become the thing he hates (I seem to remember Nietzsche having something to say about that.)

In the interest of fairness and to defend against later accusations of decontextualization, I’ll reproduce most of the article here with my commentary. By all means read his original remarks yourselves (and the reader comments) and make up your own minds.

The question put to Dick was as follows:

The Vatican is making it easier for Anglicans — priests, members and parishes — to convert to Catholicism. Some say this is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic and Anglican traditions; others see it as poaching that could further divide the Anglican Communion. What do you think?

His response, broken down with my exegeses:

What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.

Well, I guess it depends on which mouth-frothing wide-eyed lunatic you ask, Dick. The competition is indeed, as you rightly indicate, stiff.

There seem to be plenty of Americans who think the Federal Reserve would win the Oscar for uber-knavery. Others might say it were those reprehensible believers in the Holocaust fiction, while still others will point to the 7-foot tall, blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system who control humanity through Machiavellian manipulation of human emotion and military conflict.

Sane human beings, however, might have cause to think twice before pointing the diablo-stick at a relatively peaceful contemporary religious organization concerned with the promotion of such infamous underpinnings of depravity as love, family, compassion, hope, service, truth, justice, and forgiveness.

The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate.

Doubtless all values as entirely absent in the rollicking, foaming cyclone of malevolence that is the Roman Catholic church as they are ubiquitous in the Anglican communion.

The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.

I’ll certainly give you that religious organizations are theological factories concerned with the production of magical fantasy. I don’t understand why you find the doctrines of transubstantiation and male-exclusive priesthood any more deserving of condemnation and ridicule than such I-would-have-thought-equally-repugnant-and-certainly-no-less-dotty Anglican doctrines such as the supreme salvational authority of the Bible (nice read, I lol’d), belief in the essentially evil nature of mankind, and the predestination of all humans to either eternal torment or joy from the beginning of creation.

Well…actually that’s not quite true. I do have a theory about what’s behind your anti-Catholic hate speech. But I’ll get to that later.

It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.

Do Catholics oppose condom use? Yes. Has the Catholic church knowingly lied about condom effectiveness? Possibly. Does the promotion of condom use in Africa lead to a reduction in the AIDS rate? Actually, no. Not at all.

The truth is that if Roman Catholicism were responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa, it would be a trivial matter to test the hypothesis. The percentage of Roman Catholics in various countries of Africa are quite diverse, as are the HIV infection rates. One need only plot the per cent of Catholics by country against the HIV infection rate in that country.

Behold:

If the hypothesis that Catholic anti-condom doctrine (misguided or not) was responsible for spreading HIV and AIDS amongst “AIDS-weakened Africans”, you would expect to see increased infection rates in countries that contain more Roman Catholics. Instead, you find decreased HIV rates in Catholic-dominated countries. The idea that Roman Catholic teaching encourages the spread of HIV is refuted by the demographics. By Science. Do you remember Science, Dick? You used to be rather good at it, once. Before you turned into a shoddy philosopher. An assessment your man-crush Rowan Williams agrees with.

Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.

Well, you tell us, Dick. I presume you’ve had a convivial cathedralside gentleman’s chat with the Pope, as you have with the Archbishop, so you can assess his “countenance”, “qualities” and “sincerity” from a vantage point of familiarity with the subject?

(Nice job cutting him off there at the end so you could make it seem the discussion terminated in a place where you had the upper hand, by the way.)

More generally the remark Dick makes about Ratzinger speaks to a feature of Dick‘s writing and pontificating (etymological pun intended) that is egregiously offensive. He claims to know things that he quite simply doesn’t. That he can’t. Particularly when it comes to the motivations of other people.

Brace for incoming shitspaz.

Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it? Maybe it will succeed. If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive? For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they’ll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they’ll call ‘an important point of theological principle’). They just can’t stomach the idea of women priests. One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.

Gosh, Dick. I guess I understand why you’re so antagonistic toward the Christian conception of God now. Because YOU are the only omniscient being in the Universe! It must be grand to be able to remotely, magically peer into the minds of men and see their deep-seated misogyny dressed up by mendacious euphemism. To know their secret, visceral inner loathing of their own wives which they presumably disguise with outward displays of affection and respect. To have possession of the truth about priestly vocations: that the long years of diligent study and constant exposure to and responsibility for human misery that priests volunteer for (without remuneration) is really a “humble” and “unexacting” duty. Surely nothing to compare with what must be the wretched hard graft of calling religion a pile of shit on the Internet, shmoozing with celebs, and collecting royalty checks from books.

