She has dared to stand up to him and publicly disagree with him. As we know, the one thing Bill really can't tolerate is anyone disagreeing with him and criticising him.
The article, Tenets of democracy get lost in hate storm, appeared in The Age. Muehlenberg, who expects to post article after article attacking the LGBT community, atheists, scientists and Muslims with complete impunity, rushed to Culturewatch to rattle out Yep, I am Now a Terrorist, an hilarious piece of outright lies, straw men and tantrum-throwing.
Bill's title itself is an outright lie, since Farrelly says this:
The haters are not terrorists, in the normal sense.But don't let facts get in the way of an attention-grabbing self-pitying headline, will you, Bill? It just goes to show, bullies really can't cope with having their behaviour held up to scrutiny. Here's how Bill opens his article:
A leftist from the lamestream media thinks I am a terrorist and what I do is equivalent to IS beheading people.
Well, there's another lie, and we've only read the title and the first line! Farrelly only mentions IS beheadings once, to say this:
In this hate storm, as in the Islamic State beheadings, the internet is crucial.
Where, Bill, where, is the comparison?
Yes, she actually said that.
No, Bill, no she did not. But way to tell an outright lie.
she attacks me big time. All because I have exercised my democratic right in a free country to stand up for biblical truth and critique false shepherds in our pulpits.
This is Bill's hypocrisy laid bare. He believes he is the only person allowed to exercise his right to free speech. No, Bill, you can say what you like. So can Farrelly. That's how it works. And when you go on the attack, people are allowed to defend themselves. Sorry you have such a hard time understanding this and dealing with it.
Yes, I am now in the same league as an IS fanatic who beheads innocent people – maybe even worse.
You make that claim for youself, Bill. Farrelly says nothing of the sort. Another lie.
I must be evil because she thinks I am a “creationist,” whatever that means.
Farrelly isn't calling you "evil", Bill. She's calling you a creationist because that's what you are. And if you're not, then why do you write articles trying to attack evolution and in support of creationism? If you're not, then why do you allow your profile on Creation.com, which comes up immediately after CultureWatch and this blog when you Google your name? You're like St Peter when the cock crows three times.
She claims I am the “Secretary of The Family Council of Australia”. Um, there is no such organisation in existence.
Yeah, Farrelly accidentally promotes you. It's only Victoria, not the whole country.
Also, I am an “anti-gay blogger”. Oh, so I have not written thousands of articles on all sorts of other topics?
No, Bill. To date you've written 548 articles about homosexuality - every single one of them attacking gay people. You actively campaign against equality for gay people. You have written two books, both of which attack the LGBT community. Your "faith" is just a cover for what you're really interested in - attacking gay people. Otherwise, why not write a biography of CS Lewis? Why not write about your interpretation of some of the bible teachings? Why only write 19 articles about prostitution? Because women's plight in sexual slavery in a misogynistic society doesn't interest you. Because theology is only a secondary interest. Your primary interest and your life's purpose is to smear, degrade, dehumanise and attack LGBT people. Let's tell it how it is. That's all Farrelly has done.
I also must be really evil because she says I am an “occasional columnist for The Australian“. Wow, that puts me right up there with paedophiles and the KKK.
Nowhere does Farrelly make any such comparison. Putting false words in somebody's mouth with which to attack them is downright immoral, Bill. Funny that you (falsely) accuse Farrelly of this self-same tactic, A double-whammy of lies there.
For calling him out on his pro-homosexual agenda, I am right up there with bin Laden and IS. Um, what was that logical fallacy about guilt by association?
Um, what's the logical fallacy of straw men arguments, Bill? Where does Farrelly make any such claim? Read the article: she doesn't. Another lie.
Yes, for daring to state the biblical position on the issue of human sexuality, I am a hater and a bigot and a terrorist all rolled into one.
No Bill, you are a bigot for your actions. See above. And stop pretending Farrelly called you terrorist. You're doing your credibility no favours.
She also claims I ‘habitually represent Satan “rubbing his hands with glee” over homosexuality’. Um, I do?
Yes, Bill, you do. In your article A Great Way To Destroy The Faith Of Millions for starters. Found that after a one-second Google. In it, you say, about Vicky Beeching coming out as lesbian:
Satan of course is rubbing his hands with glee over this. And it seems every month another big-time Christian celeb decides to ditch his or her faith and take up Satan’s game plan.
Which is exactly what Farrelly said you said. So what is your objection?
But hey, don’t let truth get in the way of a good story.
Um, she's not, Bill. She's quoting you verbatim.
But the real winner here is how I am using ‘coercion’ and ‘threats’ and ‘imposing’ my views to prevent people from speaking. Really?
Bill asks this after Farrelly reported that he:
campaigned to have Bower dumped as a speaker at next month's Black Stump Christian arts festival and warns in exclamatory terms of "the danger of compromise!"
Here is what Bill wrote in Leaven, Capitulation, and Christian Compromise:
Indeed, everyone should contact Black Stump and let them know about your grave concerns here. They can be contacted through this link: blackstump.org.au/?page_id=23
So yes, Bill. You did make an orchestrated campaign to have Rod Bower dropped from the event, so when you say...
Most people would not have gathered that from anything I have said or written. I merely mention that this renegade pastor is speaking at a major Christian festival, and now I have God-like powers! Hey, I simply asked a few hard questions as to why this guy is appearing there. I obviously have no power at all to prevent anyone from speaking, and as far as I know, he is still going to be speaking there.
...you are, once again, lying. You asked your readers to actively campaign against Rod Bower speaking, clearly in the hope that if there were enough complaints he would be dropped. Your dishonesty on this point is as disgusting as your threats and coercion to silence anyone who represents a worldview opposed to your own.
Yet this all makes for a great attack piece: present me as a hate-filled bully who is preventing people from speaking.
No, Bill. You have done that for yourself through your actions. You asked your readers to bully Black Stump into dropping somebody you personally dislike and disagree with. What Farrelly wrote is an entirely fair reflection of your behaviour, despite your deliberate obfuscation of the truth to protest otherwise.
Muehlenberg says of Farrelly's piece:
She knows full well that any victim of her hatchet jobs will not likely take legal action against all this slander and defamation.
So he's already thought of legal action because somebody dare to have the temerity to stand up to his bullying ways and tell the truth about him. Just as he has repeatedly attempted to have this blog shut down. Yet he expects to be able to say outright lies about what Farrelly has reported and get away with it. Amazing.
Yet somehow I am the bad guy, full of hate, and identical to an IS terrorist, while she is basically deity personified.
You can hear Bill shaking with rage with every nonsensical word. How dare somebody criticise me! How dare they?
Yes, Bill, we dare. If you can't take it, don't give it out. And stop telling lies. Your piece defending yourself is up there with the most deceitful articles you have ever written. As I have just proven.
As always, Muehlenberg is welcome to comment here and defend himself.