home

Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical Film

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:44:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Gay-hating evangelicals usually makes themselves look silly. Occasionally, they make themselves look dangerous.

The silliness comes from critics of "End of the Spear," a film that tells the story of American missionaries in Ecuador. Some Christian fundamentalists are appalled that the film's lead actor is gay. (Mel Gibson was apparently unavailable.)

More than 100 pastors of churches across the country signed a letter drafted by [Rev. Jason] Janz and addressed to Every Tribe [Entertainment] expressing their disappointment in the casting of Mr. Allen. ... "Does anyone really believe that Chad Allen was the best possible actor for Nate Saint?" Mr. Janz asked in his Jan. 12 Web log entry, referring to one of the characters in the movie. "That would be like Madonna playing the Virgin Mary."

Casting Madonna to play the Virgin Mary would actually be an inspired choice, but let's not digress. Here's where the danger surfaces:

One Web log, nossobrii.blogspot .com, written by Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, stated in a Jan. 13 entry: "Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men's houses."

Probably?

Also dangerous is Will Hall's fear that "young people inspired by the movie will look up Mr. Allen on the Web and 'get exposed to his views on homosexuality, and that would cause some of them to question Biblical views of homosexuality' ..." How awful it would be if young people kept an open mind, thought for themselves, and questioned their preconceptions. Will Hall isn't having any of that, and other extremists in the evangelical movement share his silly fear that a gay actor might influence young people to renounce their heterosexuality.

But the film's director, Jim Hanon, takes a less judgmental (and what many might deem a more Christian) view.

"If we make films according to what the Bible says is true, it's incumbent upon us to live that," he said. "We disagree with Chad about homosexuality, but we love him and worked with him, and we feel that's a Biblical position."

Hanon thought it might advance Christian ideals to show that people can work together toward a common goal while respecting their individual differences. Imagine that!

Hanon also takes a more practical position: ""If we start measuring the sin of everyone in a movie, we would never be able to make a picture because none of us would be left." Amen, brother. Let he who is without sin cast the first firebomb.

