Google+ Followers

Monday, 7 April 2014

PZ Myers tears a strip off Muehlenberg!

Evolutionary biologist and atheist PZ Myers has taken a devastating swipe at Bill Muehlenberg and one of his latest articles over on his Pharyngula website. Check it out!

Bill's angry and unnecessarily cruel article High Court Rules Against Biology – And Redefines Reality To Boot has caught PZ's eye. In the article, Muehlenberg lambasts high court judges for allowing a Sydney resident, Norrie, to be identified as gender neutral.
So, Bill Muehlenberg, defender of science, what exactly have these wicked activist judges done in defiance of all evidence? 
That's the question PZ sarcastically asks, before cutting Muehlenberg down to size with a single withering paragraph:
But hey, Bill, you have another problem. It’s very kind of you to rush to defend ‘science’ (or rather, your unfortunately ill-informed version of it), but if you’re so enamored of it that you wield it as a shield and bulwark to defend your personal bigotry against homosexuals and transgendered people, how come you’re also attacking evolutionary biology? 
Loving your work, PZ! And thanks for the helping hand.

Some of the comments on Pharyngula look all too familiar, when the aptly-named theignored left a comment for Bill:
Neither of my comments seems to have made it through. Fundies are hypocrites when it comes to free speech issues, it seems.

Quite! Bill will always censor when he has no answer. On that theme, I posted a link to PZ Myers' puncturing of his article over on CultureWatch and suggested Bill go along and publically debate Myers over the issue, and who knows, on evolution and other areas of science too.

Guess what? Bill didn't. He will never openly debate because he knows the truth is not on his side and his bigotry and foolishness will be easily exposed.

Saturday, 8 March 2014

Whoops! Quick Bill, hide the evidence!

Muehlenberg recently gave a very good example of how he operates. He tells a load of lies, and then somebody comes along with the inconvenient truth and a load of evidence to prove Bill wrong - and he censors and silences them.

It's the same old story with old Bill. On his blog he frequently throws out the accusation that the "other side" in the "war" he is "fighting" present no evidence and rely solely on "mud-slinging". But then, as I frequently document on this blog, Bill Muehlenberg is a liar and a hypocrite.

As it happens his latest assault on truth couldn't have happened at a worse time for him. He penned a piece called "Rebutting the Climate Alarmism Idealogues" in which he denies that man-made climate change is actually happening, almost immediately after two major scientific bodies, The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences have issues a joint paper on the evidence for climate change!

I posted a comment stating that the two scientific bodies had recently presented the evidence for climate change and included a link to it. Bill's answer? Yep, same old censorship tactic: my comment "awaited moderation" for a week before quietly disappearing.

So much for Muehlenberg wanting "open" and "honest debate". So much for his moans that "the other side" (that's us, BTW) don't present evidence to rebut his crazy arguments. When the evidence is presented to him, he runs a mile because he knows that he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Of course there's nothing new about science ignoramuses like Muehlenberg and his religious buddies having the arrogance to dismiss a priori evidence for matters like climate change. Just as Richard Dawkins has said about Ray Comfort's attempts to discredit evolution: if a genuine challenge to Darwin will ever be found, it will come from a scientist and not from an idiot. The same is true of Muehlenberg's empty posturing and denial. When uncomfortable facts that don't fit his worldview are clearly presented, he runs a mile, because his opinions on the subject are solely that.

Here's a screengrab to my comment which fell foul of Bill's scrupulous "rules":



And here's a link to the Royal Society's statement that Bill has no answer to:

http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

Friday, 28 February 2014

Muehlenberg's hypocrisy gauge reaches critical

Bill Muehlenberg is moaning about those nasty gays again.
We now know perfectly well that the homosexual juggernaut is not about ‘live and let live,’ but about the complete and total beating into submission of all those who resist the militants’ agenda
he whines. Though if you change the word "homosexual" for "Christian" then that would be an apt description of Bill's agenda, since he doesn't even think gay people have any right to exist.
And increasingly they have harnessed the might of the State to support them, coercing any and all recalcitrants to fall into line or else,
he goes on to moan. What he means is that he finds it thoroughly objectionable that any state gives equal rights to its tax-paying LGBT citizens.

