In a poor attempt to defend their institutionalized homophobia, the Archdiocese published this little doozy: “the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman.”

Will the children of unmarried straight parents be asked to leave as well? NO! The Archbishop justified his enshrined homophobia to get the press off his back–a move that was decidedly not meant to offer a rational explanation that could stand in the heat of a few simple follow-up questions.

Logic and homophobia (or logic and religion), you see, don’t often mix.

Their campaign is genius in its simplicity: got smutty reading material? Want smutty mags instead? If you answered yes and yes to these questions, the student atheist group at the University of Texas at San Antonio has your back and will take your Bibles at your discretion.

Does this debacle accomplish nothing? Will it inevitably foster the binary opposition between atheists and Christians? Eh. Perhaps. However, this discussion–what constitutes pornography, and are religious texts exempt–needs to be had, though preferably not in the medium of Fox News’ America Live with Megyn Kelly. Dear Megyn covers the story, in the fair and balanced tradition of Fox News: “The atheist group is giving away pornography, but it’s not just the porn–it’s what they’re trading it for that has most people–ah, well some people, very upset.”

I suppose I would give Megyn credit for begrudgingly correcting her bias-slip–if I was grading on a curve. But I’m not grading on a curve, and she’s a shitty journalist.

If Megyn was not a shitty journalist, she would have done plenty of research on the subject matter before reporting on such a volatile story. I’m not a journalist, and I’m pleasantly (and legally) buzzed on Merlot. Allow me, Megyn, to do your work pro bono.

Where to begin? First book of the Bible? Genesis, chapter 19:1-11. What’s not a setup for a contemporary non-con scene in this little doozy? Our dramatis personæ: Lot, Abraham’s brother, the Ron Jeremy-esque protagonist of this sick fuckfest, housed in Sodom. Two gorgeous angels (most likely gay-for-pay), sent down to investigate the cesspool of moral filth that is the city of Sodom. A crowd of the vile denizens (led by an unrecognizable Danny DeVito), that drives most of the gangbang narration. Finally, Lot’s two virgin daughters–their youthful appearances force five-second interval marquees to flash at the bottom of the screen: “ALL MODELS ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.”

Lot, a man of outstanding moral fiber, spares the angels from an impending anal excavation by offering (you guessed it!) Ms. Jail and Ms. Bait to the ravenous crowd: “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

It is important to note that Lot is the good guy. That is not an anachronistic concept–he is the one praised by God and ultimately spared from the destruction of Sodom for his “decency.”

Need something more insidious? Infanticide as glorified by God in Psalm 137. Permission to “plunder” women and commit genocide in Deuteronomy. The brutal and eroticized death of the pagan queen Jezebel in Kings. Paul-sanctioned misogyny in his letter to Timothy. Another highly stylized and erotic consumption of a Whore (an allegorical whore, but a whore nevertheless!) in Revelation.

If fictionalized rape and other kinks in contemporary pornography are “smutty,” then the Bible features (and espouses!) smutty acts. These Christian protesters are half-right: there is a difference between porn and the Bible, but it’s not a difference they’re recognizing. Christians present the Bible as a dogmatic truth. The sex industry presents porn as crude fantasy and a feasible go-to for whittling away the long hours of the day.

Which, then, is more offensive?

“I don’t understand how [pornography] equals at all..to the word of God..they’re definitely opposites,” says Monica Coronado, a devout Christian. Devout Christians today, apparently, do not read their Bibles.

And so does his response to the sports commentators that insulted him for his lack of “masculinity.” Weir’s sentiments are particularly encouraging to troubled queer youth in light of another beauty pageant contestant using Leviticus to justify legal discrimination. Bear with me, gentle readers, while I run a quick quote-compare analysis:

“I just felt like I had to make a comment and a statement saying that I hope more kids can grow up the same way that I did, and more kids can feel the freedom that I did to be themselves and to express themselves and…that’s the message that I want to come out of all of this.”

and

“I aspire to try to be a teacher to my young fans who felt just like I felt when I was younger…I felt like a freak…I want to liberate them. I want to free them of their fears and make them feel like they can create  their own space in the world.”

The top is Johnny Weir’s response; the bottom is from Barbara Walter’s interview with Lady GaGa–two performers often ridiculed for their allegedly “insane” dress or behavior.

And yet their priorities (when scrutinized) could not be more well-reasoned or more well-articulated.

Another quote comparison:

“Within our religion Christianity, it says for–mumble mumble–is death, but also there is definitely forgiveness and mercy from Jesus himself.”

and

“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”

Those are from Laura Ashley and Carrie Prejean, respectively. “Opposite marriage?” “Mumble mumble?” Is a lack of eloquence the new indicator for religiously motivated homophobia? Perhaps there’s a reason why Fred Phelps limits his church’s motto to three words. The fuckers can’t finish a longer sentence.