< Let Me Put It To You in Simple English | Boehner Over Blunt >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical Film | 80 comments (80 topical)
    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#1)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    I forget; how many times does thier savior mention homosexuality?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#2)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:24:55 AM EST
    "End of the Spear" indeed. Here's Herman Melville on Christian missionaries, speaking out in response to what was going on in Hawaii and Polynesia in the 1830s-40s:
    Among the islands of Polynesia, no sooner are the images overturned, the temples demolished, and the idolaters converted into nominal Christians, than disease, vice, and premature death make their appearance. The depopulated land is then recruited from the rapacious hordes of enlightened individuals who settle themselves within its borders, and clamorously announce the progress of the Truth. Neat villas, trim gardens, shaven lawns, spires, and cupolas arise, while the poor savage soon finds himself an interloper in the country of his fathers, and that too on the very site of the hut where he was born.
    From Typee (1846), albeit a section that was, it being America, expurgated immediately after the first printing. The nutjobs are angry that a homosexual plays a missionary? Anyone with any sense would be angry that they're still making movies that shed sympathy onto the missionaries in the first place.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    Such a Christ-like welcoming attitude. And I love that they don't get, in any way, the irony that, yes, the best actor for the part WAS a gay man. Instead they just KNOW since he's gay he could never have been the best choice. As if homosexuality negates everything else about a person. Reminds me of my days in high school at the largest Christian H.S. in the nation. "Biology for Christian Schools" by Bob Jones University Press. The anti-Mormon cartoons. The Rock Hudson AIDS jokes. Ah the memories. They can't simply be happy that a motion picture like this was made at all. Dopes.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:28:36 AM EST
    Not to say I'M happy the movie got made. See glanton's post above.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#5)
    by Joe Bob on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:29:50 AM EST
    Good point. You never see much outrage about the casts of Christian films having adulterers, bearers of false witness, idolators, etc. After all, sin is sin, right? I mean, it's not like the Ten Commandments are ranked in order of severity; they're all supposed to count the same. If these self-professed Christians were really concerned about sin, as opposed to being curiously fixated on gay sex, why don't we hear them bleating about Tom Cruise the heathen Scientologist, or the adultery of Hugh Grant or Jude Law?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#6)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:36:43 AM EST
    Same subject but a little more relevant specifically to current American foreign policy: a little more immediately censored Typee:
    The fiend-like skill we display in the invention of all manner of death-dealing engines, the vindictiveness with which we carry on our wars, and misery and desolation that follow in their train, are enough of themselves to distinguish the white civilized man as the most ferocious animal on the face of the earth.
    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:48:54 AM EST
    Some Christian fundamentalists are appalled that the film's lead actor is gay. (Mel Gibson was apparently unavailable.)
    What the heck is this supposed to mean?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    It seems as if certain "signs" in the last few years like 9/11, Lehayes the-antichrist-lives-in-Bhagdad opus, and faith based funding have sent these folks even further over the edge. This year some of them were accosting trick or treaters in my neighborhood and threatening them with the flames of perdition if they persisted in celebrating the demonic holiday.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:52:26 AM EST
    s.u - Mel Gibson is supposed to be some kind of fundamentalist isnt he?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:11:22 AM EST
    Glanton - Well done.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    Jondee, he sure is. The two sentances are unclear, it could easily (and perhaps correctly?) be interpreted that TChris is suggesting Mel's gay.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:20:09 AM EST
    Sarc, With all due respect, the Mel Gibson line was obviously referring to Mel as Christian Heterosexual Maximus. There was nothing in it that suggested Mel was gay. His newfound theological side, his machismo.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    I hope so Dadler.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one-You have quite the nose for ambiguity. Daedler states the obvious reason TChris mentioned Mel
    the Mel Gibson line was obviously referring to Mel as Christian Heterosexual Maximus.
    and to jondee the answer is yes
    Mel Gibson is supposed to be some kind of fundamentalist isn't he?
    He is also a holocaust denier. But the irony that you so astutely pick up is that his last movie, The Passion of Christ was a huge success with the S & M gay crowd. Cheesecake on a stick, in bondage for three hours. Kinda suggests that Macho Mel may be hiding something.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    Squeaky, for the record, Mel's dad denied the holocaust, Mel does not deny it.
    Asked by the interviewer if he believed the Holocaust had happened, the actor replied: "Yes, of course. Atrocities happen. War is horrible. World War Two killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps."
    Although I do think you are correct about TChris's intent.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    He is famous and lives for that fame. How could he outright deny the holocaust in public. He is not stupid. From your link
    But Mel Gibson's Holocaust problem extends far beyond his father's lunatic-fringe opinions. In an interview in the forthcoming March issue of Reader's Digest, Gibson had this to say about his father: "My dad taught me my faith and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life" --a curious remark, considering his father's many lies about the Holocaust. Asked by the interviewer if he believed the Holocaust had happened, the actor replied: "Yes, of course. Atrocities happen. War is horrible. World War Two killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps."
    Sounds like he is hedging to me. Most would say that the Nazi's Killed 6 million Jews. Not Mel.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    I think you're right, he's hedging.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:22:52 AM EST
    Ah the father/son bond. Enough with friggin' Mel Gibson. If a large part of the market for this film, American Evangelicals, won't see it because the lead character is played by a gay man, then all I can say to them is fine, make your own movies and cast only, ahem, straight actors. I ahem because my father is a retired actor/teacher, and in my many weekend, divorced dad adventures with him in L.A. as a kid, going to many auditions, a few film and t.v. sets, and too many theatre rehearsals than any child should have to sit through, I can assure you the performing arts are as "gay" as any popular subculture you're gonna find. What're you gonna do at the auditions for these "wholesome" movies? Ask for legal proof of hetero status? Guage how the male actors react to being asked to perform fellatio in the audition? Gay actors, who could've imagined!! Can you spell C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S? It's just sad when you get down to it.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    The Christian right has completely taken over political agendas with topics too hot for the average Joe to stand up against. Nobody is I know is pro abortion. Many people believe it's not the governments' role to tell a woman what to do with her body. Nobody I know is pro terrorist. Most people I know wonder it the price of war is not getting excessive in lieu of the lack of clear policies offering hope of leaving Iraq in a timely manner. And most people I know lack the courage to put a stop to gay bashing when they are in a group of insecure heterosexuals who condemn people who may be different than they are. My, what we won't do to try to feel superior to others when lacking personally justifiable reasons to be proud of whom we truly are.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#20)
    by peacrevol on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    Everyone please realize that this guy's view does not reflect that of all or even most Christians. This guy is apparently an extremist on the fringes of Christianity. When you hear of someone talking about using fire bombs and other weapons of attack b/c of someone's beliefs, generally it's from an extremist. However, perhaps the fire bomb comments were tongue and cheek, which to me doesnt make it quite as bad. As far as the actor being gay...If they hadnt brought it up, nobody would know and it wouldnt even be an issue. They made a mountain out of a molehill, so to speak and the entire religion suffers another blow to credibility. Why dont these guys understand that?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#21)
    by yudel on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    Extremist? My question is, is the pastor a member of good standing in a denomination? It's like Bob Jones university -- decreeing racism as God's writ didn't cause schisms, but ordaining gays does.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    Yudel, As I previously mentioned, the Biology text from my Christian high School was published by Bob Jones University Press. My favorite quote: "Dinosaurs, probably small ones, were actually aboard Noah's Ark". Not descendents of dinosaurs, but DINOSAURS. Noah and that family certainly must've had their hands full with their floating Jurrasic Park. Maybe THEY'RE the reason the dinosaurs became extinct. Alright, enough.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#23)
    by peacrevol on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    Yudel, I dont know if he is a member of a denomination in good standing or not. It depends on what the definition of "is" is I suppose. :)

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#24)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:16:31 PM EST
    I don't understand. A gay actor pretended to be straight. Isn't that what they want?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:25:04 PM EST
    Quaker - Perfect!

