It was announced last week that the “Looney Tunes” cartoons were receiving a progressive makeover, and Elmer Fudd, who is a hunter, would no longer use guns. Not to be outdone, Nickelodeon wants you to know that SpongeBob SquarePants might be gay.
Apparently, the anthropomorphic sea sponge of the massively popular children’s cartoon might have a sexual preference. In a tweet posted in honor of Pride Month, Nickelodeon announced that SpongeBob SquarePants is “celebrating #Pride with the LGBTQ+ community and their allies this month and every month.” . . .
This isn’t the first controversy over SpongeBob’s sexuality. In 2002 episode titled “Rock-a-Bye Bivalve,” SpongeBob and his best friend Patrick Star, a pink starfish who also lives in Bikini Bottom, co-parent an abandoned scallop.
Before he passed away from ALS in 2018, “SpongeBob SquarePants” creator Stephen Hillenburg said the talking sponge is “asexual” in a 2005 interview with People Magazine. (Read more from “Nickelodeon Suggests Popular Kids TV Character Is Gay” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/patrick-starfish-2062906_960_720.jpg627960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2020-06-14 20:36:372020-06-14 20:34:38Nickelodeon Suggests Popular Kids TV Character Is Gay
Editor’s note: The feds are taking an increasingly aggressive stance with respect to gun ownership by those with perceived “mental issues.” For example, this past summer it was announced that the Social Security Administration is developing a plan to report some Social Security beneficiaries to the federal background check system to prevent gun ownership by them. Gun rights groups estimate that over 4,000,000 Americans could be barred from gun ownership by this new approach.
Additionally, federal law prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone who is found to be “a mental defective.” See18 USC 922(g)(4). In view of recent developments like the frightening “study” below, it’s no stretch to imagine some time in the not-so-distant future when Christians and other traditionalists will be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
By Eric Metaxas. This summer, the Supreme Court narrowly redefined marriage and handed the gay-rights movement a major victory: full “equality” and recognition by the government. With that box checked, the gay-rights movement can now focus on its ultimate goal: silencing those who disagree. . .
In just thirty years, America went from a country where homosexuality was a diagnosable disorder to one where you can be fined for refusing to bake a gay “wedding” cake. Now things are going a step further. New research published in “The Journal of Sexual Medicine” suggests that homophobia, not homosexuality, is the psychological disorder.
“Live Science” reports that researchers at the University of Rome Tor Vergata asked 560 university students to report their feelings about homosexuality, then gave them a standard psychiatric evaluation.
Participants who exhibited what the researchers called “healthy attachment styles” tended to show less animosity toward homosexuals. They also showed more “mature coping mechanisms” in “scary or unpleasant situations,” and were generally less angry. But those who showed the highest animosity toward homosexuals exhibited a host of warning signs like inability to trust others, passive-aggressive behavior, and denial.
Lead researcher Emmanuele Jannini concluded, “After discussing for centuries if homosexuality is to be considered a disease, for the first time we demonstrated that the real disease to be cured is homophobia.” (Read more from “Think Gay Marriage is Wrong, You May be Mental” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-31 03:10:512016-04-11 10:56:41Think Gay Marriage is Wrong? Prepare to Lose Your Guns
In 2015 America, a remnant of faithful Christian pastors, not imams, are being targeted by gay activists. No Christian pastor I know has ever proclaimed or financially supported the beheading of anyone, let alone gays.
The “Gay mafia,” as Bill Maher calls them, are like fools flouting their own folly. They impose standards (that they don’t follow) solely on Christians through discriminatory legal measures — but completely ignore imams who advocate their death.
No gays are protesting, subpoenaing or demanding that Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) be arrested, tried, or deported.
He asserts:
“Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption … No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.
“There are many reasons why it is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality is dangerous for the health of the individuals and for the society. It is a main cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases … It is the most un-natural way of life. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life.”
Gay activists aren’t protesting ISNA, an organization directly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and lauded by former President Jimmy Carter.
Muslims who follow the Koran understand its words as literal, from Allah. The Koran states that those who act on same-sex attraction and behavior make a “god (ilah) of there own lusts,” reject Allah’s will, and practice “wickedness” (Koran 26.165-166; 27.055; 29.028-29).
There is no such thing as a gay Muslim. Nor is there any public acceptance for the gay lifestyle in any Muslim majority country — or in any Muslim neighborhood or no-go zone in a Muslim minority country.
According to sharia law, the sodomizer and the sodomized both deserve death. Likewise, the rules and punishment for zina (adultery) are applied to lesbians — death for married, lashes for unmarried.