His solution seems to be along the lines of the proposed legislation in Arizona:
One recent flashpoint over all this is a new bill designed to promote freedom of conscience. Arizona Senate Bill 1062 which was passed last week by the legislature and awaits the Governor’s approval would allow certain groups to not have to provide services for events they object to for religious reasons.
So Muehlenberg wants to harness the might of the state to coerce recalcitrants to his Xtain agenda to force them to fall into line, or else... exactly as he accuses gay people of doing!

As usual, Muehlenberg fails to see the staggering depths of his own hypocrisy.

The thing is I don't know any - literally none - and can find no examples of gay people being unwilling to provide services for straight weddings. Nor do I know of any Arizona atheists who wanted the proposed bill to become law so that they could refuse services to Christians whose supernatural notions insult their intelligence. That's because for all Muehlenberg's bleatings about the "gaystapo" and the "pink jackboot" and "misotheists" - gay people and atheists are vastly more tolerant of Christians and their ridiculous ideas and are prepared to live and let live, asking for no special legal rights to discriminate.

What a shame Christians are so petty-minded and hateful they can't follow the gay and atheist examples and reciprocate the tolerance; which is why they try to ask for legal dispensation to discriminate against gay people using the strong arm of the law.

Muehlenberg despises equal rights for gay people and lobbies to prevent gay people from enjoying the same rights he enjoys, such as marriage. He sees gay people campaigning for equal rights as aggressive and intolerant. At the same time, he endorses Putin's brutal draconian homophobic measures, and the massive increase in gay hate crimes and murders in Russia. He's all for state intervention whenever it's promoting his bigoted worldview. He's welcome to come here and defend himself - but his hypocrisy is indefensible and here laid bare for all to see.

Check out the comments where Muehlenberg and the other haters are whining that the bill has been vetoed, for a hilarious gnashing of bitter fundie teeth.

Monday, 3 February 2014

Muehlenberg's hypocrisy over "freedom of speech"

Within the space of the same 1428-word article, Christian bigot Bill Muehlenberg demonstrates the depths of his breathtaking hypocrisy.

He starts "More Ugly Anti-Christian Bigotry" with an attack upon his favourite target - gay people:
The homosexual ‘tolerance’ brigade is without question the most bigoted, nasty, and hate-filled bunch of folks you will ever encounter. Their mission is simple: in the attempt to force their lifestyle on the rest of society.
Bill, as he so often says, hates "name-calling" and "mud-slinging", which, he often says, is "how the other side argues". Here he just states that gay people are the scum of the earth and asserts that they aim to "force their lifestyle on the rest of society", which is, of course, quite different.

What does Muehlenberg mean by this? Does he mean that gay people are trying to convert the rest of society into being gay? Surely even Bill, notorious for his wild hyperbole and blatant lies, can't really mean that. He probably means that gay people are aiming to live their lives with dignity and not suffer discrimination at the hands of oppressors like religious people, simply on account of their innate sexuality. Yes, shame on them!
And the real cause of this anti-Christian bigotry? Yep, you guessed it: the gaystapo.
Just a quick reminder that Muehlenberg hates name-calling and only "the other side" engages in grotesque attacks that seek to dehumanise the opposition. He wouldn't dream of using such tactics!

From the horse's mouth:
Probably the major way in which the other side engages our side is through the cheap route of name-calling, mud-slinging, verbal abuse and nasty intimidation. Simply swearing a lot, calling names a lot, and getting all hot and sweaty seems to be a major approach of our ideological opponents.
Yes, that doesn't sound at all like you, Bill. What a hypocrite.

So what have the gay people been up to that has Muehlenberg reaching for the tranquillizers again?

Nothing, it turns out. A Catholic has been dismissed from the Australian Army for pushing a political homophobic agenda to exclude gay people from Christian schools. Such an act of bigotry (one that Muehlenberg approves of - he actively campaigns for the exclusion of gay people from society too) is, unsurprisingly, contrary to the demands of his employment, so the dismissed officer can't have grounds for complaint. It's hardly unreasonable for a public sector employer to expect its employees to behave in an inclusive manner and be respectful to all sections of the society they serve.

