Last year, there was a manufactured wingnut freak-out over a piece of art at the Smithsonian called Fire In My Belly by David Wojnarowicz. It was obviously manufactured because, as we all know, wingnuts don’t really do culture. No one had actually complained about the exhibit before some rube reporter decided to lose her marbles over it, which prompted actual congressmen [Boehner and Cantor] to do one of their little “stick it to the liberals” dances that go over so well with their hick base, threatening to cut funding from the Smithsonian. Anyway, they all said the exhibit was “anti-Christian,” which it actually wasn’t, but one would have to watch the piece to actually understand that, and again, wingnuts don’t do culture. So the Smithsonian caved, because liberals, sadly and pathetically, do that sometimes.
Having been pulled from an exhibition at the Smithsonian Institution, a film which features ants crawling on a crucifix and a man stitching his mouth together will go on display as part of a larger homosexual exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum in Brooklyn, New York.
The nation’s second largest art museum, CNSNews.com reported last week, will feature A Fire In My Belly, a film by David Wojnarowicz, a homosexual producer who unsurprisingly died of AIDS, within an exhibit titled “Hide and Seek.”
[...]
Part of the larger “Hide and Seek” exhibit, which landed just before Christmas last year at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, A Fire in My Belly, critics note, is an amateurish attempt to say something, but about the only message it imparts is that its homosexual creator was a disturbed and tortured soul for whom a viewer should feel pity.
As CNS described the film, “[t]he four-minute version of the video shown in the exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery shows, among other images, ants crawling over the image of Jesus on a crucifix, two halves of a loaf of bread being sewn together, the bloody mouth of a man being sewn shut, a hand dropping coins, a man undressing, a man’s genitals, a bowl of blood, and mummified humans.”
Uh, I’ve seen the piece. One has to be incredibly stupid, if they actually know the context in which the piece was created, not to understand it. It’s art, and again, I know that culture is HARD FOR WINGNUTS, but it’s not difficult to interpret.
Isn’t this wingnut writer oh-so-pissy, though?
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League says he’s not protesting this time around, though:
Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights, says his organization will not campaign against the museum’s showing the offensive film. “We can’t be like in a dog and pony show every time they show the stupid video,” he told the New York Daily News.
But Donohue did attack museum director Arnold Lehman, who had defended the anti-Christian film by telling the Daily News, “For a city that prides itself on diversity and creativity, there couldn’t be a better exhibition.” Replied Donohue, “For Arnold Lehman, there is no such thing as anti-Catholic art. Catholics who disagree are apparently too stupid to appreciate the complexities of these masterpieces.”
Haha, NOT a dog and pony show? I thought that was basically the point of the Catholic League’s existence.
Anyway, so to sum up, I just had to report the exact same story I was reporting last year about this time, because wingnuts.
This is predictable. Just as so often conservative Catholics want to deflect attention from child-molesting priests by using their crimes to smear gay people [see: Bill Donohue], Evangelical hate group spokesmouths are now taking the crimes of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State as an excuse to spew bile at gay people.
The press has focused largely on Paterno and others in the Penn State hierarchy who covered up Sandusky’s pedophilia, some of whom even committed perjury to keep his dark and dirty secret from being exposed.
But perhaps some of that press focus is diversionary, to direct the attention of the public away from one of the darkest pathologies associated with homosexual behavior: homosexuals molest children at ten times the rate of heterosexuals.
Homosexual activists will of course lamely argue that since Sandusky is married, he is not a homosexual. Fine, call him bisexual if you will. But his sex crimes are same-sex crimes, and 10-year old boys whose bodies have been cruelly invaded could care less what label homosexual activists want to slap on their abuser.
Also, gay activists will not argue that due to Sandusky’s marriage, he is not homosexual. That would be lame indeed, as we know for a fact that it’s extremely common for conservative Christian men to be simultaneously married to women and also gayer than Glee. However, we will argue that the fact that he’s married and has been molesting young children means that he is a freaking pedophile, as that is what science, reality and common sense suggest.
Let me be clear. A heterosexual pedophile who committed such crimes against young girls should likewise be sent to the chair. Forcible rape of anyone used to be a capital offense everywhere in this country and should be so again.