I apologize for a lack of snark today, gentle readers. Ran out of red wine yesterday.

Which brings gentle readers to this man, a particularly odious combination of religious zealotry and Old Spice. Molotov Mitchell is a social and Christian conservative. His columns for WorldNetDaily have attracted the adoration of old friend Carl Morris. While most people would consider having the Morris seal of approval an intellectual death knell, Mr. Mitchell blazes in his particular brand of Christian demagoguery. His videos are relatively popular on YouTube, though most of the comments on his channel contain sentiments similar to these gems: “When I watch your videos I have to fight back an urge to tear off my own face” and “I want to bone you up the ass, and I’m straight.”

Molotov enjoys talking about gay people. He enjoys talking about gay people so much that a lot of his videos either directly or tangentially relate to gay rights issues. More accurately, they relate to how gays should have no “special” rights. Why, you may ask? Because that’s what the Founding Fathers would want, a-duhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrr. Take a look:

I don’t really have time to knock down every straw man in this eye-ear-nose-and-throat rape of a video. It’s ripped apart pretty thoroughly here (and here by the hunky Tish! Tish! Oh, Tish). Molotov devotes some time to proving the Founding Fathers to be repulsed by faggotry: ”And don’t think our Founding Fathers wouldn’t support this legislation all the way!” Er, I wasn’t thinking that at all. You’re probably right, Mr. Mitchell. Uganda is reenacting something our Founding Fathers did in 1776.

And yet, I can’t seem to care. The Uganda bill can–in no uncertain terms–suck it, but this sentiment makes me a hypocrite! “Liberals only talk multiculturalism when it suits their agenda,” bleats out the wise Mr. Mitchell. The liberal “agenda” as here defined by Molotov Mitchell: not killing people…?

Eh. I’d go for it. Thanks for the assist, Mr. Mitchell! The Liberal Party Platform of 2010: stopping people getting killed for victimless crimes. I expect a landslide victory in 2012.

Who doesn’t want a gay priest? The self-loathing alone would ensure a constant state of solemnity. Shorter homilies, more attractive deacons, fabulous decorations at Christmas–but I digress. CNN reports the Pope saying this little doozy: “Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others — on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth.”

Hurk.

If there’s a particular reason why I find this sentiment so revolting, it must be the sheer arrogance dripping from every syllable. Or the transparency of the paradox: be free by submitting to an omniscient totalitarian!

In the Pope’s defense, everyone in this world is chained to something: laws, norms, debts, bulimia, Eva Green–but it is only the religious who monopolize the dead.

Ignoring for a second the Mormons who parcel out posthumous baptisms, revisit the quote again. The “truth” he refers to feels innocuous enough (Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior), but the implications of this decree run deeper than politics. Crack open one of the Gospels–there’s a lot more to it than rabid Jesus fangirlisms.

To return to the issue at hand–the employment of homosexuals (or lack thereof) in religious organizations–I generally fall somewhere between “Why would a sane gay person want to work for an institution that fears and hates him?” and “It’s their silly club, let them have their disavowed circle jerks while the rest of the world laughs and shuts them away into obscurity.”

But the Pope has a lot more pressing issues at hand to confront. In light of recent criticisms as to their relevancy and (more than slight) hypocrisy, the Vatican Catholics are hard at work downplaying their uncounted millions. The Vatican PR Team released this official response to Sarah Silverman’s “Sell the Vatican, Feed the World” video (a rather self-explanatory modest proposal):

Religious people hoarding shitpiles of money? The Jews should talk.

–Some Vatican Douche.

She cited “the children” to worm her way into Celine Dion’s Las Vegas Cirque du Soleil knock-off. Some social conservatives cite “the children” to justify any remotely anti-gay ideology circulating the country.

The crippling fear of childhood exposure to homosexuality motivates anti-gay demagogues by the thousands. Gays near children equals children near gays equals gays raping children equals children voting No on 8.

“Don’t go after the children!” screams the worried evangelical, which begs the question: When are children not gone after? Who doesn’t go after children?

All families who raise their children to practice a certain religion have gone after “the children” to inculcate them into some fold of religious service. There’s not a very fine line between educating and indoctrinating (a line which was discussed here). Threatening eternal damnation should a set of beliefs not be followed constitutes a coercive act. Introducing gay marriage to kids in schools constitutes a learning experience.

