sinidentidades:

The pastor of New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kansas says President Barack Obama has gone too far in supporting same sex marriage and it’s time for the U.S. government to begin killing gay men and lesbians.

“Terrorists are dangerous, the economy is a real and present danger,” Pastor Curtis Knapp told his congregation on Sunday. “But there is simply nothing other than the holocaust of the unborn which imperils the safety of our country or places our people in jeopardy as does the leader of the Western world publicly raising his fist at the heavens and declaring that the bedrock institution of society, ordained of God and meant to be protected by the state, is little more than a convention of convenience with the children of Sodom to transform the meaning of something, which is precious to Jesus Christ, and a living picture of his love for the church into a legally protected justification for perversion and a vehicle of hatred aimed directly at that love.”

Knapp went on to read from Leviticus 20: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”

“They should be put to death,” Knapp declared. “‘Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them, no?’ — I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.”

“You say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe you, you’re horrible. You’re a backwards neanderthal of a person.’ Is that what you’re calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal, backwards in his morality? Is it His word or not? If it’s His word, he commanded it. It’s His idea, not mine. And I’m not ashamed of it.”

“He said put them to death,” he continued. “Shall the church drag them in? No, I’m not saying that. The church has not been given the power of the sort; the government has. But the government ought to [kill them]. You got a better idea? A better idea than God?”

Listen to Knapp’s entire 1-hour sermon on “The Curse of Homosexuality” here.

Calls to the New Hope Baptist Church were not returned by the time of publication.

“You say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe you, you’re horrible. You’re a backwards neanderthal of a person.’ Is that what you’re calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal, backwards in his morality? Is it His word or not? If it’s His word, he commanded it. It’s His idea, not mine. And I’m not ashamed of it.”

You’re ashamed of admitting it’s your idea but not ashamed of jumping on the bandwagon if you can make sure you won’t be personally blamed. So not ashamed of encouraging further murder of a group that already deals with daily violence but just worried about your reputation in being associated with it. Nice. But this is violent rhetoric. From a religious, as in an institutional, place though. This is the kind of stuff that actually leads to the abuse and murders of lgbt people. And then leads to the dismissal and excusing (‘just extremists’) of these crimes by not only the general public, but by others in positions of influence.

Oppression is not about just an action. It is a trend, it is a mindset of institutions. That an influential figure like a pastor can say this and have a very slim chance of ever seeing consequences for it is a message that in some way, we as a society continue to find this an acceptable thing to say.

mranastasiabeaverhausen:

Cardinal Bernard Law, the former Archbishop of Boston, is leading the crackdown on U.S. nuns who are focusing too much on social justice issues and not enough on gay marriage and birth control. This is the same Bernard Law who had to RESIGN as Archbishop of Boston because he covered up the rape of children by moving priests to different parishes and refusing to disclose the names of priests responsible.

The Catholic Church sex scandal exploded first here in Boston, after allegations against priests here forced dioceses in other parts of the country to do some investigating. Bernard Law resigned in disgrace and as a result got a cushy job in Rome, where he is now pontificating on morality. I don’t know about you, but aside from murder I am having a difficult time thinking of anything less moral than assaulting a child. So here we have a man who spent a lot of time trying protect child rapists telling U.S. nuns that they’re spending too much time helping the poor and downtrodden.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Catholic Church.

friendlyangryfeminist:

»Person starts conversation by saying they’re not a homophobe

»Proceeds to tell gay people they’re going to hell

»Gets upset when are told “uh, that’s being homophobic” because it’s just their opinion

»Your opinion is that QUEER people will go to hell

»YOU HATE QUEER PEOPLE SORRY TO HURT YOUR FEELINGS BY SAYING YOU HATE QUEER PEOPLE

pro-revolution:

“I’m afraid your insurance won’t cover your birth control. Apparently your employers are Catholic.”

“Sorry, we can’t cover your blood transfusion. The family that owns this company are Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

“Those psychiatric drugs? Yeah, you’re gonna have to buy those yourself. Seems you work for a Scientologist.” 

“Since your boss is a Christian Scientist, your medical insurance only covers us praying for you.”

I completely endorse this comic strip. Is it really okay that people should be able to deny you healthcare, as in /not do their job/, because it doesn’t fit into their moral framework? I’m a religious person, but the GOP is wrong, no one’s religion should decide whether someone is ‘deserving’ of care. 

bebinn:

Catholic Bishops Lose a Big Battle Over Contraception | Mother Jones

sarahlee310:

A judge ruled Friday that the Catholic church can’t impose restrictions on abortion and contraception services for human trafficking victims served with taxpayer dollars.

We’ve gotten to the point where legislation and rulings that should be common sense are now being framed as victories. Yippee.