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#26)
    by Johnny on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:27:52 PM EST
    The scary thing about this kind of bevavior (on the part of wrong-wingers) is that it isn't limited to extremists. The entire repuglican party either outright endorses legislated discrimination, or at the least will endorse those who endorse the discrimination. See election 2004 results. I have no idea why people respond to news like this by saying "Well, he is not representative of christianity". He is, though. Those who preach tolerance and/or acceptance of gays are the ones outside the norm.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    Dadler, I'm sure you enjoy throwing in extraneous info about how stoopid evangelicals are, but it's rather beside the point of the article and the post. Come to think of it, most of the criticism wasn't really to the point, not just Dadler's. I tend to agree with Hanon, that once we start eliminating people from consideration for sins, where do we stop? I would note that it's somewhat different when there is additionally a doctrinal issue involved: not merely "I have sinned," but "I declare that this is not a sin." But let that pass. Hanon's point is fine. But the opposing argument is not without merit. A director might well refuse to cast OJ Simpson in a movie about domestic violence because his history might overwhelm the overall intent of the film. If a director did go forward with that casting, and groups objected to, criticised, or boycotted the movie we wouldn't find it odd. That casting a gay man does indeed make a statement about the relative acceptability of homosexuality seems incontestable to me. For me it would be a minor point, but I accept that it might be major to someone else. To engage in the hyperbole that these evangelicals don't like this because it might cause children to "renounce their heterosexuality" suggests to me that you are unable to think up a good argument against their actual position, so you make up something they didn't say that you can ridicule instead. They wish to teach that homosexuality is unacceptable. They find hiring an openly gay actor inconsistent with that view. They complain when someone else does it. I don't see anything illogical, illegal, or hypocritical in that. The arguments here seem to be of the school that "well, their view is wrong, and here are some other stupid things about them." Not your best work, team.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    Assistant Village Idiot-
    That casting a gay man does indeed make a statement about the relative acceptability of homosexuality seems incontestable to me.
    Actually you are wrong. If he portrayed a gay person and was gay your statement would be correct. Quaker in a Basement, as usual, expresses the hypocrisy elegantly, with the greatest economy of means:
    I don't understand. A gay actor pretended to be straight. Isn't that what they want?
    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    I don't understand. A gay actor pretended to be straight. Isn't that what they want?
    Indeed, you don't understand. Perhaps if you did, you'd have more compassion for them. "They" don't want gay actors, or anyone else, to pretend anything. To them, (afaik), they view homosexual acts as a sin, a sin some people allow themselves to succumb to. "They" don't want someone to pretend they don't want to engage in homosexual acts, they want them not to sin, that is, choose not to engage in homosexual acts. By the same token, they don't want people to succumb to the sins of theft, adultery or murder, for example, it is not their "want" for thieves, adulturers and murderers to pretend they're not so.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#30)
    by Kitt on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    Ah, Quaker...ya did it again.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:46:45 PM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one-Now I don't understand.
    "They" don't want gay actors, or anyone else, to pretend anything.
    So why did they hire actors? Don't actors act, or pretend to be someone else?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:01:12 PM EST
    Squeaky, I was responding to QUIB's comment which I believe was also referring to Evengelicals and homosexuality in general, and not only to actors and movies. But, on second thought, you may be right. My response was based on a double-entendre reading of QUIB's comment, ie., actor's "pretend," yes, but also a broader comment that the Evengelicals want "gays" to pretend they're "straight," ie., deny their "gayness." Gotta admit, I may have read into his statement something he didn't intend. If so, my appologies to Quaker.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#33)
    by Johnny on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:19:10 PM EST
    Well whoopdy-doo... I knew that sooner or later somebody would come flying to the defense of a group that is openly and aggressively waging a social war on a specific group of people. Nice. The anti-gay movement in this country is ridiculous-has any of the haters actually looked at what they want? No. They consult a book (which incidentally, has some not-so-good things to say about women) to determine what should be policy... Nice. Will someone please explain to me the reasoning behind the wrong-wingers crusade against the gay and lesbian community? (And spare the biblical quotes, that book is too rich in condemnation of entire classes and genders of people).

