|

Rockford think tanker says evolution and gayness are mutually exclusive — or something like that

4faeb586de089.preview-620

Nobody should be surprised these days to find a mix of homophobia and creationism spewing forth from a common source, but it seems especially incongruous when the source is a magazine with pretensions to erudition.

Witness a recent piece in Chronicles, the monthly publication of the Rockford Institute, a paleoconservative think tank. The author is Chronicles Editor Aaron D. Wolf, and the supposed objective is a defense of reality TV star Phil Robertson (y’know, the Duck guy),  whose slants on homosexuality have made him a hero of late in certain fetid precincts of American politics and culture.

Wolf’s screed basically seems to be a televangelist’s rant that’s been gussied up in polysyllables to give it a veneer of intellectual respectability. But it somehow falls short in that regard because of his overly conspicuous disgust at the physical mechanics of gayness and his awkward attempt to cloak the subject in creationism.

Wolf starts out with the hyperbolic claim that critics of Robertson’s views on homosexuality are out to “exterminate Christianity from our society.”

Puh-leeze. Exterminate Christianity? In reality, Robertson’s critics include lots of Christians who have no desire to rid our  society of the faith they themselves embrace — or even the bigoted brand Wolf seems to embrace.

Then Wolf stoops to gratuitous sissy-bashing  with his claim that Robertson has been thrust into controversy by a magazine article written by a “girly-man interviewer.”

Girly-man interviewer? Sounds like someone is more than eager to assert his own comparative masculinity, doesn’t it?

And then, to make sure we fully understand the situation, Wolf tells us that “the very idea of what gay men do, or want to do, is repulsive” — a judgement he characterizes as the “natural law argument” against such impulses.

Got it?  Aaron Wolf thinks the stuff gays do is icky and unnatural. Spread the word.

And be sure to note what Wolf says in this revealing passage:

[T]his is where things get hairy, because this has become the widely held opinion that dare not speak its name. The repulsion on the faces of Jerry Seinfeld and “George Costanza” in the 90’s TV program now quoted ad nauseam (“not that there’s anything wrong with that!”) in which they vociferously deny that they are “gay” comes from the same place. A man can pervert his affections to desire any thing sexually, from a child to a soda can, but a man’s natural inclination is toward women, and most men don’t simply claim to be heterosexual but are disgusted by the notion of homosexuality. If I believed in evolution, I’d wonder, along with the geneticists who care, why, after hundreds of thousands of years a gay gene could still exist, given its obvious inability to pass along its material in any fruitful way. And I might just conclude, along with the scientific community up until the 1970’s, that the homosexual inclination is a pathology that needs correcting.

Instead, Phil Robertson simply observes that the behavior condemned by God, in both Testaments and in no uncertain terms, is irrational, and concludes that, well hey, sin by its very nature “isn’t logical.” Since I believe, along with the Duck Commander and not a few others, that God formed man out of the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam’s rib, it doesn’t surprise me that the feminine is designed to receive the masculine, and that certain unipolar things are designed for the toilet. And that confusion over such things leads not only to fire from Heaven but also to injury and disease.

So, there you are. That pretty much covers all the bases, right? You’ve got your obligatory rejection of evolutionary theory. You’ve got your claim that even such cultural icons as Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza were homophobes. You’ve got your argument that a real man’s appetite for sex is devoted exclusively to womenfolk (otherwise you might as well get it on with a soda can).  You’ve got your (wink-wink) reference to the “fruitful way” And you’ve even got a mention of “unipolar things…designed for the toilet” (whatever the hell that means).

Now, don’t forget: Aaron Wolf thinks gay stuff is really, really disgusting. He’s a ladies man through and through. And he’s an Adam’s rib guy, too. That evolution crap is bogus, understand?

You can read Wolf’s whole essay for yourself right HERE. (Don’t miss the comments at the bottom of the piece.)

And you can read a snarky characterization of Chronicles HERE.