For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste. Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.

I guess for the first sentence see previous comments regarding my respect for your amazing powers of mentalism. For the second, Charles R Darwin, Dick, are you a professional Internet troll now? “Pervades the culture”? “Pervades the culture”? As well as psychic abilities you must have balls the size of Jupiter to feel comfortable telling 1.1 billion people that they have a culture of homosexual pedophilia. Really I don’t know what to say about the comment past that it sounds deliriously unhinged. Is there medication you ought to be taking that you’re not?

Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don’t point towards sustainability. No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: “Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity.”

I’m certainly not going to shed any tears over the decline in numbers of Catholic vocations (though it’s certainly not so dramatic as you try to imply–many countries, particularly developing ones are seeing increases.) As long as the overall number of Catholics isn’t decreasing though, for better or worse I don’t see a sustainability crisis.

With regard to the rest of the excerpt, at this point in the obloquy your frothy invective and gleeful denigration of Catholicism is just making you look like the mindless, bigoted assclown you’re accusing the organization of consisting of (along with *eyeroll* homophobes, misogynists, and pederasts.)

Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: “Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers.” Sounds like a good trade to me.

Well, Dick. Perhaps too nice for your own good would be a more accurate way of expressing it. In truth, Archbishop Williams is a very good, decent man with a few odd ideas about magical invisible beings who run around being boss of the Universe. You stand beside him in sharp contrast as a small, repugnant demagogue who is happy to gain personal infamy and publicity for his intellectual hobby horse via the rhetorical equivalent of collective punishment.

I stated earlier that I had a theory about what’s behind Dick’s  wildly irrational and emotive assault on the Catholic church, and I do. I’ll share it here.

For those of you who may not know, Dick had what he has described as “a normal Anglican upbringing”. He was an adherent of the religion up until roughly his mid-teens, when he became nonreligious after being exposed to the theories of evolution and natural selection. His parents were members of the affluent British upper-middle class.

My feeling is that Dick, like many people, has never really intellectually escaped from the specter of his religious upbringing and associated parental values. He’s likely to have been long-exposed in his youth to the antipathy or even outright hostility that exists between some sections of the Anglican communion and the Catholic church; he certainly would have grown up having had many thousands of hours of exposure to promotion of the Anglican agenda, and even more exposure to some of the many decent, good people who exist within that organization (though likely little direct experience of Catholicism or Catholics, aside from boogieman stories.)

While certainly an atheist intellectually, I feel pretty comfortable describing Dick as having an Anglican “soul”. Which I think means I just committed the crime of “poetic language” with which he so timidly and reverentially charges Rowan Williams. Regardless, I am confident that anyone with extensive experience of upper-middle class British Anglicanism will agree with me.

All of which amounts to a regrettably long-winded way of saying simply this:

Grow up.

The relevant comments are transcribed below the recording and happen between 0:16 and 0:47 in the clip. Real masochists can watch the whole thing if they like, but brace for a completely incoherent free-associating choked-up tearful performance by everyone’s favorite boneheaded bigot.

SH: Once again… it’s this fame thing that makes it hard. Because, see… I… my life is under a microscope. I get sick of that sometimes. People don’t understand how that is, man. To have your life dissected by people who don’t know you. You know, the Internet has become this place for evil to dwell. Y’unnerstand? They… people who blog… who have no sense of reality… they just blog about you–don’t even know you! I got kids, man, be reading stuff that ain’t true ’bout their father. You understand? I know you know. Because they–they–they–people just blog!

Holy shit, Steve! People just blog?! The sky done gone and falled on us! What people gon’ do next? Have their own opinions? Say what they think about stuff?? Call out the National Guard! We’ll show those opinion-having free-speaking malcontents what happens to them on God’s watch!

What you might not know about is young Falcon’s love of re-enacting gay-bashing murder scenes whilst screaming the word “faggot”. Think we’re kidding? Not even. (On a side note, his Mom needs guitar lessons. What the FUCK with that solo?)

Hopefully the media gets tired of these repugnant attention whores quickly and moves on to something more worthwhile.

Like mutant white tigers.

“We have made the commitment to the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office that we will put our business effort behind the new site to make it successful.”

An assertion to which we can only reply:

As one would expect from a site founded by a lunatic homosexual-hating evangelical Christian like Neil Clark Warren, eHarmony have done their level best to drag the chain and comply only nominally with the court-backed settlement.