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#34)
    by Johnny on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:43:17 PM EST
    Nice...

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#35)
    by jen on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:15:44 PM EST
    " You never see much outrage about the casts of Christian films having adulterers, bearers of false witness, idolators, etc. After all, sin is sin, right? I mean, it's not like the Ten Commandments are ranked in order of severity; they're all supposed to count the same." a very interesting point...and certainly agreed (that sin is sin) it is like the article said: director jim hanon takes a correct view on the issue. we cannot play the judge and say his sin is any worse than anyone else's. Jesus Christ himself befriended adulterers, those who stole money, and people who were looked down upon by the supposedly religious pharisees. he called these "religious" men whitewashed tombs, snakes, and hypocrites. that is exactly the same thing I believe he would say in response to the "christians" who express hatred toward a gay actor in this film. I wish that the author could realize though that his own actions do not reflect the kind of open mindedness he seemingly is such a proponent of. his statement "gay-hating evangelicals usually make themselves look silly". it does not sound to me as though he has a great tolerance for this particular religion (or perhaps any other religion for that matter). I would hope ( and I will continue to pray) that his open mindedness would stem to the area of religion and that he might realize that even when a person believes such an amazing message of ...yes love and forgiveness...as Christians believe,they are still human, fallen, and therefore subject to the same temptations as anyone else. When they give in to that temptation (in this case to judge another person), unlike others, they represent their God (or rather, misrepresent him). I truly hope that the author also realizes that MANY people who claim to be christians are not and even the bible speaks to this. My conclusion is this: in order for a man to be considered truly great and a good leader must those who follow him never fail? no. of course not. anyone would tell you that for a man to be great his OWN actions must exhibit strength, character, courage, or some other virtue. It is the same with Jesus Christ. Before you criticize Christianity, truly research its beliefs, and the God after whom christians follow. obtain a mentality of open mindedness in regards to all areas in life if you are going to profess it in some.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#36)
    by jen on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:23:26 PM EST
    oh and johnny...I would love it if you could find the parts of the bible that are discriminatory against women and post them on here. and if anyone has a question regarding something I said I certainly do not mind a good healthy debate so feel free to dispute any of the material I have stated. I'll still be around to respond.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:43:09 PM EST
    jen-It is too hard to control a flock, and collect $$$, by promoting the open ended and difficult self reflective challenge you define as Christianity. Fear of the other, us against them, is an easy formula to ensure cohesion and control, oh and it keeps the donations flowing. Its business, big business. Turn a cheek only if it turns a buck. And the politicos love it because the 'religious' leaders get their sheep to vote in big blocks and they deliver big bucks. Your kind of Christianity is one that keeps one awake and alive; the one we see out there (and above) is truly the opiate of the masses meant to keep people asleep and under control.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:51:30 PM EST
    gee jen, let's start with genesis, and work our way forward, shall we? woman was made from a spare rib of adam's? geez, couldn't even be created in her own right, had to be made from spare parts. and so on, and so on, and so on. um, how do we know mel gibson isn't gay? someone have incontrovertible proof of that? not that i much care, but i have no idea whether he is or not, and neither does anyone else on this site. hmmmmm, let's see, ministers from a whole 100 churches, across the entire continental u.s., make a stink, and someone actually gives a rat's patoot? out of the hundred thousand odd churches that dot the countryside, 100 make a noise, and someone thinks this is newsworthy? must have really been a slow day! geez! i think not! these bozos don't even rate a teensy blip on the screen.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#39)
    by Johnny on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:59:41 PM EST
    Quick response: Leviticus Longer response... Genesis 3:16 Exodus 21:7-11 I Corinthians 11:8-9 I Corinthians 14:34-35 The gospel of Thomas, hidden lo these many years... ,A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas">Wiki Link The book of timothy has some dandies as well. General misygonistic verses: Mathew 25:1 1 John 2:13 (no mention of women) Ephesians 5:22-24 It goes on of course... Probably the only recurring theme throughout the bible given more attention than creating submissive women is the smote thy neighbor theme. Even Jesus talked about that.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#40)
    by jen on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:14:41 AM EST
    Wow, another jen HI JEN Paul had a few things to say about the role of women. The funny part is, since this movie is christians, it sanitizes the real story. Which means progressive christians have avoided it too. So.. who saw the movie?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#41)
    by jen on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:15:32 AM EST
    oops, "aimed at christians" I meant to say. No pun intended, of course

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:26:58 AM EST
    um, how do we know mel gibson isn't gay? someone have incontrovertible proof of that? not that i much care, but i have no idea hether he is or not, and neither does anyone else on this site.
    Exactly. We, and that includes TChris, don't know squat about Mel. Which is why the sneaky suggestion that he is gay by a fairly high-profile (among attorneys) attorney, could well be legally actionable as libel by Mel (if he had even an inkling that TChris and TL existed) although I'd suspect TChris is calculating and wily enough not to cross that line.. The sad part is, if Mel actually is gay, then we have TChris, a self-professed flaming liberal, trying to out him. That just doesn't seem like something a proper "progressive" should be doing...