Share:

27 Comments

  1. thehereandnow1

    I like how you call Phil Robertson’s faith “slants on homosexuality”. Now before you go bashing Christianity, how about this little nugget: In Islam homosexuality is not only a sin but a punishable crime against God. First punishment is often beating, repeat and it’s death.

    So, I guess Christians aren’t the only slanted-viewed, arcane-thinking people now aren’t they? I guess if you’re gonna bash Christianity on this you better be able to do the same to Islam al-Cunningham.

    Anyways, Happy New Year Patty. I look forward to your ongoing feeble attempts to make Obama out to be something good.

  2. AmazingScott

    I think that Pat has made that point succinctly on a number of occasions; that small-minded religious extremists are the problem, not the solution, no matter what label someone wants to put on them.

    Personally I think of them as the Tealiban.

  3. thehereandnow1

    My point is that all too often the liberal community is at the forefront when it comes to bashing Christianity. When it comes views on homosexuality, creation, evolution, liberals are incredibly quick to paint Christians a ignorant oafs who couldn’t navigate their way out of a cardboard box. Yet the second someone says something negative about Islam liberals are just as quick to label the person a bigot and become very negative towards them. When it comes to matters of race and religion liberals say one thing but way more often than not do the exact opposite.

  4. AmazingScott

    Nope, I bash small-minded bigots who think it’s their job to judge me and my life according to their sacred text. It isn’t my fault that many Christians are ignorant oafs who couldn’t navigate their way out of a cardboard box, so stop making gross generalizations.

  5. Scott: Don’t bother arguing with this moron. It’s like debating with a nine-year-old. I never respond to his crap anymore.

  6. thehereandnow1

    Scott, you apparently have gotten your undergarments of choice in a bunch for no reason. In none of my posts did I say anything towards you in any way, nor did I say that I shared all of Phil Robertson’s views. I was simply pointing out that liberals are awfully quick to call someone bigots if they say something that could be taken as an attack on any non-Christian belief or view, yet they will engage in the same type of talk when referring to Christians. Calling a Christian a gay-hating bigot is viewed as enlightening to a liberal, yet say the same thing about a Muslim (a religion that has similar views on homosexuality as Christians), and you are branded a bigot. Pat has a well established track record of this.

    And Pat. Oh Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat. The man who takes capitalization as someone yelling. The man who’s been fighting the good fight for a team that keeps screwing the pooch. I like how when you have nothing to counter my posts you come back with the “I’ve stopped responding to his crap.” Nice line, and I’m sure you and your fellow kool-aid drinkers think that’s a real cool thing to say, but nope, you’re the moron. You have no counter to my original post, so you write what you wrote. Truth is buddy, everyone knows this about you. My initial post stands true, and you are simply emboldening it more.

    Why is it that for someone so intelligent as you claim to be that you are so afraid of the number one religion in the world?

    • than1 – you want to know why so many people find fault in the far right Christian rhetoric. Because they’re a bunch of hypocrites. They can be up in arms about 2 men/woman marrying and use the bible and other antiquated forms of dogma to justify it, while overlooking the very things their bible says about divorce.

      When are the far right Christians going to use the political system to deny married people from divorcing? When are we going to see a straight version of DOMA that says married people can’t divorce? That’s defending marriage isn’t it? Answer – Never. Because it benefits them and their dalliances.

      Therein lies one of the biggest reasons people find far right Christian rhetoric so easy to rally against. Because they use the bible like a buffet table to decide what things they will come out against and what things they will look the other way on because its in their best interest to. Besides that, gay marriage was a good money maker for the charlatans that used it as way to increase income for their churches and non-profits.

      than1, Do you know how gay men came to be called faggots? Because back when the loving Christians burned witches, they tied up the homosexuals and placed them in the kindling, hence the term faggot, or as known in the English term, burning stick. Christianity and organized religion has brought more harm to the world than good. It was religion that enabled the people who flew those jets into the Trade Towers. And lets not forget how our own government uses religion to claim God is on their side when they attack countries that had nothing to do with 911. Religion is mankind’s worst creation. Look at what it enables and has enabled in its name.

