Google+ Followers

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Muehlenberg equates homosexuality with paedophilia. Again.

Muehlenberg is your typical right-winger: high on self-righteous indignation, hubris and hate: low on intelligence, balance and reason.

In his latest article, Time For More Sexual Perversion, he once again whips his readers into a frenzy of concern by correlating homosexuality with paedophilia. His argument is that as soon as society starts tolerating homosexuality, it will tolerate paedophilia, bestiality, and his pet favourite, polyamory.

Apparently he’s developed his thesis of hatred towards gay people into book-length form. One has to marvel at the publisher that will touch such a toxic rant. I’m guessing it won’t be a best-seller or in the windows of many bookshops, but at least it’s the crowning achievement of Muehlenberg’s long career in wanting to subject homosexuals to his version of Xtian theocracy.

Muehlenberg even denies that there is such a thing as intrinsic homosexuality. The only “honest” homosexuals, as far as he sees it, are unsurprisingly the “ex”-gays, the poor unfortunates who have endured “conversion therapy” where witchdoctors “pray away the gay”. He’s quite happy to believe that they have converted sexuality, but not happy to believe any homosexual who points out that they did not choose their sexuality. Such are the blinkers that descend when the rot of religion takes hold of the mind.

He claims that “homosexual activists” (which is, in Bill’s deluded and paranoid world, any openly and unashamedly homosexual person who wishes to live their lives without reference to Bronze Age myths)
“successfully bullied and intimidates the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to pull homosexuality off its list.”
To Bill, this is the only reasonable explanation. Ask yourself whether it’s credible that an institution like the APA would allow itself to be “bullied” into anything, let alone reassessing the natural and harmless nature of homosexuality. It is unthinkable to Bill that, as they have assessed homosexuality over the years, they have realised that it isn’t a psychiatric disorder, and have removed it. They sure could do with putting “religious nutters” in their own category, though.

But Muehlenberg, as ever, isn’t interested in facts. He knows damned well that his demagoguery will wash over his gullible readers. If they’re stupid enough to believe any religion, then they’ll be stupid enough to not question his vile, hate-fuelled rants. It’s exactly what they want to hear. After all, Muehlenberg screams hate at gay people more than he writes about anything else, most especially theology. His main source of income is foaming-at-the-mouth homophobia.

Think about that for a moment.

There is no live and let live in Muehlenberg’s world, yet he’s the one always crying foul whenever anyone tackles his idiocies. Everyone must bend to fit his narrow view of humanity, and that’s what makes him such a sinister, deluded and ignorant fool.
How many gay friends does he have? Ask him this question on his Culturewatch gay-hate site. You won’t get an answer. He can’t befriend any, or he’d lose all credibility amongst his bigoted followers. After all, homophobia pays his salary.

He’s the moral equivalent of an executioner. With all the gay teens being bullied into suicide by religious zealots like Muehlenberg, this is no exaggeration.

11 comments:

  1. Hello. I actually personally know and socialise with Bill Muehlenberg. I'm commenting here not to stick up for him, but he's probably aware of your blog. You manage to misrepresent both his character and his work. You seem very angry at him, though.

    As for me, I believe that any expression of sexuality outside of committed, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is wrong. My views are unfashionable in this day and age, but I stand by them anway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Ross. Muehlenberg is represented entirely truthfully on this blog, and if anyone doesn't agree they can check his bigoted website for themselves.

    Muehlenberg is a vile excuse for a human being. This blog has been set up because he refuses to engage in debate with anyone who disagrees with him.

    As for your own beliefs, you're entitled to them, but you're not entitled to your own facts. I'm bewildered how, for example, masterbation is "wrong". Do you have some criteria for maintaining your "belief" outside the scribblings of Bronze Age goatherds? If not, why should anyone take them seriously? Is it a matter of being unfashionable, or do people just tolerate bigotry less now?

    Send Bill my regards.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From what I see, Bill often debates with people who disagree with him. There's plenty of examples of this on his blog. I also think of the same sex marriage book in which he debated gay activist Rodney Croome.

    Where did I say that masturbation was wrong? I don't remember writing that at all.

    My sexual ethics are shaped by a Judeo-Christian framework, but also informed and validated by what I've seen and heard about from others over the years who haven't been careful with their sexuality.

    My beliefs are strongly and at times passionately held, but I've never been an overbearing, in your face sort of Christian. Even so, I've had my fair share of mockery, slander, and ridicule, thankyou.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Ross,

    Thanks again for posting. To deal with your points in turn:

    Look at the language Bill uses when "debating" people who disagree with him. He can't even bring himself to be courteous. Put "Rodney Croome" in the search engine on Bill's site and see a list of articles come up. Does Bill talk respectfully of Croome in any of them? I have documented several times instances where Muehlenberg has censored people's comments for no other reason than that they don't serve his agenda. See:

    http://bigotedbillmuehlenberg.blogspot.com/2009/11/culture-of-censorship-bill-muehlenberg.html

    and

    http://bigotedbillmuehlenberg.blogspot.com/2011/04/bill-muehlenbergs-censorship-and-lies.html

    Care to offer an explanation as to why Muehlenberg didn't post Lawrence Meckan's response, other than that it didn't serve his theocratic propaganda? I have personal experience here. The *only* reason I set up this blog was because Muehlenberg denied me the right of reply because I was winning the argument. It revealed to me how deceptive he is, how much of a control freak, and what he won't allow his followers to read. I also document instances of his lying, bullying and deception. You'll notice that he frequently refers to the only "honest homosexuals" as being the poor victimised individuals forced into therapy who pretend to be all cured and "ex-gay". Whereas the 99% of gay people who claim that their sexuality is innate, are, as far as Muehlenberg is concerned, liars.