Muehlenberg then goes on to get his knickers in a twist about the Adelaide Fringe Festival which has a show called "Come Heckle Jesus". Muehlenberg whinges:
why in the world should tax-payers be forced to subsidise this filthy bit of sacrilege? If Christ-haters think it is so very neat, then let them pay for it. Why should tax-payers – the overwhelming majority of whom are Christians – be forced to pay for this crap?
Why the hell should rationalists have to pay for Xtian organizations, which are generally tax exempt? This seems not to have occurred to Muehlenberg. He's too angry about a piece of theatre he's under no obligation to see:
I encourage everyone to make a stink about this.  
You can contact them here and make your concerns known... 
It is high time that Christians rise out of their slumber, and start being a bit concerned when their Lord and Saviour is treated like absolute dirt – especially when SA Christians have to subsidise this ugly attack.
And so he goes on. It's extraordinary that Muehlenberg, who is consistently whinging about a perceived threat to "freedom of speech" whenever right-wing nutters don't get away with abusing, berating and excluding their popular hate-figures (usually gay people), now tries to censure and ban a public performance simply because he personally disapproves of it and it's not to his taste.

Reader Megan Pyne writes:

I wrote to Robert Brokenshire MLC of the Family First Party and he agreed the show was ‘disgraceful’ and said that they would write to the Premier requesting the show be withdrawn. 

You would expect Bill to reply saying, "hang on, even though we might not approve of this performance, other people are entitled to freedom of speech and expression, and nobody who doesn't want to see the show will be forced to attend". But no. He's keen to shut down anyone who doesn't endorse his view of Christianity and his agenda.

Here are a few choice quotes from Bill about freedom of speech:
The good thing about a democracy is that all sides of hotly debated topics can get a hearing. Or at least that is how it is supposed to work.  But increasingly when one side tries to get a hearing, the other side will come around and seek to shut them down, or at least shout them down. 
Many of the anti-discrimination, anti-vilification, and equal opportunity laws are in fact a direct threat not just to freedom of speech but to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion as well. 
You see, the activists who speak the most about tolerance are in fact the least tolerant of any opposing points of view. What they really want is to shut down all public debate, and ban all opposing points of view. They delight in calling differing points of view “hate speech” and they want every person who dares to disagree with them to be subject to “hate crimes” legislation.
It seems Bill Muehlenberg believes freedom of speech should only be extended to people who agree with and endorse the personal opinions of Bill Muehlenberg. The moment anyone wishes to say something that Muehlenberg doesn't want to hear (even when he's not obliged to hear it), then, according to Muehlenberg himself, they must be silenced so none can hear.

It's amazing that Muehlenberg and his nest of vipers don't recognise their own staggering hypocrisy; but then hyposcrisy is, and always has been, a key characteristic of the religious, as Bill Muehlenberg frequently demonstrates.

Society consists only of right-wing Xtians, according to Muehlenberg

Bill entitles an article "Children Targeted by the Militants". From his hyperbole, you could be forgiven for imagining that it must be about children being rounded up and dragged off to concentration camps.

What it's actually about is a Disney Channel kids' show called Good Luck Charlie, which - wait for it! - is to feature a lesbian couple with a child.

This is something Bill describes as "worrying", and indicative that:
Disney [are] pushing the boundaries as part of the pro-homosexual indoctrination campaign.
Bill goes on to make clear that:
Not everyone is happy with this bit of radical social engineering and the indoctrination of children.
stating that bigoted group One Million Moms claims:
Disney should stick to entertaining instead of pushing an agenda… Conservative families need to urge Disney to exclude confusing topics that children are far too young to comprehend.
All this gnashing of teeth from the right-wing simply because Disney have written a gay couple into the show.

Newsflash 1: gay people exist. Gay people and gay parents form part of society and contribute to it. Most people under the age of 65 don't consider the presence of gay people to be "radical" or indicative of an "agenda" or "social engineering". Stop looking for conspiracies in reality, Bill!

Newsflash 2: Many television dramas seek to accurately represent society. In the 1960s there were hardly any black people on television. These days, black, Chinese and every other race are quite rightly represented in dramas, as are gay people, atheists, etc.

What Bill and his kind actually want to see is a total Xtian monopoly on broadcasting, so that only people just like them - conservative, Xtian, white and heterosexual - are portrayed on television: all for the good of society (of course). The ultimate aim of Bill's agenda of hate against the LGBT community is to exclude gay people from society altogether, and he thinks it's "worrying" and part of an "agenda" that gay characters appear in television dramas.

I can't think of any gay people who would seek, or are actively campaigning to exclude television companies from representing Christian characters in their dramas. But then again, gay people are much more tolerant and liberal than extremists like Bill, and are quite happy to live and let live. It's a shame bigots like Bill can't show the same respect and tolerance in turn.