      • thehereandnow1

        Robert – It’s obvious from your previous posts on other topics that you are severely anti-Christian, if not anti-religion in general. The simple fact is that any belief or conviction can be taken to extreme, be it religious, scientific, or political. Communism as one of its main ideas is anti-religion, yet it’s had more than its fair share of deplorable actions (there just a few Jewish people in the era of Stalin to agree with that). To peg most of the major travesties and/or violence at the feet of Christianity only goes to show how close minded and hateful you are to it.

        But you have missed the bedrock of my initial comment, which was that liberals say one thing, but do another. To the liberal mindset, if you are a Christian then you are anti-gay. Would these same liberals be willing to openly say the same thing about believers of Islam? Muslims view homosexuality with more venom than most Christians. Whereas the Westborough Baptist Church protests at funerals, an Islamic mob would skip the protest and just kill the homosexual person in question. Liberals, especially in the media are quick to call any person who expresses the beliefs of their Christian faith as a backwoods bigot, usually adding insults on their intelligence. Yet a Muslim expresses the same views, and these liberals who are self-proclaimed champions of the homosexual movement are quiet. It’s almost as if liberals think they get bonus points from their buddies if they bash Christianity. One of the comments Phil Robertson made after this brouhaha was along the lines of another Christian belief, “Love the sinner, not the sin.” Yes, in the Bible, as well as the Koran, homosexuality is in writing as a sin. However, in none of Phil Roberston’s comments did he at any point justify or encourage violence against homosexuals. It was liberals, as well as the LGBT community which blew this out of proportion, showing that freedom of speech is only encouraged when it is something they agree with. Liberals cannot seem to wrap their self-professed superior minds around is that it is possible to be kind to someone even if what they do / who they are goes against what you may believe.

        Let me just add a disclaimer (before Pat comes on here, calls me a moron and far-right wing religious zealot). When it comes to gay marriage, I could care less. I have friends who are gay, and friends who are straight. I am divorced, so that right there excludes me as an expert on a working marriage.

    • Milton Waddams

      Maybe you’re new to the internet or something, but on the web, capitalization IS yelling.

      • thehereandnow1

        Milt, I’ve been in the computer industry for many, many years. Before Al Gore invented the internet computer systems only wrote in capitalized letters. In fact you will find many computer systems in use today where capitalization is the norm. Also, there was a time when the # symbol was not referred to as a ‘hashtag’. Pat is well aware of that too, but I imagine he just wants to sound hip. So for all of you who get your undergarment of choice bunched up because capitalization is used, get a LIFE.

        • Neftali

          thehereandnow1 – I also have a 4 year degree in the computer field with 20 years experience.

          As I’m sure you know lower case letters became common place with the deployment of US-ASCII in 1967. The internet really started to flourish in the 1970’s through various unix based systems which are case sensitive.

          In the 1980s when dial up connections started popping up along with various chat rooms, it became standard protocol to refrain from the use of all caps except to infer shouting.

          In other words, you are far behind the times and you could use a bit of modesty and decorum in the way you present yourself.

  7. hereandnow: So you think I’m just trying to “sound hip,” eh? Well, here’s the deal: Excessive use of caps is forbidden here, and offenders who persist after being warned end up getting banned. There have been at least half a dozen such cases over the years. Them’s the rules. And I don’t tolerate arguments over the matter, either. Now you know.

    • Did I miss something or was some post deleted for excessive use of caps? I’m not seeing anything on this thread that comes off that way.