    Point two, you stated: "I believe that any expression of sexuality outside of committed, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is wrong." Surely masterbation is an expression of sexuality? By definition it exists outside of marriage, and by your "beliefs" is therefore "wrong". Once again, why the puritanical view of sex? How is any consensual sex by any definition "wrong"? By what criterion can you justify this view? How do you so casually condemn all homosexual and unmarried people in relationships to being "wrong"? I'm beginning to see why you've had your "fair share of mockery, slander, and ridicule". So have I. So have we all. It's often a learning curve to challenge our beliefs and to be fairly called on them when they're unjustifiable.

    As for my contempt for Muehlenberg: this is a man who makes his income based solely on stirring up hatred against, principally gay people but also atheists, non-Christians and non-right-wingers. His blog ought to be 95% theology with a bit of gay-bashing, but the reverse is actually true. He expects to be paid, and then be entitled to a criticism-free life, for his deranged, bigoted and hateful rants against significant sections of human society. I wonder just where his hatred of gay people comes from - I suspect he's a deeply repressed homosexual himself. Another Ted Haggard in the making. If you wish to drink with such a man, that's up to you. Personally I wouldn't give him my piss if he was on fire.

    He also promotes an anti-scientific, anti-rational worldview that is scarily deranged. Knowing how much he hates having his nonsense pointed out, I set up this blog. People who find the truth (evolution, gay people exist etc) inconvenient to their dogmatic fantasies are dangerous, and it's a moral duty to expose their quackery.

    I hope that answers your concerns.

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. What would I have to do for you to not think that I was a bigot and a generally all round nasty person?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Ross,

    I don't think you're a bigot or a nasty person. I don't know enough about you. I'd vigorously argue that Bill Muehlenberg meets that description, though.

    Words you'll never hear from Muehlenberg: "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree". If he showed other people that much respect, I wouldn't maintain this blog. That in itself proves you're streets ahead of Muehlenberg in being a decent human being.

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Partaking of Bill's censorship on multiple occasions, let me just say it's both easier and harder to break the ideology of someone so lost in dogma. I've left more examples on Flickr just as signposts.

    Hopefully the cognitive dissonance will do something, even if it's standard behaviour for a psychopath to play the victim (in this case, Bill claiming Christian persecution).

    Even providing evidence from history that is more holistic than his worldview is censored. This is saddening. Why?

    Because Bill is so lost in defining his worldview his way, which he then takes to be God's path for him, that he

    Like Ross, I have met Bill. I went to the same church as him for a decade and was part of the lobby groups he wrote for. Which makes the censorship a double poison that he has to own and accept as part of his own ideology. It saddens me further that he think he can skirt around the overt racism, bigotry and antisocial rhetoric in his own words and those who defend him simply because it's dressed up in the name of Christ.

    I think this would be appropriate (if NSFW) to describe why such people take the path to bigotry and hate online:
    http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2004/04/02/penny_arcades_greater_internet_fuckwad_theory/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Lawrence,

    Thank you for a very informative comment, I'd love to hear more from you. I think you're exactly right about the way in which Bill defines his worldview.

    Would you mind if I use the screengrabs from Flickr in an article for the blog?

    Excellent link! So true...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm a bit reserved in turning this blog into a wall of shame between myself and Bill. I've already earned the ire of various factions associated with Bill for talking about links between various sectors of the Australia Christian lobby groups and various white race hate groups that buy into the ideology being sold by Bill and others.

    That said, I do know why Bill (and his blog implementer) chose to use a customised moderation queue instead of maintaining something like Akismet, Bad Behaviour, Facebook or any other consensus / publically visible / publically measured anti-spam commenting system.

    By placing the onus on commenters to agree to additional terms, even if you follow them to the letter, it is up to Bill alone to approve, not consensus. So people such as myself who have established, credible, online identity may be miscast as spammers by Bill's systems.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Lawrence,

    I completely understand. Thanks for clarifying. This blog has documented instances of "your comment is awaiting moderation" when the truth happens to get in the way of Bill's propaganda; which is why he gets away with repeating the same lies ad nauseum.

    Thanks for drawing my attention to the links between the organizations Bill puts his name to and white race hate groups; even if he possibly doesn't hold such views himself it's bad enough to be associated with such organizations. Whilst unsurprising, this is something I hadn't previously realised. If possible, my opinion of Bill just plummeted....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Suffice to say he has actively welcomed localised forms of prejudice through his unique form of comment moderation.

    If you're a racist, anti-climate change person who hates anything and everything other than a certain flavour of conservativism, you'll be welcomed with open arms to evangelise. The Aussie Defence League, Q Society and others have received almost glowing praise in their endorsements of Bill's propaganda (anti Muslim, anti-gay, etc..) on his own site, passing the comment moderation sequence fine.

    Pointing this out to him on numerous occasions has, of course, resulted in censorship. I doubt the Australian Family Association / Festival of Light and other such family lobbies want to know their spokesperson is actively garnering race hate groups as a qualified supporter base through mindshare / equal mike time to evangelise.

    Enacting a takedown in the same way that has been delivered to David van Gend may just reinforce the whole "Because I'm persecuted as a Christian, my views are therefore right" mentality. That's why the strategy, by and large, has to change.

    The best way to deal with a psychopath is to expose them. They can claim they are the victim (in Bill's case, playing the persecuted Christian card), but actively discussing and sharing experiences of where Bill and those like him have hurt people inside the Church and outside it.

    If people know they can be aware. If people don't know, they may just blindly believe and we might end up with another Breivik as Bill as his ilk trade in the exact same ideas as was fostered in Breivik's case.

    ReplyDelete