What One Million Moms (and Bill, who quoted and endorsed them) really mean when they urge television companies to:
exclude confusing topics that children are far too young to comprehend.
is that they want excluded all topics that they personally disapprove of. As we already know, Bill supports freedom of speech, but only when it's his freedom of speech that's threatened. Anybody else, he wants to exclude and censor entirely.

Children aren't naturally bigoted, and the real concern of bigots like Bill is that if children see a positive depiction of gay people in their favourite shows, their kids may grow up to - shock horror! - not be bigots like their parents and learn that there's nothing wrong with gay people or with being gay. And then where would the parents' delusions be?!

So long as Bill and his kind campaign for social exclusion of non-Christians, he remains a threat to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, democracy and public decency.

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

Muehlenberg Lies About Michael Swift

In his article, "Children Targeted By The Militants", Muehlenberg opens this way:
Homosexuals of course cannot reproduce – they can only recruit.
It's a sentence that manages to combine lying with logical fallacies. Homosexuals can't reproduce? Why, are they all infertile? Homosexuals can and do reproduce - there is such a thing as gay parenting and gay adoption! Yet Muehlenberg is wholly against that. Assuming they can't reproduce, why does Muehlenberg think it logically follows that they must therefore "recruit"?

This is evil nonsense, and a lie Muehlenberg has peddled repeatedly. He thinks if he repeats a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. The idiots who post on his site don't know how to think for themselves so they will probably lap up this sort of egregious lie. Homosexuality is naturally occurring. There have always been gay people. There will always be gay people as long as there is the human race. Gay people have no need to recruit, even if such an absurd proposition were possible, because the percentage of homosexuals in society is roughly the same throughout time.

Muehlenberg should actually take up his beef with all the straight couples who keep giving birth to gay children!

Muehlenberg is so confused about human sexuality he seems to think if a younger man is "touched" by an older man, he'll magically turn gay (and note Muehlenberg once again spreads another favourite lie of his - that there is a connection between male homosexuality and paedophilia). Sadly for him, sexuality doesn't work like that. One is either gay, straight, or somewhere in between. It's also disturbing that he's willing to spread the lie and the stigma that gay people have been sexually abused as children, or else had poor relationships with their father, which is why they are gay. This is utter foolishness, and wrongly stigmatises loving parents. It's all part of Muehlenberg's vicious agenda of hatred against gay people and those who have no problem with the existence of gay people, so he's quite happy to push the lies and stigmatise parents and friends of gay people in this way.

He then goes on to quotemine from Michael Swift's 1987 satirical essay "Gay Revolutionary" and makes the suggestion that it was meant seriously, calling it a "declaration of war against our children". You'll notice he doesn't even name the author of the essay or its title, because he's too afraid people will go away and look it up and realise that it's a work of satire! Right wing people invariably have a sense of humour bypass, and Muehlenberg is certainly no exception, but you'd have to be stupid to quote from this obviously ironic essay and suggest it's the ultimate aim of gay people!

Muehlenberg also commits the sin of omission with it because, as well as avoiding citing the author or title, he doesn't quote the first line that tells the reader it's a fantasy:
This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.
I'd say Michael Swift is pretty explicit about his intention, wouldn't you? For more on Muehlenberg's faulty "source", see Wikipedia and the Fordham University website, and you can see just how twisted he is to quote from a satirical work that is 27 years old and pretend it represents the wishes of the gay community:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda

Muehlenberg is upset because apparently Disney have made a TV show that doesn't exclusively show white, middle-class, heterosexual Christians. How dare Disney actually represent minorities! He quotes from right-wing pressure group One Million Moms:
Conservative families need to urge Disney to exclude confusing topics that children are far too young to comprehend.
What they (and he) mean is that it's too much for them to comprehend! Bigots like Muehlenberg know full well that young children aren't inherently bigoted, and that if they're educated about gay people they'll accept them as perfectly normal. That's what terrifies the bigots.

So what they want instead is to recruit children into the Christian lifestyle, to get to them young enough so they can twist their minds into being nasty, antisocial bigots, just like them.

There's only one group hellbent on recruiting children. It's not gay people: it's religious nutters.

Leave our kids alone, Muehlenberg. We don't need more of your type in this world.

Muehlenberg ends saying, "This is a war which we did not start." That would be because it's only a "war" that exists inside your paranoid, delusional head. War! Get a grip.