Without getting into the argument over what punishment should be meted out for these heinous crimes, for our purposes we’ll just note that Bryan Fischer doesn’t seem to know a damn thing about the phenomenon of child sexual abuse. People who molest young kids molest young kids, regardless of the gender of the child. Bryan’s desire to use this as a way to smear gay people is disgusting.
So is Porno Pete’s:
LaBarbera: How Many Boy Victims of Penn State Homosexual Predator Jerry Sandusky Will End Up Thinking They are ‘Gay’?
Ugh. Whichever ones would have been gay anyway, you moron. Indeed, and sadly, many, many kids have been molested since the dawn of time, by people of the same and different genders as they are, and they have grown up to be straight, gay, bisexual, and whatever else in between. There is NO evidence that being molested “causes” anyone to be gay.
Many openly homosexual (“gay”) men, like CNN anchor Don Lemon, were molested as boys or experienced abnormally early sexualization. Yet many of these same men do NOT see their boyhood victimization at the hands of homosexual male predators as causing their homosexuality. (This is due partly to the success of the modern “gay” movement that falsely ascribes “gayness” to a person’s (innate) identity, and emphasizes the ambiguous notion of “sexual orientation” as opposed to behavior that is sinful, destructive and changeable.)
Don Lemon has actually talked about this in detail, so it’s a wonder Porno Pete’s so completely unwilling to listen to Lemon’s words on the subject, while simultaneously playing armchair psychologist to a man he’ll never be lucky enough to meet.
Thus, how many boy victims of homosexual predator Sandusky will end up believing that being homosexual (“gay”) is “who they are”? How many will struggle with sexual identity issues? And how many will be told by LGBT advocates and liberal-minded people just to “accept being gay” as “who they are” because they were “born that way”?
Because the media and academia have largely become apologists for the modern homosexualist movement, they downplay or ignore obvious causative factors in the formation of “gay” identity – including pederastic molestation. CNN’s Lemon is a case in point: he is now an “out gay” celebrity, yet few question the absurdity of him not associating the molestation of his youth with his later embrace of homosexuality as a positive identity.
Porno Pete is a scientist and is therefore qualified to point out “obvious causative factors in the formation of gay identity.” Oh wait, no he is not, he is an amateur fetish sex photographer who leads a very small hate group.
There IS a long history connecting homosexuality to pederasty, and a disproportionate link between homosexuality and pedophilia: why else would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual? Since cases of women molesting boys remain rare, if homosexuality were not such a strong factor, nearly all of pedophile victims should be girls, which is far from the case.
Except for the fact that there’s a hell of a lot of science on the issue, which points to many factors that lead to boy victims. One of them is ACCESS. Let us look at the Catholic Church again for a minute, please. Who do Catholic priests have the most consistent access to? Young boys! So those who are child molesters are going to go for the kids they have the easiest ACCESS to. This is science, but it’s not that damned complicated.
Sandusky is married but obviously has a homosexuality (perversion) problem.
No, he has a child rape problem. It’s amazing that Porno Pete has missed that child rape is the crux of the Penn State debacle, so blinded is he by his hatred of gay people.
But we’re used to this kind of crap from bizarrely gay-fixated wingnuts like Bryan and Porno Pete.
Oh, this is must-see teevee right here! One of my favorite things about being where we are on LGBT equality — with all the momentum moving in our direction and more than half of the country supporting marriage equality — is watching the spokesbigots for the various religious organizations go completely unhinged in public. This is going to happen more and more, so stock up on popcorn. I’ll let Joe set it up for you:
ZOMG! In less than five minutes, Catholic League mental case Bill Donohue hits on every viciously anti-gay lie in the religious right’s arsenal. Polygamy, procreation, incest, and even some wild sh*t about prongs and sockets. SRSLY. Huge huge kudos to the show’s host for firing back at every bit of Donahue’s batsh*ttery.
So funny!
My favorite part is when the very Catholic Bill Donohue suggests strengthening laws to keep child molesters away from children. That would require some really expensive architectural renovations in many Catholic churches around the world.
Bill Donohue Has Become America’s Chief Apologist For Catholic Priest Sexual Misconduct, Says TWO
BURLINGTON, Vt. – Truth Wins Out today condemned The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue after he tried to scapegoat gay men for Catholic clergy sexual abuse scandals in a full-page New York Times ad. Donohue’s full-throated defense and attempt to blame others highlights Donohue’s role as chief apologist for the unthinkable crimes committed against young people at the hands of trusted clergy in the Catholic Church.