That’s… that’s a pretty accurate way of looking at that. This should be a natural decision, one that should have never been challenged by those bishops in the first place. What horrible people they are.

sixtyforty:

Rhode Island Cranston High School West student Jessica Ahlquist successfully sued her school to have a Christian prayer mural removed from the state-funded public establishment. Her argument, a textbook case of separation of church and state, was sufficient to win U.S. District Court Judge Ronald R. Lagueux over, who praised her for her courage in his decision:

“The Court refrains from second-guessing the expressed motives of the Committee members, but nonetheless must point out that tradition is a murky and dangerous bog. While all agree that some traditions should be honored, others must be put to rest as our national values and notions of tolerance and diversity evolve. At any rate, no amount of history and tradition can cure a constitutional infraction. The Court concludes that Cranston’s purposes in installing and, more recently, voting to retain the Prayer Mural are not clearly secular.”

Jessica Ahlquist may have won her legal battle to remove an unconstitutional prayer banner from her public school, but that doesn’t mean she can finally resume her everyday life. No, now she’s receiving horrible comments from fellow classmates, community members, and other angry Christians who are very, very offended that their religion no longer has the special status to be forced upon others:

“May that little, evil athiest teenage girl and that judge BURN IN HELL!”
“yeah, well i want the immediate removal of all atheists from the school, how about that?”
“Jessica Ahlquist may have won her case, but she’s going straight to hell. #Godovereverything”
“I hope there’s lots of banners in hell when your rotting in there you atheist fuck #TeamJesus”
“If this banner comes down, hell i hope the school burns down with it!”
“U little brainless idiot, hope u will be punished, you have not win sh..t! Stupid little brainless skunk!”
“Fuck Jessica alquist I’ll drop anchor on her face”
“definetly laying it down on this athiest tommorow anyone else?”
“Nothing bad better happen tomorrow #justsaying #fridaythe13th”
“Let’s all jump that girl who did the banner #fuckthatho”
“literally that bitch is insane. and the best part is she already transferred schools because shes knows someone will jump her #ahaha”
“”But for real somebody should jump this girl” lmao let’s do it!”
“Hmm jess is in my bio class, she’s gonna get some shit thrown at her”
“hail Mary full of grace @jessicaahlquist is gonna get punched in the face”
“When I take over the world I’m going to do a holocaust to all the atheists”
“gods going to fuck your ass with that banner you scumbag”
“if I wasn’t 18 and wouldn’t go to jail I’d beat the shit out of her idk how she got away with not getting beat up yet”
“nail her to a cross”
“We can make so many jokes about this dumb bitch, but who cares #thatbitchisgointohell and Satan is gonna rape her.”

Those comments are all verbatim, taken from Facebook, Twitter and comments threads. For the record, police are taking them very seriously. At least one student has been disciplined, and all of the students making threats are under investigation.

bebinn:

stfuhypocrisy:

michaellearnstorock:

The latest RH Bill plenary debate has enlightened millions of Filipinos as the Honorable Senator Juan Ponce Enrile labeled the act of masturbation as a form of abortion. Enrile says it comes from his belief as a Roman Catholic.

The Roman Catholic Church and CBCP views masturbation as “an act that constitutes a moral disorder and absolutely and without any excuse, a seriously disordered act”. It has the same category as bestiality and sodomy.

At the Senate RH Bill plenary, Enrile has said that…

“And the question that bothers me is… Is the sperm alive? Is the ovum of the woman alive? I have consulted doctors and the answer is yes.

The sperm of a man cannot fertilize any egg, not the egg of a whale, or a lizard, or a bird, or a fish, but only the egg of a woman. And neither can the egg of a woman be fertilized by any other sperm except the sperm of a man, so that these two elements must be together to create life. But each one of them has life. There is no question about that because they have mobility: They move; they develop.”

Read the full article here:

http://urbanmeter.weebly.com/8/post/2011/10/masturbation_is_abortion.html

Ta-da!

I tell ya. Give these people an inch…

And the question is asked again, is it really about ‘life’ to people like that… or is it just about control?

i-sauntered-vaguely-downwards:

I’m guessing this is to make fun of the highly religious folks who are against gay marriage ‘because it’s not in the bible’/’is spoken against in the bible’ stuff like that… and is to illustrate the ridiculousness of banning a bunch of people from the right to marry. If this is the case (and this isn’t just a random informative little poster, which judging by the notes, is not how people are taking it) well then…

can we please STOP! using poly relationships (among consensual partners, I’m counting the one man and many wives example as this) as examples of ‘ridiculous horrible shit your religion says is okay but you want to take away gay rights’ kind of stuff. For some people, that is a situation they may ACTUALLY WANT! to get into (or a different version of this, many husbands, one wife, a bunch of different partners or varying gender,s etc. etc.) and is a perfectly legitimate option. Basically stop shitting on other people to get across your (perfectly valid) point. There’s enough fodder there already without you implying that poly relationships are one of those ‘bad things religion allows when it dosen’t allow gay marriage’ okay.