    • thehereandnow1

      im sorry pat please accept my apology and lack of capitalization and punctuation as bowing to your will the last thing i would ever want is for someone to get worked up over the sight of capital letters maybe if everyone were to stop using all forms of capitalization we could attain peace and understanding there we go a new movement lower case for peace the motto can be dont demonize dont capitalize granted using the word demonize would go against those who are so enlightened to believe that there is no such thing as a superior being or higher power but maybe we can work on that

  8. Robert: Several of the comments prior to yours discussed the matter of “shouting” (the use of all caps) and I clarified the rule against it on this blog.

  9. Shawn Robinson

    These are some of the things people will always believe and debates people will always have because the Bible says so.

    Seven day creation of the world
    A garden of Eden
    A worldwide flood
    An ark of specified dimensions that still fits pairs of every animal in the world
    That the laws in the old testament are divine or good ideas
    Prophets and prophecies
    Angels and demons
    Heaven and hell
    That divorced people who remarry commit adultery
    That homosexuality is wrong
    That there is a “Great Beast” also identified as the Anti-christ coming.

    More importantly and this is what it seems Aaron and Phil Robertson are doing — that someone should look at the book not just as a history of Hebrews in the Middle East of 2000 years ago and before but as a guide to reality even when outside evidence is contrary. Also the people who do this are supposed to be considered the good people.

    Now just like Christians don’t want to follow other people’s religion (sharia for example), many Americans don’t want to be compelled by the government to follow the one of the Christian ones.
    I attend a church once a month and I like it. It took me a long time to see what the problem was with following religions in the literal view of the text. The problems in religions aren’t usually with the people but how the texts or hierarchies are viewed. I think ultimately though, people do whatever they want.

    • Shawn, here’s some more peculiar beliefs from Christianity. And to think that any person wanting to run for president has to claim belief in this stuff or face the wrath of those who do and not be a viable candidate.

      -Adam and Eve (Where the concept of incest began. Who’d their children have sex with? Besides that, were Adam and Eve married? Who performed the ceremony?)
      -Resurrection after being dead for 3 days
      -Consuming the blood and body of Christ in the form of wine and a wafer (and people wonder where monsters like Jeffrey Dahmer get their ideas)
      -The Holy Ghost
      -Speaking in Tongues
      -Burning Bushes that talk
      -Sacrificial lambs and in some cases, a persons child
      -Virgin Births
      -Original sin

      Some people may say I’m anti-religion even though I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic faith. I’m just anti-ignorance and pro-science.

  10. Michael

    Thanks for writing, Pat. By conventional standards, the Rockford Institute is the most notable publisher in Rockford and has a more diverse readership than the Register Star. I think a good goal for the paper in 2014 would be to learn why that might be the case.

  11. thehereandnow1

    Your implication that the actions of Jeffrey Dahmer were in any way influenced by the thoughts behind Christian communion show that you are far from anti-ignorance. Whatever happened to you at an earlier age really must have messed up your mind. Tell ya what, I’ll get in touch with some of my more religious friends to pray for you.

    • Hey bud, the only thing that happened to me was I started thinking for myself. Myth, fable and farce is apparently what you believe in. Grow up little boy. PS – there’s no Santa Claus either.

  12. Haters are gonna hate.

    It is only because they lack a fundamental understanding of faith.

    There isn’t much you can do about it.

    • Haters? I see you have the role of martyr down. It’s usually the first default response when the hypocrisy’s of religious doctrine is called out.

  13. I’ll lighten up on the faithful when I see them making very public gestures in the form of ballot measures to apply their very doctrines to their own lives. You can start with a hetero version of DOMA, to ensure the sanctity of marriage by denying divorce under any circumstances.

    • thehereandnow1

      Must be a sad, hate-filled world you live in Bob-o

      • What’s a matter? You don’t like it when somebody defines you in an unflattering way?

  14. Martyr?

    Hardly.

    I am just pointing out the universal truth.

    It seems that you Robert particularly hate Christianity. I can only assume you had some awful experience in your life to make you hate Christianity. If you were really against anyone who had blind faith you would print a similar scree against Islam, Hinduism etc.

    Haters are gonna hate. It doesn’t bother me, it is merely true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>