It is common knowledge throughout the Muslim world that no one can be gay and follow Allah. It is also widely acknowledged that the “people of the book,” Jews and Christians — whose laws actually seek to safeguard human rights — must be killed.
Yet, no gays are protesting, subpoenaing, or asserting the arrest, for example of Imam Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi of Memphis, Tennessee, who publicly asserts: “Jews and Christians are filthy, their lives and property can be taken in jihad by the Muslims.”
Anyone who believes they are immune from the outworking of Islamic ideology does not understand it. Mr. Qadhi asserts, according to the Koran, everyone — not only in America — but worldwide, “must bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah” and because of this “principle of monotheism … the prophet has been commanded to do jihad.”
Likewise, Brooklyn, New York, Imam Tareq Yousef Al-Masri recently declared at the Oulel-Albab mosque, “We, the Muslims … the Muslims of the religious sector are time bombs.”
These imams are not alone.
According to the Mapping Sharia Project, 51 percent of mosques in America had “texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shari’a-based political order or advocated violent jihad; another 30 percent had texts that were moderately supportive of violence.” Distribution of anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks is documented, as are the Islamic centers that operate as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Imam advocacy for extermination of non-Muslims has existed in America for decades, yet these imams have not been deported, let alone investigated by the IRS or any other government organization for their alleged constitutional violations.
In 1999, Naqshbandi Sufi Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani testified to the U.S. State Department that 80 percent of mosques in America had “extremist leaders.” In 2006, Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom exposed widespread dissemination of hate ideology in literature and sermons by mosques nationwide. And in 2007, during the Holy Land Foundation trial, perhaps one of the most important documents discovered — the Muslim Brotherhood’s manifesto — revealed its “General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” to destroy it from within.
Gays’ civil rights, human rights, or even lives for that matter, are irrelevant to imams. If gays want to live, they should consider redirecting their vitriol toward imams who preach their death, and toward a silent — yet active — political and legal system perpetuating and enabling treasonous hate speech to their detriment. (This story originally appeared HERE, reposted with permission of the author)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-04-16 03:35:432015-04-16 03:35:43Gay Mafia Flouts Own PC folly [+video]
The New York Times offers a lead editorial today supporting the termination of Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran. The editorial argues that Cochran’s Christian beliefs about homosexuality are “homophobic,” “virulent anti-gay views.” It denies that Cochran’s firing has anything to do with religious liberty, but only with Chief Cochran’s failure to get permission to publish the book, commenting on his suspension, and exposing the city to lawsuits.
But is this really accurate? Do the editors really believe that Chief Cochran’s primary error was failing to get permission to publish the book? Mayor Kasim Reed, who fired Chief Cochran, first commented on the book in November. He made it plain that his main problem was with the message of the book, not with how it came about. Mayor Reed writes:
I was surprised and disappointed to learn of this book on Friday. I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community. I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration…
I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran’s book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the Administration’s work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all of her citizens – regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race and religious beliefs.
These comments make it clear that the offense was primarily the Christian views expressed in the book, not how the book came about. The mayor states plainly that the Chief’s Christian convictions are incompatible with being Chief. In fact, the Mayor says that his Christian views amount to “discrimination” against the LGBT community. The Mayor’s comments are a matter of public record. How then can the “paper of record” fail to see the religious liberty question at stake?
The Times editorial also acknowledges the fact that the Mayor’s own investigation turned up no evidence of discrimination against LGBT people on the Chief’s part. The Chief treated all his employees fairly, regardless of their sexuality. Nevertheless, the editorial says something quite stunning:
It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.
Did you get that? The editors at The New York Times think that it doesn’t matter that Chief Cochran treated all of his employees well. His views are so toxic that he has to be “held to a different standard”—apparently a standard that punishes city employees for their religious views.
The Times editorial is a case-study in missing the point. Chief Cochran’s book is not primarily about homosexuality. The offending remarks are only mentioned on a single page—a passing reference to what Christians have always believed about homosexuality. There’s no evidence the Chief shared his book to make a statement about homosexuality. Nor is there any evidence that he mistreated any of his employees. Nevertheless, the editors at The New York Times are treating him like Jim Crow.
Do we really want to treat Christians as if believing the Bible amounts to discrimination? Do we want to foster public institutions that prohibit convictional Christians from believing and expressing their views? If these issues aren’t religious liberty questions, then nothing is. The editors at the New York Times ought to be able to see that.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-01-15 00:48:112016-04-11 11:03:32If Atlanta Fire Chief’s Termination isn’t a Religious Liberty Case, Then Nothing is
The church needs to focus more on art and less on religion and converting people in an effort to become less “churchy,” according to Stanford University’s Dean for Religious Life, The Very Reverend Dr. Jane Shaw.