This distinction appears to be at the heart of a lovely bitch fest going on between Rob Tish (a rather brilliant and hunky gay) and our old friend Carl Morris (a rather stupid but probably hunky Jedi Knight). Their tiff has something to do with pedophilia and lightsabers, though I’m sketchy on the details. I’m too busy getting lost in Rob’s primetime TV voice. Get that man an agent.

All of this “children” talk nauseates me. Has anyone bothered to ask what the children want?!

I THOUGHT NOT.

This news item undoubtedly has eager-to-criticize third-wave academies scrambling for their pens to jot down some angry diatribes against marriage, its bourgeois implications, and its alleged “whiteness.” You can read their musings on the subject in Let’s Complain About Something Quarterly.

For the most part, no counter-argument from this ho-hum middle-class gay. Is marriage a bourgeois institution? Undoubtedly so, and yet I find this angle tiresome. It smacks of a sort of lazy approach to analysis that posits “authentic subversiveness” as the pot of gold at the end of an increasingly queerer rainbow. Progress narratives being what they are, we are inevitably left with “Person A is more subversive than Person B.” Yawn.

In postmodern crusades to claim the subversive (like this doozy here), simple facts often get shoved to the side so an up-and-coming “scholar” can hop on the critiquing bandwagon, destination “no one gives a shit.” Like the fact that the No on 8 campaign was just that–a defensive campaign, not a million dollar push to claim marriage but rather to avoid the legal discrimination of a minority group in the California constitution.

Between fighting discrimination in the courts to warding off the shrill cries of the angry academic, the bourgeois gay can’t win.

And dammit, I want my life to be full of win.

Welcome to the irresistible revolution, a new and ancient way of life that is so attractive, who would settle for anything else? The revolution begins inside each of us, and through little acts of love, it will take over the world. Let us begin to be Christians again. Jesus, give us the courage. –Shane Claiborne.

In The Irresistible Revolution, Shane Claiborne invites you into a movement of the Spirit that begins in the heart and extends through our hands into a broken world. Using examples from his own unconventional life, Shane Claiborne stirs up questions about the church and the world, challenging you to live out an authentic Christian faith. This book will comfort the disturbed, disturb the comfortable, and invite believers to change the world with Christ’s radical love.

Harmless, right? It’s two-thirds charming and one-third numbingly annoying. All fine. The book’s premise: a young Christian buck going out into the world and living like a poor person to prove his version of Christianity the “authentic” one. Look, it says it right there!

…challenging you to live out an authentic Christian faith.

See! It’s authentic because Shane Claiborne practices it. You can look him up on Wikipedia. Charming, no? He’s like the Dave Matthews Band’s answer to Mother Teresa, only whiter! That’s some authentic Christian shit.

How did Claiborne come by his authentic Christianity? The Bible, of course! Let’s take a look-see at the first 35 pages (because there wasn’t enough vomit in me to eject to get through the next 314), and check out which awesome Bible passages he drops like they’re hot.

1 Cor. 1:27: But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

1 Kings 19:12: After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.

Matt. 21:31: The tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

John 9:6: Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes.

Pretty innocuous, right? Standard socialist Christian fare, something about rich people and camels and needles and the like. I wonder why Claiborne didn’t include any of these next passages to support his theological and political views?

Deut. 20:13-14: When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

Deut. 20:16-18: However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

1 Tim. 2:11-14: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

The Book of Revelation. All of it.

Bad, right? Maybe not Shane Claiborne’s cup of tea (or is it?). His brand of Christianity–with camels and needles and rich people sucking–draws support from the same text which could be the basis for a genocidal and misogynistic fascist cult. Yay, Bible!

Does Shane Claiborne attempt to explain the presence of these troubling passages (three among hundreds) in his book? No! These passages are apparently not “authentic.” Despite, you know, sitting a few feet away in the same book that justifies and validates his entire subjectivity.

If Claiborne had, say, selected his preferred passages, did a fancy cut and paste job and crafted a new Bible (the Shane Claiborne Bible!), I would not object to this solipsistic textual approach: “I’m right because these passages are nice!” But this is not Claiborne’s project–to do so would (obviously) undermine the sanctity of his arrogant theology. It is far easier to write off the televangelists, the Falwells and the Robertsons, arguing that their Christianity is somehow “lesser,” despite the fact that you are using the same goddamn source material to support your own hacky beliefs.

So what we get instead of a charming approach to aiding the impoverished is a manual equally as dogmatic and proselytizing as the evangelical sermons it alleges to deride. “Authentic?” Shane Claiborne is an authentic asshole.

Take one last look at Claiborne’s book, where he relays an incident in a surprisingly callous tone.