And this isn’t the first time I saw something like this… which is why I’m angry. because this isn’t a one off thing, this actually happens quite a bit. Seriously, you can further your rights without shitting on other people so try to avoid it please. I don’t appreciate it as a queer poly person. I don’t.

Fair point.

womenaresociety:

danceswithfaeriesunderthemoon:

10. Laws against abortion do not stop abortion; they simply make it less safe. The number of women who get abortions does not change when it goes from being legal to illegal, or vice versa. The only thing that changes is more women die. Every year, 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions.

9. If people want to stop abortion, they should turn to methods that do work. These include comprehensive sex education and safe, affordable contraceptives. Unfortunately, as illogical as it sounds, the people who are most against abortion are also often most against these preventative measures. If they truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions that occur, they would embrace these methods.

8. The politicians “pro-lifers” so ardently support are only after one thing: self-interest. The majority of them are not “pro-life” because they agree with you; they are because they know you will continue to vote for them—and they know that making women remain pregnant not only takes away their power, but it also keeps them busy, in line, controlled, as well as a baking factory for their failing economy. The more people they have to rule over, the more they have to work and buy. Period.

7. Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one’s daughter, rape someone, or keep a person as a slave—all things that are promoted in religious text.

6. Reproductive restrictions do not end with abortion. Many people also argue that contraception itself is wrong—another mainly-religious philosophy—and will deny women the protection they need based on this belief. There are legislative acts that allow actual pharmacists to deny women their birth control because of their beliefs; does this not violate the Hippocratic Oath, especially if thousands of women are on birth control because their very lives depend on it (see #2)? Also, since it is my belief that men should not rape women, if I were a pharmacist, would I have a right to deny a man his Viagra just in case he uses it to rape? You never know.

5. Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant. If a law would never, in any circumstance, apply to a man, a man creating that law is preposterous. It is akin to men creating laws that ban women from voting, owning property, or showing skin in public—only much more deadly.

4. Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Odds are that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Does this mean that 33% of all women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy from this violation? Considering how many people are killed during childbirth (see #2), should we allow this further risk to endured on top of what has already been done?

Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, we all are aware of the fact that there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?

My theory is that people who spend so much time, energy, and money on anti-abortion campaigns should instead spend it on the precious children they say need saving so much—the ones who are alive and parentless. Imagine if all the funds spent on all those billboards and flyers and campaigns were instead either spent adopting or donating to places that are overrun with orphaned children… perhaps some actual credibility would be given to these people who claim to love children so much.

Also, there is the fact of the matter of the more than one million homeless youth in America alone. The number one factor for a child being homeless is physical or sexual abuse at home. Perhaps these “child-lovers” should step in and care for these already-born children as well.

3. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves.

2. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and DEATH. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.

During my own pregnancy—which had been unexpected though joyful up to this point—I was horrified to learn that I had preeclampsia only 25 weeks in. While they were able to save both my daughter and me, she was born at 1 pound, three months premature, and was a medical miracle. Most babies at that weight do not survive; and if they do, they suffer severe complications—as do the mothers, including myself. I was then informed that my risk of it happening all over again was extremely high, and that if there were a next time I may not be so lucky. I am fortunate to have access to birth control, but many women—especially young ones—do not. Preeclampsia alone affects 10 to 15% of all women! There are hundreds of other complications that arise besides preeclampsia that can, and will, result in death as well.

1. Doctors, not governments, should always be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we evenconsider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.

The source is down there \/

(Source: amplifyyourvoice.org)

I don’t really care if I’ve reblogged this, I’m gonna reblog it again. All I would change is that the abortion debate doesn’t just apply to women but all people able to get pregnant.

psychetimelapse:

s0akedinthebl00d:

As a feminist, I don’t believe in sleeping around. Not because that I believe that society and culture have taught me that and so I should obey, but because I have self-respect.

I’m not being judgemental, okay. If you sleep around, that’s nothing to do with me, really, it isn’t. But I’m not going…

Stuff like this always literally makes me laugh.

I have ridiculous levels of love and respect for myself. Something like, “Congrats! You get to see me naked in the flesh and play my tits n’ stuff!” almost always runs through my head when I fuck someone new. And I do fuck new people every now and then, because I like sex, and I like people, and some of the people I like are sexy, and I like to have sex with as many of those sexy likeable people as I can get my hands on.

I am but a single humble data point, but it only takes one to disprove a universal ‘fact’.

So OP: You don’t have to sleep around to be feminist, but cannot make implications about how slutty self-respecting women don’t exist, because doing so indicates a lack of respect for the autonomy and self-awareness of women such as myself who can have prolific sexytimes and respect ourselves…at the same time.

Supporting patriarchal myths that exists to senselessly control women’s sexuality? Not feminist.