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#43)
    by jen on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:33:52 AM EST
    now wait a minute... u said "Will someone please explain to me the reasoning behind the wrong-wingers crusade against the gay and lesbian community?" why didn't you mention the bisexual communities...you must not care about them?? or at least according to your logic, every time there is an omission of a group, it is equivalent to a degradation.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#44)
    by Johnny on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:47:27 AM EST
    now wait a minute... u said "Will someone please explain to me the reasoning behind the wrong-wingers crusade against the gay and lesbian community?" why didn't you mention the bisexual communities...you must not care about them?? or at least according to your logic, every time there is an omission of a group, it is equivalent to a degradation.
    Nice transposition of my statements... I did not mention lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transexual/transgendered, ergo I do not care about them. In addition, since my accidental omission is decidedly different from a purposeful omission for reasons of deliberate discrimination and/or ostracism... I fail to see how my accidental omission is equivalent to the churches, and the gov'ts, war against the GLBT groups. Any comment on the degradation women must undergo to live by the word?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:19:18 AM EST
    Wow, what a bizarre thread. If these folks don't want to take the chance of any gay people being star of a film they want to see, then I suggest 1) they learn the ability to read minds, and 2) they finance the movie themselves. Wacky, man. Just wacky. If God really thinks two men in love is a sin, an offense against his law, then He/She is a pretty unevolved diety. Which, I believe, is the case. A God created thousands of years ago, in books written by humans, and rewritten poorly by many more still to this day, has stopped growing. We grow, we change, but God -- as we fashioned him/her -- stays the same. Presents more than a few problems. It's like trying to play fantasy baseball with one of those Incan or Mayan or Aztec (I forget which) "ballplayers" who are trying to win their ancient game so they can cut out their opponents' heart or slice off his head. We'd have a, um, slight failure to communicate. Which we do. And not with God. With each other. Fin. Ack, but

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one-
    Which is why the sneaky suggestion that he is gay by a fairly high-profile (among attorneys) attorney, could well be legally actionable as libel by Mel
    Gee wiz sarc. I guess this comment shows the level of homphobia you walk around with every day. Implying or suggesting that a public figure is gay equals a libelous act. Wow!

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:59:30 AM EST
    Dadler, that's a really great post. The idea of static values dating from the Bible onward is indeed extremely weird, especially considering the fact that if today's Christian really believes in such staticity, then there are absolutely no Christians participating in the United States culture whatsoever. Lifestyle and culture just aren't on the same plane at all, and it's pretty comedic to see people in some quadrants operating as if its all the same, or even as it they want it to be (the same with how they pretend they want to emulate those who penned with Constitution, for that matter, as if any of us want to go back to the barbarisms, the outright bigotries, endemic to the most enlightened 18th century people). But then, Dadler my friend, isn't it ironic that we are having this conversation in the context of a larger thread about a movie sympathetically depicting missionaries? As if by now we haven't been thoroughly relieved of the idea that these "End of the Spear" people deserve our fond remembrance? See the Melville references I provide above for proof that even more than 150 years ago, some people already saw through the charade. It's all so stupid, the drooling bile that constitutes the "concerns" expressed by some on this thread and by the Right in general. Homophobia is only the tip of a much more grotesque iceberg known as popular "thought" and attitudes indulged by today's American.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    Squeaky "Actually, you are wrong..." Well gee, it's hard to refute that logic, chum. I don't know how folks stand up to your reasoning. Dadler, I think you just proved my point. You think their disapproval of gays is wrong, and from that conclude their other statements are illogical. Can anyone recommend a lefty blog where the reasoning is a little more rigorous?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:19:10 AM EST
    Squeaky, sigh, writing that someone is gay, and that person claims he's not, can very well be a libelous act and can be actionable. Try googling "Robbie Williams" or "Tom Cruise" along with "gay" and "libel." Please don't project your personal dificiencies onto me, or anyone else for that matter.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#50)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:33:17 AM EST
    Squeaky, sigh, writing that someone is gay, and that person claims he's not, can very well be a libelous act and can be actionable.
    Yes, which fact speaks volumes about the populace at large, doesn't it? I wonder how many such libel suits get filed in Wetsren Europe or Canada? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing its infinitessimal by comparison. America. Where the big three are indeed God guns and gays.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    s.u - Youre not kidding are you? That "action" you refer to would be tossed out faster than a Koufax high n' hard one (dont worry tough guy no queer reference intended). But, I think I know what you mean: the thought of Mel being gay (or being flogged for 45 min. ), is more than I could handle; I mean, who would be next Chuck Norris?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:39:42 AM EST
    glanton, Robbie Williams is a UK/Western Europe citizen. Although I couldn't agree with you more about the litigious nature of our society. Personally, I'd say the big three are God, guns and taxes, but that's just me...