Let’s have a look at the “eHarmony vs Compatible Partners checklist” (click through for full-size) published over at eHarmony blog to see how eHarmony, who spend $10M in advertising a month, have done so far flexing their marketing muscle on behalf of Compatible Partners.

Wowzers. Pretty damning. For interest’s sake, let’s now take a look at eHarmony.com’s landing page, as it appears today (click through to view it full size).

Wow, sure does offer a lot of information. And sure does sound enthusiastic! Success stories, how-to guides, dating advice articles, photos plastered everywhere of grinning couples in LERV!

… and now lets take a look at the Compatible Partners landing page (as above, click through for the full-size image)

Now even aside from the hilarious fact that all the photos on the Compatible Partners are of the straightest-looking bunch of “gay” people the stock photography world can provide (and that none of the photos are of actual site users or of couples facing the camera–in stark contrast to eHarmony’s love-in landing page of hetero heaven) there is a DISCLAIMER on the page ABOVE THE FOLD, which essentially amounts to “The system we’re using to match people on this site probably doesn’t work. For you homos. Hey, soz!”

I mean, this is a site clearly designed to fail; to be swept under the carpet, ignored, and never mentioned sans imminent threat of coercion. Reflecting, I’m sure, the eHarmony top brass’s wishlist when it comes to homosexual society.

And like eHarmony blog, we find outselves having to wonder:  can someone sue somebody for court order non-compliance? And have eHarmony’s marketing department  considered taking their backroom high-fiving, handkerchief-sniggering brand of homo-hate to the Westboro Baptist Church?

(Lou Dobbs comes within a hair’s breadth of describing Condoleeza Rice as “cotton-pickin’”. Good look, Grand Dragon Dobbs. The white hood really complements your tie.)

There are more than a few groups around now agitating for Lou Dobbs’s removal from television. The long-time broadcaster and host of CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” has in recent years become a central figure in the trend toward scapegoating (particularly Hispanic) immigrants and promoting the credibility of ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theories.

Among his crimes:

• Comically broadcasts statistics handed to him by his race-hating compatriots to support his completely false and thoroughly discredited accusation that South American immigrants are bringing a “tidal wave” of leprosy into the United States.

• Stated “Illegal immigration is costing this country at least a hundred billion dollars a year in depressed wages, social costs, the cost of incarcerating. Just about a third of our prison system is made up of illegal aliens.” This (yet again, entirely false) statistic has been contradicted by none other than the U.S. Department of Justice, which reports that immigrants make up only a tiny proportion of the US prison population.

• Dobbs often reports on the “Reconquista” movement, a supposed Mexican effort to reconquer the southwestern United States. At one point, Dobbs used evidence from a white supremacist group to make his case. This myth, which has been discredited as a view found only in the lunatic fringe, is another blatant attempt by Dobbs to characterize Mexican immigrants as “fearsome disease-bearing invaders.”

• Dobbs repeatedly raises fear about alleged efforts to create a “North American Union,” between the United States, Canada and Mexico, despite the fact that the notion has been dismissed as a conspiracy theory by politicians and media outlets across the political spectrum, including by Dobbs’ CNN colleagues. Amusingly in the video he looks like a guy trying to make a mountain of a molehill; determined to see sinister Orwellian machinations where none exist, as others in the news item repeatedly point out.

• Dobbs also likes to spend his spare time participating in rallies organized by hate groups and lending his broadcasting clout to the absurd and racially motivated claims of birthers.

Hysterically, Dobbs regards the groups that are organizing to pressure CNN to get his hate speech off the air as sinister “hateful” entities, “funded” by “a foreign agent” in order to “try to create an illusion of some sort of movement to get [him] off the airwaves.” He’s also keen on indulging in the kind of namecalling and snitfit schoolyard propaganda of which he accuses his opponents.

Spend a lot of time wandering through the intellectual quagmire of nutjob right-wing conspiracy theories, Lou? I bet you do.

Click here to join the campaign to get this bigoted turd magnet off the air.

UPDATE:

CNN got so sick of the bad press they were getting over this fucktard they paid him 8 million dollars to quit. Unfortunately he might be thinking about running for office now, Oy Vey.

Pastor Steve decides that giving checkpoint guards armed with Tazers a hard time is a great idea. Click through and watch the video. Belligerent retard much?

I was reading this article about Jimmy Carter’s latest controversial statement when I came to the bottom of the first page and saw this guy‘s name. I did a little investigation, and it turns out he’s received a lot more press attention than he merits by giving this sermon, entitled “Why I hate Barack Obama”. A sermon which includes such impressive feats of thousand-mile-staring brainsnatched-douchebaggery as praying that President Obama should melt like a snail, that “his children [should be] fatherless and his wife a widow,” and extensive polemic equating Obama with Hitler, Stalin, and Jeffrey Dahmer.

