Friday Fundamentalist Farce File – 2/25/11

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone

[The Friday Fundamentalist Farce File is a week’s worth of “news” clippings from conservative hubs like WorldNetDaily and the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow. Millions of Americans absorb these messages as gospel truth—literally—on a daily basis.]

There was a lot of good news this week, but what was the Right talking about? Abortion, Israel, teen sex, and Corporal Klingers (the latter, of course, to make fun of transgender people).

2/19/11 – Priest’s lawsuit threatens pro-life newssite

The problem with the language in the abortion debate has always been the strategic implication that anybody who is not “pro-life” is thus “pro-death” or “pro-abortion.” It looks like this characterization could lead to the shutdown of The site is being sued for libel by Fr. Raymond Gravel, a pro-choice Roman Catholic priest and former member of Canada’s Parliament who didn’t appreciate being called “pro-abortion.”

And what is LSN’s response?

We are going to defend this case vigorously. We stand behind what we have written.

Of course, they’re also begging for money to fight the $500,000 suit.

2/20/11 – Israel: White House not reliable

The entire point of this article is to amplify the voice of one Knesset member who doesn’t like the Obama administration. It’s not really clear what authority he has to speak from, but WorldNetDaily is eager to quote every anti-Obama talking point he has to offer. Not much substance here, but worth noting that WND is trying to equate “pro-Israel” with “anti-Obama.” The evangelical Christians’ unflinching support of Israel (including Jewish settlement activity, as implied by this article) is incredibly suspicious.

2/21/11 – Healthcare conscience laws gutted

The expectation of the right is always that the freedom of religious belief equals the freedom of religious action, so the Christian Medical Association is very upset that the Obama administration has reduced the “conscience” protections for issuing birth control or “morning-after” pills. It’s just another whiny “we’re the victims” article, but the survey that comes with is good for a laugh:

2/22/11 – The joy of teen sex

Talking about people having sex is bad!

And Britain’s Channel 4 now has a show where young people above the age of consent are given tips to have better sex lives. Marcia Segelstein, author of this “Perspectives” piece, tells you what each of the four episodes is about, but then admits:

Perhaps fortunately, I was unable to view any of the episodes myself.

Despite being the “Reluctant Rebel,” Segelstein’s pure eyes probably could not have handled the actual portrayals of people having sex and using sex toys. It makes me sad for how boring and vanilla her own sex life might be.

Of course, her big problem is that anyone has sex outside of marriage. I say, if people are having sex outside of marriage, it might as well be safe, and good.

2/23/11 – Obama to create Armed Forces full of Corporal Klingers?

You may remember Corporal (later Sergeant ) Klinger from M*A*S*H who often wore women’s clothes to try to get himself a psychiatric discharge from the army. This reference has nothing to do with this article.

The article is about activists’ challenge to President Obama to end discrimination against transgender and intersex people in the military, but of course, the article uses as much offensive language as possible. (What is a “she-male,” and does anybody actually identify as one? Oh! The article later clarifies that it’s trans women who don’t fully transition. That doesn’t make it less offensive, and it sure doesn’t mean that anybody self-identifies that way.)

After a pity party for a wounded veteran, Elaine Donnelly is there to ask as many offensive questions as she can, displaying a complete lack of knowledge about transgender people. I provide my own (easy) answers below.

Q: Will recruiters be required to induct transgendered [sic] persons or individuals who desire “gender reassignment” treatment and surgery? If not, what would the rationale be?

Yes. To not induct transgender individuals because they wish to pursue SRS would constitute discrimination.

Q: What will the Defense Department policy be with regard to uniform differences, exceptions, or alterations for men transitioning to female appearance and women transitioning to male appearance?

Individuals will wear uniforms that match the gender with which they identify.

Q: What will the Defense Department policy be with regard to military medical services and medications for transgendered [sic] personnel, to include hormone treatments and surgery to change sexual appearance and identity for personnel seeking gender “re-assignment?”

The military should provide medical benefits equitably to all troops.

Q: What is the estimated annual cost of providing such services to transgendered personnel and those seeking gender “re-assignment?”

It shouldn’t matter. The military should provide medical benefits equitably to all troops.

Q: What will the Defense Department policy be with regard to the housing of transgendered biological males living with females, and vice versa?

Individuals will be housed with the gender with which they identify.

Q: Will a man who shows up for duty in a regulation female uniform, or a woman in a man’s uniform, be considered appropriately dressed? What would be the rationale for denying that opportunity on an equal basis to male and female cross-dressers or transgenders?

For better or worse, GID is diagnosed. It should not be difficult to differentiate people actually transitioning from people being obnoxious. This assumes, of course, that military psychologists are not biased against trans people.

Q: Will the military services allow a man to wear only approved male garb on-base, but female dress off-base? If so, how does this affect the principle that military regulations apply both on-base and off-base, 24/7?

It should not be hard to enforce that individuals dress according to the gender with which they identify anytime such enforcement is in effect.

Q: Will the military services allow LGBT individuals or couples to participate in social events dressed in ways that reflect their sexuality, in the same way that women dress to please men?

Wow, I don’t even know where to start. There is so much inherently wrong here. First, the assumption that “women dress to please men.” Second, the assumption that dress is related to sexuality. This question is so absurd as to not warrant an answer.

Let’s be clear, readers. The thing that scares the religious right most is people cross-dressing.

2/24/11 – Christian churches welcoming Muslim worship?

It can sometimes be fun to watch in-fighting, but I found this article to be sad. It’s Christians attacking Christians for being inclusive. A couple Protestant churches were letting Muslim groups use their facilities, not having any of their own. Alan Wisdom at The Institute on Religion & Democracy (whatever that is) is offended that they would be so charitable.

While Wisdom believes it is important for Christians to reach out and share the gospel with Muslims, he concludes that church congregations should never allow their buildings to be used for religious practices that oppose Christian teachings.

I say kudos to the churches who are trying to build bridges, not destroy them.

2/25/11 – Duplicity revealed in DOMA decision?

Just in case you need a little more Elaine Donnelly in your life. She’s pissed because Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA throws the whole DADT repeal into question.

If DOMA isn’t defended, the military might have to let same-sex couples live together! And they might have to get benefits too.

How horrid.

Nothing warms the cockles of my heart like arguing that equality is not cost-effective.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone
Back to Top | Scroll down for Comments!

There are 2 Comments to "Friday Fundamentalist Farce File – 2/25/11"

Write a Comment