“I think people are always slightly surprised that I’m not very churchy as a person,” Shaw told the Palo Alto Online in an interview. “I don’t think church is to be more churchy. I think church is about, anyone should be welcome. I’m really interested in how you welcome many different kind of constituencies, certainly not convert them, not even necessarily to do religion all the time.”
Stanford announced that Shaw, 51, was to join the school’s Department of Religious Studies in July as a dean and professor of religious studies, moving to the school from Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. At Grace Cathedral, Shaw was not only the first woman to head the church, but the first openly lesbian dean.
Shaw, hailed as a “champion within the LGBT community” by the Palo Alto Online, was a founding member of the Chicago Consultation, a think tank made up of Anglican and Episcopal bishops, clergy, and lay people who support the full inclusion of LGBT people into the church and the worldwide Anglican Communion.
According to the university’s press release, Shaw is to “provide spiritual, religious and ethical leadership to the university community, serve as minister of Memorial Church and also teach undergraduates and graduate students as a professor of religious studies.” (Read more about the lesbian hired as dean HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2014-12-28 20:29:432014-12-28 20:29:43LGBT Activist, Lesbian Hired as the Dean for Religious Life at Stanford
Next week, fourth-grade students at Penn Valley Elementary School in the gilded Philadelphia suburb of Lower Merion will spend part of their school day watching and discussing a very clever piece of cinematic propaganda courtesy of organized homosexuality. The film is called That’s a Family!, and it is endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign along with other homosexual activist groups.
As a fellow practitioner of the occult arts of persuasion, I must confess my admiration for That’s a Family! The film clearly is a product of the institutional wing of the gay-rights movement, and the filmmaker’s earlier efforts include many examples of the Left’s garden-variety sex and sexuality obsessions: It’s Elementary — Talking about Gay Issues in School, One Wedding and a Revolution (“contains now-historic footage of the tearful exchange of vows between long-time lesbian activists Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon who, celebrating their 51st anniversary, were the first couple to tie the knot”), Straightlaced: How Gender’s Got Us All Tied Up. The ingenious thing about That’s a Family! is that it does not present itself as a straightforward piece of gay agitprop. Though the same-sex couples are clearly at the center of filmmaker Debra Chasnoff’s agenda, she deftly mixes them in with other kinds of “different” families: children with divorced parents, children being raised by guardians other than their parents, adopted children, etc. Crucially, there is a racial-ethnic angle: Families that speak Spanish at home and mixed-race families, here amusingly enough represented by an adorable little girl who explains: “My dad’s Chinese-American and my mom’s German-American. My parents aren’t the same race, but they can still be married,” a statement that obviously is not directed at the imaginary cabal of bigots protesting Sino-Germanic romances.
Which is to say, That’s a Family! is an extended exercise in intentionally begging the question: Moral reservations about homosexuality extending to questions related to marriage and childrearing are indistinguishable from prejudices against mixed-race marriages or discounting the value of adopted families. Question the gay-rights program and you may as well be a member of the Klan — and not the kind of Klansman that Democrats send to the Senate, either. The identification of moral objections to homosexuality with racism is the holy grail of gay-rights rhetoric. As I used to tell my persuasive-writing students, begging the question may be a logical fallacy, but it often is an extraordinarily effective rhetorical tool: Most people are not intellectually sophisticated enough to understand how they have been manipulated. (Me, cynical? In an age of “hope and change” political rhetoric, it is impossible to set the bar too low.)
Most newspaper-reading adult voters do not understand the logical fallacy of begging the question, and I am entirely confident that Lower Merion’s fourth-graders do not, either, high-achieving kids though they may be.
I lived for many years in Lower Merion, where I was the editor of the local newspaper. The township has government schools that are both excellent and shockingly expensive. (I was endlessly entertained by the fact that the local schools’ million-dollar boss styled himself: “Dr. Jamie P. Savedoff, Ph.D.” — Dr. and Ph.D., the guy’s got you coming and going.) Though once a Republican stronghold, the place is not exactly a hotbed of social conservatism, unless by conservatism you mean “serve from the left and clear from the right.” Nonetheless, there are a fair number of Catholics and a few of the old Main Line WASPs who may not be entirely on board with the mandatory celebration of homosexual parenting, and they must of course be suffocated by the very government agency into whose care they are compelled by law to entrust their children for more than a decade.