I honestly wouldn’t even recommend listening to it, because I did, and now I feel dirty. Suffice to say that he’s a poster-child for every negative cross-hugging fundazombie stereotype you can imagine, and a few that you can’t. There’s a pretty good post over here that outlines his position on homosexuality (Cliff’s notes: they should all be put to death and they’re busy recruiting and raping your kids.) Pastor Steve doesn’t even balk at publicly calling Barney Frank a ” faggot”.

Really, the more I read the more I realize that it gets much worse even than what I’ve outlined above.

I’d suggest checking out a few of the following links to try to get your head around this guy and his lunatic cult church. Expect to have your day ruined.

The Secret Service pays Pastor Steve a visit
Gospel of Hate: Arizona pastor Steve Anderson spews bile toward Obama, Frank, and homosexuals
Pastor Steven Anderson Allegedly Beaten, Tazed on US Soil By Border Patrol Agents
Pastor Steven Anderson prays for Obama’s death
Gun-toting Arizona protester belongs to hate-mongering pastor’s flock
Faithful Word Baptist Church
Steven Anderson Flips Out, Admits Business and Church Share an Address, Says He’s Been Contacted by U.S. Secret Service (w/Update)
Pastor Steve’s YouTube account

I was reading this news article today. It discusses the fact that “Creation”, the new movie about the life of Charles Darwin has failed to secure a US distributor, as his theory of evolution has been deemed “too controversial” for American audiences. When I was done weeping over that particular extreme fact of Fail (which probably deserves an isabigot.com post of its own–though “American movie audiences” feels like too broad a target for one), I decided to investigate the assertion the article made concerning Movieguide.org. Specifically:

Christian review website Movieguide.org has branded Darwin as “a racist, a bigot and a 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder”.

After a little searching on Movieguide.org, I found the reference, here. It’s illustrative to reprint the referenced paragraph in its entirety:

DARWIN’S RACISTS – YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW exposes the real Charles Darwin: a racist, a bigot and 1800′s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder. This well written book shows that Adolf Hitler, along with other genocidal mass murderers, was influenced by Darwin’s half-baked Theory of Evolution. This book exposes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for what it is: an elitist and racist dogma that has infiltrated our every area of culture thereby undermining sense and sensibility.

See, this was one of those cases where I had figured the article was making inflated claims, or decontextualizing a statement inappropriately. Nope. Turns out the source material is being referenced euphemistically, if anything. So what the fuck is Movieguide.org’s deal? Originally a biweekly journal, it was founded by M. Robert E. Theodore Baehr, a manifestly insane right-wing fundamentalist Christian nutjob if ever there were one. He currently serves as its publisher and Editor-in-Chief. While the site’s stated mission is “helping parents use informed judgment when deciding what entertainment products are suitable for their families’ enjoyment” (noxious enough), its real job is, as evidenced, the dissemination of right wing Christian hate speech.

And it doesn’t stop there.

Baehr’s public relations company, “Kairos Marketing”, is apparently in the business of accepting payment for “consulting and promotional activities” on behalf of movies “reviewed” in Movieguide. Movies for which payment are accepted are always reviewed positively. If Kairos is not strictly speaking part of Good News Communications (the non-profit that publishes Movieguide), Kairos does “donate” to Good News Communications, and both organizations have the same face on the flag. It’s a clear example of Baehr using the site’s popularity with vagina farm Bible-hugging lunatics to feather his own nest. A hilariously familiar story that grows even more comical when you realize that Movieguide.org is desperately attempting to portray itself as some morally righteous “Hollywood watchdog.” When Baehr got totally busted in 2004 for his two-faced shilling (by a fellow Christian rag, no less), his response served as testimony to the lawyer he once was:

“We’ve lent our expertise to many movies – gratis, for the sake of helping God’s kingdom advance in this industry. In a few cases, after we approve of and review the movie according to our stringent criteria, we have been remunerated for our services through a sister organization set up for this purpose to help underwrite the extra time these promotional efforts required.”

Nice job, Doctor Goebbels. I mean Baehr. Drop us a line if you ever want to stop lying, being a greedy shill, poisoning people’s minds with filth, and publishing slanderous attacks on brilliant scientists who happen to be long dead. We’ll give you a job in our legal department.

Shining shoes.