Google+ Followers

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Bill Muehlenberg's Genocidal Campaign of Homophobia

Apparently a bible college, possibly of the type that brainwashes its unlucky students with Bronze Age juju, recently allowed a homosexual to give a talk there.

Yes, a homosexual gay man! Shock horror! Throw your hands up in outrage.

Bill's reaction is to pen an article entitled Can Hitler Speak Too? Yes, apparently allowing a well-adjusted gay man to talk to students in a college is the moral equivalent of the Third Reich, in Muehlenberg's twisted and diseased mind.

He clearly thinks that education should solely be about things that he approves of, and that schoolchildren should be shielded from unsightly things like gay people, Jews, atheists etc. and it's far better to pretend they don't exist.

Bill panics that:

this activist could get up to five full hours to indoctrinate the students.


What exactly is Bill worried about? That the students might have an opportunity to see through the brainwashing and think for themselves and see that gay people are just people too? Clearly Bill is terrified of the notion of bible students being allowed to think for themselves. What a terrible notion when a college

promotes and defends the opportunity for all people to engage in informed open debate


I hope you're appalled too?

Never one to let an opportunity for offensive ignorance slip by untaken, Muehlenberg then repeats his tired old canard where he attempts to lump homosexuals in with paedophiles and necrophiliacs. Nice.

In his usual generous-spiritedness, Bill Muehlenberg does acknowledge that there's one good reason to allow a filthy gay into a college, so that:

...the arguments of the pro-homosexual lobby can be explored, but hopefully only in order to refute them and affirm the biblical position. I can see no reason whatsoever to allow an activist in to push his deceptive and diabolical agenda.


A diabolical agenda of "please don't persecute me for who I am?" Truly shocking. What an infringement on Xtian rights.

Bill finds it odd that he sent two venemous emails to the principal of the college warning him of the dangers of the homos, and hasn't received a reply. Bill, it's because you're an utter bigoted cunt and most people don't wish to engage with and support your genocidal hate campaigns.

Genocidal? Is that a bit strong? Remember that Bill censors the comments he disagrees with; but on his article What Right to Abortion he's happy to allow contributor Barbara Murray Leach to suggest that homosexuals should be aborted in the womb.

Charming company you keep, Bill.

Thank goodness gay people don't try to spread intolerance, violence and hatred against the deluded. The venom is a one-way flow.

8 comments:

  1. Christians. They believe in horrifying things without knowing or refusing to admit it. They warp their 'beliefs' until it fits their prejudices while claiming to follow the truth. They contradict each other, themselves and the deity they allege to worship. They spread hate and stupidity.

    They preach unconditional love but love conditionally and condemn those who are different.

    Bill Muehlenberg is a bigoted ignorant hypocritical cave asshole and he's too stupid and backwards to even begin to realise how incredibly useless his entire philosophy is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The venom is a one way flow."

    Really? If that is the case, how would you respond to these occurrences?

    Back in July in Tasmania a planned debate on same sex marriage was cancelled after reports that gay activists personally attacked the Christian debating team.

    Other figures such as Rebecca Hagelin, Loree Rudd, and Miranda Devine have all been smeared in recent months because they've publicly opposed same sex marriage.

    The Left is often fond of making themselves out to be more open minded and tolerant than those nasty conservatives. Once again we see that this is merely a facade. They show their true colours when someone dares to question or oppose their agenda. They think nothing of twisting the words of their opponents, or slander and intimidation.

    Have you spoken to anyone who heard Anthony Venn-Brown's lecture at the college, and how do you know that its students are brainwashed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know I'm a bit late to this but I want to make the point anyway. Rebecca Hagelin, Loree Rudd, and Miranda Devine. Hagelin's comments gained controversy because she referred to gay marriage as "There is no other evil," which was bound to create controversy as I'm sure it was intended to. Loree Rudd may have drawn public attention most mainstream media coverage of her statements did not smear her they just stated her position. Had they smeared her it would have been defamation.

      Miranda Devine is an opinion writer for News Ltd. She is paid to air controversial and ideological positions that line up with Rupert Murdoc's world view. Her comments are often controversial and therefore will undoubtably attract strong criticism, however in terms of being smeared she still has her job and is clearly respected among her readers.