We read in the Scriptures that God says to take good care of strangers, for we could be entertaining angels without knowing it (Heb. 13:2). And I really think we saw angels and demons. One night we met a precious, fragile old woman who looked just like a granny about to pinch your cheek. As we walked by, she began whispering, “Jesus is dead. Jesus is dead,” louder and louder until it became chillingly eerie. At a loss for words and taken a little off-guard, we just began quietly humming the tune of an old worship song. She put her hands on her ears and began shaking her head, her whole body squirming as if we were running our fingernails down a chalkboard. She rocked back and forth, shouting, “Get away from me! Get away from me!” And then she scurried down the street with her hands on her ears. I didn’t even know if I believed in angels or demons, but I had the distinct sense that we were encountering them. They just looked so much different than they do in the horror movies and Hallmark cards (49-50).

I don’t blame her. I have the same reaction whenever I hear tone-deaf white boys humming “worship songs” in my ear because they take me for a demon. Perhaps had they not been so enthralled by Jesus driving out devils in several Bible passages, they would have, I don’t know, helped an obviously beleaguered woman instead of writing her off as possessed–because what self-respecting old poor person would EVER hate Jesus?!

Shane Claiborne isn’t authentic. Shane Claiborne isn’t righteous. Shane Claiborne is just another asshole, this one furnished with reductionist readings of the Bible.

And that’s one asshole nobody should be forced to sniff.

As I’m late to documenting this “controversy,” I shall let others more enlightened take over summary duties (that’s you, Charles!). Like most all “controversies” that have occurred at the Claremont Colleges, this one came to life thanks to a hyper-sensitive reaction to an (by all accounts) innocuous event.

Get ready, here it is:

White people (and two Asians, don’t forget the two Asians) attended a Kwanzaa event thrown by the Office of Black Student Affairs and LEFT halfway through.

HOLYSHITOMFGTHATSHITISWACKLIKEMYMOTHERFUCKINGOPRAH!!!!!1!111!#@!@($!@$&#!%

This prompted Scripps student Rachael Ballard to post a series of web videos on her Facebook page deriding these whities as “cockroaches.” First, she admonishes these crackers for being at the event (“If you walk into a room full of black people, knowing it’s a black holiday, and feel uncomfortable, it’s because we don’t want you there!”) and proceeds to 180 into some new (and contradictory) sentiments: “Yes, we did see you leave. Yes, we know you were scuttling and shuffling like cockroaches. But we heard you, the door opened, a gust of wind (Ed. note: maybe it was Elijah!) just entered the room. Your exit was apparent. So I’m sorry that us black folk weren’t entertaining for you long enough.”

Indeed. Not entertaining enough, or too entertaining? As Rachael Ballard perhaps rightly complains, she should not be made to feel a spectacle for a white (and Asian! Do NOT forget the Asians!) and condescending gaze during Kwanzaa. BUT:

No one was doing a better job at making a spectacle out of Rachael Ballard than Rachael Ballard herself.

Christmas zing!

We’ve all heard the story: Lady Gaga was born an anatomical male or was born intersexed or was born with ambiguous genitalia or was born as LADYGAGA, the botched outcome of an in vitro experiment on Princess Diana with alien sperm. MichaelK of Dlisted has humorously documented the songstress’s “tuck game,” as it were.

Do I particularly care whether or not Ms. Gaga comes ready-to-assemble with a meaty apparatus clipped to her groin? No, not really. Sure, there’s some aesthetic value in it for me, but I care that other people care. The natural drive to categorize, to normalize, to label and box and stamp and send off to Heteronormativille with free shipping is clashing against Lady Gaga’s own non-normative body and subjectivity in some sort of epic theoretical power struggle. People just don’t know what to do with her!

That is, if she’s packing some heat.

But is it? As I indicated above, I don’t care if she pees standing up (which, come to think of it, she would probably do even if anatomically female). Isn’t it enough that others think she may or may not have a schwing-schwong? Does this create some sort of illusory and amorphous phallus that follows her around like some ethereal and foggy animal spirit, permanently clouding her sex and gender from those that wish to normalize her? When we see Lady Gaga perform in, well, this, are we fucking her with our eyes or is she really just fucking with us all?

I don’t have the answers to these questions, gentle readers (alright, I totally do, but that’s only because I live and breathe this Butler crap). But with the twentieth anniversary of Gender Trouble‘s publication on the way, I’d like to think, in the newness of the coming decade, that Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta could lead us forward into a fabulous queer dawn.

Oh, and I haven’t abandoned my Campaign. Please continue to click the link on the right. He’ll friend request me one day. But, come to think of it, it might be a good idea to meet him in person first.