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    When Paul deals with this issue, he bgins not with the particular mores or ethics or psychology of his culture. Instead he establishes a theological foundation for his discussion of sexuality. And because his starting point is theological, it is therefore transcultural- it speaks to every culture, without being tied to any one culture. Scripture is the arbiter over all cultural perpectives; and the scriptural model is disciplined fidelity in heterosexual marriage for those who are married, and disciplined chastity for those who are not.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    Jondee, I'm no lawyer, that's why I wrote
    the sneaky suggestion that he is gay by a fairly high-profile (among attorneys) attorney, could well be legally actionable as libel by Mel (if he had even an inkling that TChris and TL existed) although I'd suspect TChris is calculating and wily enough not to cross that line..
    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    Assistant Village Idiot, There is no RATIONAL basis for believing homosexuality is "wrong". There is prejudical basis. And anyone is free to believe such. Which these folks are. They're just getting an amount of criticism in return. Can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen. And I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of because gay this I conclude their opinion is illogical everywhere else. I laid out a pretty simple and rational opinion of God's evolution not quite keeping up with man's. You ignored it. Look, I'm a sort of an agnostic/mystic, and I came to such because of the realization that to be a rational creature in an unfathomably huge and irrational universe is a huge psychological burden for many people, and has been since we could manage the thought. And so humans created God to assauge that burden. But God hasn't changed an nth as much as people have. Sarc, Odd indeed that this thread started out on the missionary flick. It puts them in such a rosy light I can hardly believe there's anyone complaining.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    Oops, the last part of my last post was for GLANTON, not Sarc.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#57)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    sarcasmo: Thanks for the clarification re Williams. I am less appreciative, however, that you spin my comment, by way of your "agreement," as a tacit criticism of litigation, when you doubtless knew that wan't what I;m talking about. To spell it out: One indication of how screwed up Americans are is the fact that famous people and commoners alike feel compelled to react swiftly and aggressively to any suggestion that they are homosexual. Because, you know, of the pervasive bigotry. Re your taxation comment, I'll agree with you insofar as Americans will vote for Porky Pig if he promises to cut taxed, but at the same time, taxation isn't nearly so profitable a wedge issue with the people as God, guns, and gays.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    glanton, fair enough, I did spin your comment. My appologies.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    To spell it out: One indication of how screwed up Americans are is the fact that famous people and commoners alike feel compelled to react swiftly and aggressively to any suggestion that they are homosexual. Because, you know, of the pervasive bigotry.
    ...although, I'm not convinced that famous people and commoners alike would not, in general, react just as swiftly and aggressively to any suggestion that they be a thief, aldulterer, murderer, child abuser, bad actor, etc.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#60)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    ...although, I'm not convinced that famous people and commoners alike would not, in general, react just as swiftly and aggressively to any suggestion that they be a thief, aldulterer, murderer, child abuser, bad actor, etc.
    Jeez, sarcastic, you write stuff like this and then you bristle when others call you out for posting bigotry? If you do not see the bigoted nature of what you have written, well...ahem...cough...cough...oh well, I guess that makes you a typical American. Keep up the good work. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    I havnt been quite the same since I found out Rock Hudson was gay..