In the New York Times ad titled Straight Talk About The Catholic Church, Donohue attempted to distract Americans from problems with the Catholic Church’s poor handling of many abuse cases by saying that “the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia.” Interestingly, Donohue never tried to explain why there isn’t an avalanche of multi-million dollar sexual abuse lawsuits in LGBT neighborhoods, churches, and community centers – as there are in Catholic dioceses.
“Bill Donohue’s blame game is a disgraceful attempt to deflect criticism from the Catholic Church’s poor handling of many sexual abuse cases against minors,” said Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen. “He ought to be ashamed of himself for serving as an apologist for gross misdeeds in the Catholic Church. Instead of showing humility, Donohue is trying to humiliate and bully abuse victims and look for scapegoats.”
Aside from attacking the LGBT community, The Catholic League’s ad pointed fingers at the Orthodox Jewish Community and the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). Indeed, Donohue had the nerve to write in the ad that SNAP was “a professional victims’ group” that “are dogmatic in their convictions; their hatred of the Catholic Church palpable.”
“It takes real courage to come forward and share testimony about sexual abuse,” said TWO’s Besen. “Bill Donohue’s attack on these survivors is mean-spirited, cruel and shows a genuine lack of compassion. Once again, Bill Donohue is placing church politics above the harm suffered by real people at the hands of Catholic priests.”
Truth Wins Out is a non-profit organization that fights anti-LGBT religious extremism. TWO specializes in turning information into action by organizing, advocating and fighting for LGBT equality.
One of the major problems in our political discourse, on gay rights and every other issue, is that our media believes that there are two equal sides to every story. So, for instance, even though it’s common knowledge to anyone with the ability to use Google and read words that Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe are lyingthugs, their “stories” become part of the mainstream narrative. But it’s not all the media’s fault. Part of it is that liberals all too often, out of fear or whatever else, roll over and die in the face of the Right’s fake, usually completely made-up controversies, as happened at NPR recently when a fundraising director was caught saying that the Tea Party is full of insane racists (true), which led to the CEO of NPR resigning (!!!). It’s a sad statement on our cultural state of affairs when a person will resign for saying something so true and so innocuous.
There are much better ways to respond to these things, and Right Wing Watch and People for the American Way have put together a how-not-to guide on what the liberal response to right wing bullies of all kinds should be. It’s all worth reading, as it’s framed around what went wrong with the sane side of the culture’s response to the gay/lesbian art exhibition at the Smithsonian, which featured a harrowing work by David Wojnarowicz created during the early days of the AIDS crisis. It’s all worth reading, but I want to point specifically to two sections of the report, starting with the part about how giving wingnuts even one inch essentially empowers them, and the fact that they’re never satisfied with any kind of compromise:
Backing down so quickly to bullies like Bill Donohue will not satisfy Religious Right leaders who are eager to reignite the culture wars. It will encourage and energize them. Pulling the Wojnarowicz video suggested that there was something wrong about showing it in the first place, giving credence to the Religious Right’s claims that the museum was intentionally insulting Christians.
[...]
Case in point: Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council continued to attack the Smithsonian even after it pulled the video. Perkins, who said the exhibit contained plenty of “in-your-face perversion,” said in a radio commentary:
Right now, the Smithsonian gets 65% of its funding from taxpayers. But Congressman Jack Kingston says they can count on a lot less if this display doesn’t change. And according to one official, it already has. Curators took down the Jesus video last week. But the Battle of the Smithsonian isn’t over. All it’s done is taken the debate over art funding-and framed it.
Rep. Randy Forbes appeared on the Religious Right “Wallbuilders Live” broadcast in December and agreed with the host that the Constitution only gives Congress the power to protect art, not fund it, suggesting that he believes funding for arts and museums may actually be unconstitutional.
And they will continue to use it as part of their Two Minutes Hate, because that’s just how they are. Remember, this entire controversy, as PFAW’s report covers in detail, was manufactured. No one had complained until a Catholic reporter decided to gin up the Wingnut Noise Machine, which stretches directly into Congress, but all of a sudden a work of art was a “national outrage,” or at least portrayed as such.