Friday, 3 January 2014

Bill Muehlenberg and the Sin of Omission

In his desperate rush to blame anything and everything on gay people, Muehlenberg, in his article "A Culture of Bullying and Intolerance" - where, remarkably, he isn't talking about himself - he opens with characteristic understatement:
We now know without the slightest doubt that the homosexual militants are a pack of bullies who thrive on intimidation, stand-over tactics, and thuggery. And they are clearly one of the most intolerant groups on the planet. They have declared war on every single person on earth who refuses to bow down before their agenda.
Most people in the west at least don't have the slightest problem with gay people, yet the sheer fact that they exist is such an affront to Muehlenberg that his rage spills over into this ludicrous hyperbole. Apparently gay people have "declared war". Well, I don't see any tanks or bloodshed, do you?

So what's grinding Muehlenberg's gears this time? It's the suspension of uneducated bigoted redneck Phil Robertson from the A&E show "Duck Dynasty" for certain comments he made:
For having the audacity to actually proclaim in public what the Bible says about the issue of homosexuality, all hell has broken loose, with the A&E network suspending Phil Robertson from his own show a few weeks ago. A storm of protest rightly erupted over this nasty bit of intolerance, and the network was forced to back down.
You'd think, judging by Muehlenberg's claim, that all Robertson did was attack gay people, and that right-wing Christian nutters have fought back, defending Robertson's right to be a homophobic cunt. This is indeed what Muehlenberg states:
It all serves as yet another clear illustration of the culture of intolerance and bullying which has sprung up all over the West, primarily at the hands of the militant homosexual lobby. They think they own the world, and can push their agenda with impunity, and smash all dissent along the way.
He then uses his favourite insult against gay people, "homonazis" (Bill hates name-calling, of course, but only when it's directed against Christian nutters. Hypocrisy, as ever, the bedfellow of the religionist), and claims:
...for every action there is a reaction, and most folks in America at least have had a gutful of these bullies trying to coerce everyone else to embrace their perverted agenda.
Perverted agenda! Nice! So much for tolerance, decency and respect.

It's what Bill doesn't mention that's telling. I left a comment on his website asking him for his opinion on Phil Robertson's racist comments.

What??? RACIST COMMENTS?

Yes, as well as making deeply homophobic comments, Robertson also made deeply racist comments, claiming that black people were just fine before the Civil Rights Movement. Here's what he said:
I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.
So according to Phil Robertson, Martin Luther King was wasting his time, and Rose Parks should have given up her seat on the bus.

What's fascinating is that the Christian zealots who have come out in force, Muehlenberg included, have COMPLETELY IGNORED these racist comments, and instead used Robertson's bigoted interview to defend their own deeply bigoted views. A generation ago, these Christians would have used their "faith" to defend their racist views. Now they know they can't get away with it, so they turn to the last outpost for their "acceptable" ugly bigotry - homophobia.

Muehlenberg, and all the other Xtian zealots, casually pretend that Phil Robertson didn't make any racist comments, and completely IGNORE this aspect of his interview, telling their followers that Robertson was merely defending his faith by launching an attack on the dignity of gay people.

It is pathetic that Muehlenberg is so desperate to attack gay people at every conceivable opportunity that he would stoop as low as this, deliberately being economical with the truth and deliberately deceiving his readers as to what Robertson said.

In the same interview, Robertson compares Shintoism, the Japanese religion of ancestral worship, to Nazism. He's not just bigoted about gay people, but black people and the Japanese too. Nice guy.

Muehlenberg sees Robertson's re-instatement to the reality show as a victory for "free speech" - even though Phil Robertson is entitled to his opinion, and other people (A&E, say) are entitled to suspend him for his expression of free speech, which is no infringement upon his rights.

Muehlenberg would probably also agree with some of Phil Robertson's other statements, such as that men should take their wives when they're no older than 16, so that they can better control them. Yet you can bet your last dollar that if Robertson were gay and talking about finding a male partner, Muehlenberg would have jumped up and down claiming paedophilia. Such is the selectiveness and hypocrisy of Muehlenberg's position, which he expresses through foul language, aggressiveness and deliberate hostility towards gay people.

Muehlenberg is welcome to come here and defend his decision not to mention Phil Robertson's racist comments, and he is welcome to defend his deceit, hypocrisy and bigotry.