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:46:10 PM EST
    And btw I dont think there was any "sneaky suggestion" at all just some fear in you s.u. But, have no fear; the right is kicking some serious A in the middle east so youre all obviously NOT gay - obviously.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:55:24 PM EST
    glanton- I thought suo's last bit it rather amazing as well, but yes, typical. One is usually blind to one's own bigotry.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    It must be the bad actor comment that's got everyone riled up so. bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Some folks regard homosexual acts sinful, the same as theft, adultery and murder, for example. You certainly don't have to agree this this belief, and can certainly choose to be strongly partial to the group of those who also don't agree with this belief (as you have done in this thread and many, perhaps dozens, before it), and may certainly choose to be intolerant those who do have this belief (as you have been in this thread and many, perhaps dozens, before it) but that is the very definition of bigotry. Squeaky's comment was quite prescient:
    One is usually blind to one's own bigotry.
    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#65)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    Well, I knew that was coming. More and more predictable every day, these wingers. It's the ole you're a bigot if you won't tolerate bigotry routine. We saw it in the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s as well--people who rioghtfully slammed/made fun of/mocked the segregationists were themselves the intolerant jerks. Hey, segregation was just some peoples' way, right? How dare we criticize them for their way? Now here it is again, in living color, with the gay bashing. Condemning homosexuality is just the American way, right? If you disparage those who do it, you yourself are a bigot. Sarcastic, in short, feels that if you stand up against oppression then you yourself are violating oppressors' rights. Isn't that, incidentally, the whole "states' rights" argument, vis a vis abortion rights? "Tyranny" for thee droolers translates into "not lettin' us take care of these here fillies and fags the way we see fit." How very Townhall of you, sarcasmo. Of course, it's too elliptical, too Alice in Wonderland to be taken seriously by a reasonable person, yet still you people continue to push it as though it made sense. Fascinating. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    Yes, glanton, so very predictable, this is earily similar to our first conversation so many months ago - because you have the "right" beliefs, your bigotry/hate is justified.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#67)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:18:32 PM EST
    because you have the "right" beliefs, your bigotry/hate is justified.
    Sarcastic, that is exactle what they said, for example, to Branch Rickey when he was breaking the great Jackie Robinson into Major League Baseball. Rickey told Robinson, you do you're talking on the field, I'll take care of it off the field. And boy did he. He held multiple press conferences in which he tore into the idiots sending death threats, taunting Jackie at the games, and even the redneck pleysr in the league and even on the Dodgers who didn't want to share a field with him. Rickey, again, tore into them with a vengeance. And he was accused in the press on more than one occasion of exactly what you're imputing to me. "Well, that there Branch Rickey's got the right beliefs, so he can be a bigot and get away with it." Well, sorry buddy, it don't work that way. When your agenda is to criminalize, to separate, to facilitate a Laramie Rhetoric and keep that rhetoric as the norm; when the politicians you elect go on record publically lambasting entire groups of people because said groups don't fit into their view of how "things were in my daddy's day"; when you can't even watch a movie about murdering, pillaging missionaries (usually your idea of a hero) without agonizing over who the actor might be rolling in the hay with... well, then, sir, you are a hateful bigot. And no amount of spinning will change that. Jeez. Not to mention how sad it is that you people have nothing better to do than worry about who's sleeping with whom.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:31:16 PM EST
    Apropos Dadlers superb "original intent" (desert tribal survival) critque, the sainted Bill Buckley was at least honest enough to come right out and say it:"conservatives stand athwart history(reality)crying STOP!"

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    Rationalize your actions and beliefs however you like glanton. You know what the funny thing is, I personally couldn't care less about who sleeps with whom. But I can certainly understand the general viewpoint of those do who consider homosexual sex a sin. And I certainly understand that some can't wrap their heads around the concept that another person might actually believe that homosexual sex is a sin. My understanding is that these folks want to go to heaven and they want you and me to go to heaven too, and they don't think we can get there if we're sinners. If you were walking straight toward the edge of a cliff, wouldn't you want someone to warn you? I do believe, in general, that that's what they are trying to do. Whether you believe their beliefs are wrong or right.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:56:42 PM EST
    Johhny.. I have no idea why people respond to news like this by saying "Well, he is not representative of christianity". Because he's not.... that's why! There is always the lunatic fringe (on both sides) and for anyone to even take them serious, much less imply they are the norm, is just plain dumb. Enjoy them for the comic relief they bring and call it a day.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#71)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:59:06 PM EST
    gee sarcastic, where is that crystal ball of yours, when i want to invest? you take a comment, about mel gibson not being available, period, and add your own homophobic take to it. pretty classy guy. than, you assert, based on your homophobic interpretation of said comment, that mr. gibson might have a libel action against TC? whew, quite the ungainly circle you've drawn. you make the assertion about mr. gibson's sexual orientation, and then attribute it to TC. have you been taking those "RNC Talking Point classes on the net" again?