Another salient point PFAW makes is the cute little language trick all extremist Christians use when they refer to things that grieve them as insulting to “Christians.” It’s beyond arrogant, and more than a little bit stupid, for these fundamentalists to claim they speak for All Christians, but it shouldn’t be surprising, because they lie in creative ways:
MRC President Brent Bozell’s November 30 letter to John Boehner opened with a claim to be speaking on behalf of all American Christians, indeed, everyone who supports freedom of religion:
On behalf of all tax-paying Americans who respect and support freedom of religion, particularly the overwhelming majority of Americans who call themselves Christian, I call upon you today to take immediate action to halt the obscene and bigoted anti-Christian Hide/Seek exhibition currently on display at the venerable Smithsonian Institution National Portrait Gallery.
It is, on its face, a ludicrous claim, albeit one frequently made by Religious Right leaders. There are in fact many Christians and many freedom-loving Americans who oppose the Religious Right and its hostility to freedom of expression.
Unfortunately, by folding so quickly to Bill Donohue’s practiced outrage, the Smithsonian gave unwarranted legitimacy to the idea that Donohue speaks for American Catholics.
The report ends with a sort of How To Do Better Next Time that all should read. In short, the Smithsonian should have put the damn piece back up and told Bill Donohue and John Boehner to go to hell. NPR should have done the same with O’Keefe. Why don’t liberals do this?! I have said many times that the major problem with the Democratic party, and also with liberals, is their utter inability to take their own side in a fight. People complain all the time about how the media portrays wingnut fever dreams as a valid opposing side [see above], but a big part of that is that liberals let them, by refusing to upend the narrative and expose the Right for the fools they are.
I think a large part of it is fear [the report goes into that too -- if we give them what they want, they'll go away], but the way we’re doing things now simply doesn’t work, so we might as well try something else, you know?
Because, of course, as we all know, Santa is the reason for the season. Cue the world’s dumbest man:
A politically correct West Village YMCA has fired Ol’ St. Nick in favor of Frosty.
Kids who once thrilled at sitting on Santa’s lap at the 14th Street McBurney YMCA’s wildly popular annual holiday luncheon will now suffer the icy embrace of a talking snowman and his sidekick, an anonymous penguin, at today’s event.
[...]
“Christmas is not about Jack Frost; it’s not about snowmen,” fumed Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. “We’re not talking about some secular organization that has no religious roots. If they can’t celebrate Christmas, then they should check out. What a bunch of cowards.”
Noted: The conservative Catholic who defends child rapists on a regular basis is upset that kids won’t get to sit on an old stranger’s lap at the Y this year.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a December 3 statement by the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) on the video that was pulled from the Smithsonian last week:
AAMD calls it “extremely regrettable” that the Smithsonian pulled the vile video. Nowhere does it even imply that Christians might rightly be offended by the sight of large ants crawling all over Jesus on the Cross. As such, AAMD has made the case for withdrawing all public support for the arts. If this is what they call art—never mind the pornographic images of gay men—and if this is how they treat Christians, then let them find private sources for their work.
AAMD is also guilty of rank hypocrisy. In 2006, it released a report on sacred objects, maintaining that “art museums should strive to accord equal treatment and respect to all religions in the interpretation of religious works of art.” Does AAMD not regard a crucifix as a “sacred object”? Christians would love to know. Or is their interest in “sacred objects” limited to those found in “indigenous societies,” as their policy seems to indicate?
In a large survey of museum-going households released in April, it was found that they are significantly better educated and affluent than the U.S. population; they are also overwhelmingly white. The time has come, then, to stop funding the leisure of rich white people: all public monies for the arts should cease. Quite frankly, to make the working class pay for the leisure of the rich amounts to class discrimination. In the spirit of social justice, a better case could be made to fund professional wrestling—it’s what the working class enjoy.
First of all, Billiam, crucifixes are really only a sacred symbol to Catholics; Protestants tend to find them morbid. [They are.] Second, Wilhelmina, OF COURSE museum goers are better educated than the rest of the population. That’s why none of your hick followers had brought this to your attention until the exhibit had been up for over a month! But it’s been shown that encouraging and funding a wide range of artistic endeavors is GOOD for the people, as it encourages them to run away from the instinct/temptation, promoted by intellectual lightweights like yourself, to be as stupid as humanly possible from cradle to grave. But of course, that’s kind of a moot point, since the Smithsonian exhibit in question is privately funded, no matter how much you lie and say otherwise.