      The statement you have made is the constant smear the right likes to make about how illiberal it thinks the left is - They always play the victim card when they come under strong criticism. The right no less engages in this smearing of it's opponents expect it tends to be aimed at groups rather than people. Mr Mulenberg refers to LGBT people often as Homosexualists. Comments have also been made that refer to the greens as "Childish," and anti-carbon tax protesters refers to PM Gillard as a liar and a B*tch.

      Delete
    2. Your comments about what you generically refer to as the left are a little unreasonable. A lot of the criticism the "right" makes of LGBT issues can be deeply hurtful and demeaning to LGBT people who don't see themselves as being activists or in any way damaged or evil. I imagine this is the reality for a lot of young same sex attracted people who may struggle with hearing demeaning and generalising comments about them from the "right." For this reason people sometimes respond with anger .

      Furthermore the right twists words of their opponents all the time and participates in slander. Mr. Mulenberg constantly refers to LGBT people as the "Gaygespto," "homonazi's," "The tolerance brigade," and "Homosexualists," in an attempt to lessen their arguments by demonising them.

      I agree that both sides need to realise that social and political issues cannot be solved by holding a moral high ground and demonising your opponent. If either side wishes to gain traction they to make an effort to win the hearts and minds of the people. Gay rights and rights of other minorities have largely been grass roots and hard won in some respects. It has only been about 20 since same sex sexual behaviour was decriminalised in Tasmania. By contrast opposite sex behaviour has never been completed banned or stigmatised in such a negative way.

      Delete
    3. Furthermore I should add that as much as students are not brainwashed, neither is Anthony Venn-Brown trying to indoctrinate them. From what I know of Mr. Venn-Brown he is genuinely trying to reconcile both side of the debate and is always civil and reasonable in his approach and does not resort to name calling or slenderising those who do not agree with him.

      Delete
  3. Were the Xtians attacked violently, Ross? Surely then it becomes a matter for the police? What do you mean by the other people being "smeared"? Do you simply mean that others have vigorously disagreed with them and pulled no punches in exposing their bigotry?

    What do you mean by "agenda"? You sound *exactly* like dear old Bill! Intolerance of intolerance is not mean-spirited and bigoted. Right-wingers seem to be deluded into thinking the liberal position is to roll over and die and let anyone do what they please. Actually, liberal freedoms such as the freedom to live without being persecuted (I.e. gay people fighting against persecution by Xtians) are hard fought for. Not allowing Ctians to bully and intimidate minorities is not an illiberal stance. Which words have been "twisted" and who has done the twisting?

    If the students are indoctrinated into religious Mumbo-jumbo by definition they have been brainwashed. That is irresponsible, and not an education.

    Mr Angry Llama - I entirely agree with you! Thanks for commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What Bill fails to tell his readership is the "activist" going onto the Bible College was in fact a respected Christian leader. This was a conscious and willing act of tabloid journalism, and as such, unprofessional ethics and morality on his part.

    Time and again, the religious right, both in Australia and overseas, like to downplay their mistreatment of others by reframing language.

    Denial of human rights becomes "extraordinary rendition", students participating in non-violent protest around the Occupy movement become "hippies" and get pepper sprayed in the face prior to being arrested, and in Bill's case, he has no qualms equating a long-standing Christian leader in Australia with "activist" and homosexuality in all it's forms with paedophilia.

    By changing the language, those who oppress and deny human rights to others think they can change the rules and get away with mistreatment. Just something to consider for both Ross and Bill in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Lawrence. Bill being economical with the truth? Who'd have thought it? :-)

    The religious right have really embraced the redefining of words as part of their campaign. Their refusal to use the word "gay", as adopted by gay people themselves (suggesting that one can be happy and gay) and using "homosexual" at all times is a case in point.

    Bill repeatedly attempts to smear gay people withe label paedophile. He's just done it again. Part of his shock tactics, expecting that it will increase the violent intolerance and hatred his readership already feel towards gay people.

    ReplyDelete