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    Please show me where I made any assertions about mr. gibson's. sexual orientation.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#73)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 03:12:16 PM EST
    sarcastic: All petty invesctive on both of our parts aside. During this conversation I have provided two historical issues involving race (segregation in general cociety, segregation involving race), and held them up as perfect analogues for the bigotry faced by homosexuals in Uhhhmerrakah today. Those who opposed segregation in both cases were called bigots of another stripe. We know how foolish those charges were. Same thing here, I suspect deep down you know it too. But you have, wisely if your object is to save face on this anonymous blog, chosen to ignore these analogues. :-0 Either way, slowly but surely, history moves against the "folks" you so righteously defend. You say they want to help me get to heaven. I say they want to run things, to force others to walk the arbitrary line to which they pay homage. But whether its either of these or (more likely) some combination of the two, the basic truth is I am not some empty vessel into which a message needs to be poured. I am not an object. Such is the problem with missionaries, here and abroad, since time immemorial: they come to your door not as conversationalists with an agent they respect (I'll talk to anyone who approaches me that way), but rather as carriers of some truth to be poured into waiting receptacles. It is disgusting enough, this objectification of the human being. But when they compound said disgustingness by emphasizing that aspect of their "news" which denigrates entire groups of people on the grounds of whom they love (read: homosexuals), then for me they descend into mere caricacure, no more worthy of respect than Porky Pig or those weasels who tried to arrest Roger Rabbit.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 03:33:08 PM EST
    My understanding is that these folks want to go to heaven and they want you and me to go to heaven too, and they don't think we can get there if we're sinners.
    I have never understood or believed this to be anything but self serving greed and hypocrisy. The ultimate irony is that once these folks decide that you are not buying into their racket they want you annihilated. I guess to burn in hell. Most other religions are tolerant of others, Christianity sure aint.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    glanton, I find myself repeating what I wrote before, but I suppose I must do so because you apparently you can't/won't accept what I wrote. Again, I personally don't think homosexual sex is a sin, nor do I especially care about who sleeps with whom. I do however understand the point of view of those who do. If you can find one instance of me saying that that point of view is the correct point of view, I'll happily accept with your characterization of me as their defender. Absent that, I'll characterize you and many others on this blog as being cut from the same cloth as GW after 9/11 - "You're either with us, or you're agin us."

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#76)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:22:06 PM EST
    sarcastic, Yes, it is true that you have not personally endorsed the rampant bigotry towards homosexuals that pervaeds America. But neither is it true that you speak out against it. Instead, you defend the bigotry as a "perspective." Which leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that you are heterosexual. Yes, like most Americans, it will only be when your personal arse is on the line, when it is your rights thast are threatened, that you will be willing to stand up and freakin say something. The great society of ME, long live Ronald Reagan's absentminded ghost and all of that. Some of us, however, can see past the ends of our own noses. Granted we do not comrpise a majority in this country; far from it. But whether you believe it or not, it is possible to take offense to the mistreatment of others. I guess its too much to ask of the typical straight white married American man with good health care to understand America's failures in the area of women's rights, gay rights, and health care (these issues of course very much intersect with our beat-on-the-chest-spit-tobacco-juice-into-the-cup-ooorah- foreign policy). Keep watching as others' rights erode. When they come for you, will will be there? But then, maybe they never will come for you, and you can remain smugly secure that this is such a great, tolerant, liberal nation with all its fair institutions. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    Yes, it is true that you have not personally endorsed the rampant bigotry towards homosexuals that pervaeds America. But neither is it true that you speak out against it.
    ...glanton
    Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
    ...GW Bush I think we've both wasted enough of TL bandwidth on this one, glanton.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#78)
    by glanton on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:49:26 PM EST
    It is cute, sarcastic, your little Bush gig that you have going. But I hope that you don't flatter yourself that you're holding up your end of a dialogue. You're making assertions, but not conversing. It's very Fox News. Well done. But now I think I understand you a little better. Maybe you tell youself, as they strip away the rights of Others in America, maybe you say this: "well, I'd better not condemn them. It would be partisan. And I'm sure they have their reasons." Man, Moussolini would have loooooved you.

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#79)
    by Johnny on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:53:50 PM EST
    Sarc, I understand that the christians want to condemn people to hell for being gay. That is not the issue. Comapring them to thieves etc is ludicrous. The "sins" you compare homosexuality (and I better throw lesbianism and bisexualism and transgenderism in case jen is reading this) to are crimes that involve a victim. Homosexualities only victims are the bruised egos and self-righteous condescension of christians. And yes, duly noted that you love gays and the rest of us appreciate that. Now go and vote for someone who is willing to stand up and say "I will no longer enact legislation that discriminates against gays for the same reason I would not support repealing a woman's right to vote!" BB- If it were not the very prominent members of christianity endorsing these points of view, I would believe that you are correct. However, we have literally millions of people in this country who consistently vote for candidates publically endorsed by homophobic christians. their power is great. They have lost their ability to subjugate women. They have lost their ability to burn people at the stake. They will not give this up...

    Re: Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical F (none / 0) (#80)
    by jen on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 11:56:09 AM EST
    johnny~ that was actually a very true point that you made...stating that the bible teaches the submission of women. that is, however very different from degradation of women, or women being ostracized. Please understand I am not arguing this because I am trying to be difficult, or because I want to prove you wrong. I just want to shed a little bit of light on the truth in this particular issue, and since you are on this politcally minded website I naturally assume that you can handle other people's opinions. In my opinion...women and men are different period. women are supposed to submit to men because generally speaking men are capable of being a protector, a decision maker, and provide strength among other reasons. it is not because christianity is anti woman but rather out of respect (like holding the door for a woman) etc

    Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical Film | 80 comments (80 topical)