Note to Smithsonian: Do not, under any circumstances, put Frosty the Snowman anywhere in the Portrait Gallery, because Bill’s little head will explode.
Says more about him than it does about gay artists, I think.
Christopher Knight at the LA Times wrote a piece which pointed out that the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue’s characterization of David Wojnarowicz’s work “Fire In My Belly” [part of the Smithsonian Hide/Seek exhibit of work depicting gay love until it was removed due to the caterwaulering of the Thomas Kinkade Prints As Fine Art set] as “anti-Christian” was completely incorrect. I would add that it’s asinine and reveals that Donohue either never watched the video installation in the first place, or he is stupid. There are no other choices.
“It is a sad commentary on gays that they cannot display gay art that is not homoerotic. But then again, if your sole identity is your sexuality, it makes sense. No matter, don’t ask the public, most of whom are Christians, to fund your pornography.”
Uh. First of all, as Knight points out, the exhibit is privately funded, so stuff it on that point, Donohue.
But secondly, much of the art in the exhibit has nothing to do with homoeroticism, much less anything resembling pornography. Knight posted pictures of quite a few of the pieces, so click over to see them. Here are a couple of shots that, presumably, make Bill Donohue’s bits tingle, due to how homoerotically gay they are:
It’s sort of a slow news day, but there are three interesting pieces sitting here as open tabs on my screen, so I will share them with you so that I may then close them:
1. Damon Root has an interesting analysis at Reason about the state of the Prop 8 case and its chances when it inevitably reaches the Supreme Court. Reason is often an intellectual wasteland, but this is one case where their libertarian perspective and analysis is worthwhile reading, especially as it pertains to Anthony Kennedy:
As for Monday’s proceedings, the outcome looks likely to be favorable to Prop. 8’s opponents. Earlier this week the 9th Circuit announced that Judges Michael Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt, and N. Randy Smith will hear the appeal. Hawkins and Reinhardt are both widely known as judicial liberals. Indeed, National Review’s Ed Whelan promptly denounced Reinhardt as arguably “the most aggressive liberal judicial activist in the nation.” But perhaps more importantly, as George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr pointed out, “Reinhardt writes like there is no Supreme Court, and as a result his opinions have a remarkable ability to annoy the Justices.” That makes the chances of Perry reaching the Supreme Court even higher.
Assuming that happens, much will depend—as it often does—on the swing vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy. And when it comes to gay rights, Kennedy leans libertarian. In Lawrence v. Texas, for instance, Kennedy declared that “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.” Similarly, in his 1996 majority opinion in Romer v. Evans, Kennedy struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment forbidding state officials from taking any action designed to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. As he wrote, “the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.” Together, these decisions suggest Kennedy will once again join the Court’s liberal bloc.
2. Re: the Wingnut Freak-out over gay things at the Smithsonian, a writer named Mark Judge has a piece at Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller which is, somehow, worth reading. This is officially the first time I’ve read anything at that site that made any sense. It’s interesting because Judge is, like Bill Donohue, a conservative Catholic, but somehow his panties aren’t all in a wad about the gay stuff! Indeed, he appreciates the art for what it is, and, unlike Bill Donohue, Judge is intelligent enough to understand the controversial installation about AIDS:
“A Fire in My Belly” shows a crucifix being covered by ants. To me — a conservative Catholic and supporter of Bill Donahue and the Catholic League — it made perfect sense. Christ took on our sins, which meant enduring the terrible humiliation that can come with suffering. This doesn’t mean one needs to resort to blasphemy or scatology, as (yawn) avant-garde artists have done in the past; but it also means that showing Christ with sores, or bruises, or even bugs on him can be an expression of faith and solidarity. If David Wojnarowicz was identifying a friend’s suffering with the suffering of Christ, he was just doing what Christians are called to do. Of course, liberals love to identify their suffering with Christ while ignoring the Lord’s call to conversion, of rejecting sin and becoming a new man. And gay art can particularly suffer from watch-me-suffer kitsch and bombast — “Angels in America,” etc.
He’s wrong about Angels in America, and he’s wrong about the value of blasphemy [I would argue that blasphemy is an extremely appropriate subject matter for art], but it’s nice to see a conservative religious person who hasn’t completely checked his brain at the door. The writer actually loved much of the art in the Hide/Seek exhibit, and even talks about which piece of art in the exhibition was his favorite and why.
3. Finally, former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper has a message for troops who would complain about having to serve with people they know are gay: Deal with it.
Happily, the vast majority of service personnel will do what they’re told. Which will not be a hard sell given that most have already gone on record that they will not mourn the inevitable death of DADT.
Of course, if what bugs you as a pro-DADT warrior is the idea (or the reality) of being forced to get naked in a shower or jammed into a tight submarine or fox hole with someone who’s attracted to members of the same sex, the answer for you is simple: Deal with it. That brother or sister is a human being, you are a human being: Work it out. Straight cops across the country have been lathering up with openly gay colleagues for a long time now. Yet, incidents of locker room misconduct are so uncommon as not to register at all in internal affairs data.
Having spent three-and-a-half decades in a paramilitary institution, I can attest to the rarity of a policy, any policy, that is embraced by all. But I can also confirm that most police personnel adhere to even those policies they find onerous. Why? In part, because they’re made to understand the penalty for not following orders. There’s every reason to believe military personnel will likewise comply.
As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who served with many gays throughout his long and distinguished service, pointed out, military personnel who can’t or won’t accept the new policy will have to find another line of work. (Don’t look for a mass exodus.) The same is true for those considering military service in the future.
Bill Donohue is a sick, twisted individual. Herein, the latest proof of that statement, as Bill Donohue explains that a young boy molested by a priest wasn’t “raped,” but merely “rubbed,” that since the abuse started when the victim was thirteen, it wasn’t pedophilia, and that really, if the victim had a problem with it, he should have said something:
On September 28, the Chicago Tribune reported that “former Chicago priest and convicted sex offender Daniel McCormick sexually abused him [Doe] while he was a grammar school student.” We then learn that the student was really a middle-school student, in the eighth grade, when the abuse began. The abuse reportedly continued for five years. According to the lawsuit, “McCormack inappropriately sexually touched, hugged, rubbed and/or abused Doe.”
It’s time to ask some tough questions. Why did this young man not object earlier? Why did he allow the “abuse” to continue until he was 18? The use of the quotes is deliberate: the charge against the former priest is not rape, but rubbing. While still objectionable, there is a glacial difference between being rubbed and raped.
Here’s what we know. We know that this case, like most of them, was the work of a homosexual, not a pedophile. And like most of the cases of priestly sexual misconduct, there was no rape involved. Inappropriate touching is morally wrong, and the offenders should be punished, but the time has come to object to all those pundits who like to say that the scandal is all about child rape. Most of the cases did not involve children—they were post-pubescent males—and most weren’t raped.
Why does this matter? Because those looking to sue the Catholic Church for being inappropriately rubbed decades ago are not exactly the poster boys for the victims of child rape. And because those who hate the Church continue to use the term child rape as a way of discrediting the Church. They lie about this being a pedophilia problem and they lie about the nature of the misconduct. That’s reason enough to call them on it.
Bill Donohue is a pig who defends rape. And yes, Bill, that is rape. My god, what kind of moron doesn’t understand that inappropriately touching a child in any way is child rape?! I understand why Bill Donohue is completely devoid of morality, though; he was raised under the abusive thumb of the Catholic Church, where child rape is so prevalent as to be mundane.
Last year, there was a manufactured wingnut freak-out over a piece of art at the Smithsonian called Fire In My Belly by David Wojnarowicz. It was obviously manufactured because, as we all know, wingnuts don’t really do culture. No one had actually complained about the exhibit before some rube reporter decided to lose her marbles over it, which prompted actual congressmen [Boehner and Cantor] to do one of their little “stick it to the liberals” dances that go over so well with their hick base, threatening to cut funding from the Smithsonian. Anyway, they all said the exhibit was “anti-Christian,” which it actually wasn’t, but one would have to watch the piece to actually understand that, and again, wingnuts don’t do culture. So the Smithsonian caved, because liberals, sadly and pathetically, do that sometimes.
BURLINGTON, Vt. – Truth Wins Out today condemned The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue after he tried to scapegoat gay men for Catholic clergy sexual abuse scandals in a full-page New York Times ad. Donohue’s full-throated defense and attempt to blame others highlights Donohue’s role as chief apologist for the unthinkable crimes committed against young people at the hands of trusted clergy in the Catholic Church.
