Editor's note
By Daniel Gallagher
The following is a Guest Perspective from the Reverend Rob Patterson of Mount Pilot, North Carolina. For those of you who are not too familiar with the name Rob Patterson, the Reverend is the founder and CEO of the Citizens Rallying Against Progressive Policies,(or C*R*A*P*P*), a conservative (read "reactionary") front group dedicated to the destruction of democracy and the implementation of a Christian theocracy.
We realize that many of our readers may find the Reverend Patterson to be a bit extreme, but by the same token it must be admitted that his comments are perfectly in line with others of his kind have been saying about homosexuality and the gay community since mankind learned how to hate. In this regard he is in the league as the Pat Robertson, Alfred E. Newman, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, and the incomparable Fred Phelps. We realize that many of our readers will be offended by what the Reverend Patterson has to say, but in the interest of presenting both sides of the issue, we believe that we are serving the greater good by presenting the Reverend's opinions at this particular time in this particular forum.
MAYBERRY: SMALL TOWN PARADISE OR DEN OF INIQUITY?
by the Reverend Robb Patterson
As a young man growing up in the wilds of Arkansas, I never had an opportunity to watch the kind of depraved, network television programs that my hell bound classmates were watching on a regular basis. While my heathen friends and peers were watching mind altering programs like I Love Lucy and Captain Kangaroo, and I was watching Christian classics such as Davey and Goliath, and midnight reruns of Triumph of the Will and the inspirational Birth of a Nation .
Later, as the television networks gave us suggestive series titles such as The Dick Van Dyke Show, I stopped watching television altogether and concentrated on my Bible studies in a heartfelt effort to become the most narrowly educated man on the face of the planet. On many occasions, my devout, Christian compatriots have suggested there are many decent programs out there which might not be offensive to my sensibilities. One of the most frequently mentioned shows is a purported classic, the supposedly innocent Andy Griffith Show.
After a great deal of soul searching and heart felt prayer, I drove down to my local video store and checked out the entire canon of unedited broadcasts from this 'innocent" small town series.
And what I found horrified me. Perhaps because of their sinful, often Satanic public school educations, my of my so called comrades in Christ truly believed that the tiny village of Mayberry,North Carolina was a small town paradise, free of the cares and vices of the modern, post Christian era. But upon a closer examination I discovered--much to my horror--that the entire village was a den of iniquity, a demonic hell hole created by the Prince of Darkness to tempt and pervert innocent, unsuspecting minds.
Let us look at the evidence.
First and foremost, the tiny little berg of Mayberry is the modern day equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah. The incidents of homosexuality are obvious, and yet, for some bizarre, reason, supposedly educated human beings either cannot or will not see the truth.
Let us begin with Aunt Bea. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the village of Mayberry, Bea Taylor is an aunt to both, Sheriff Andrew (Andy) Taylor and Deputy Barney Fife, who, according to at least two episodes, is a cousin to his boss, Sheriff Taylor. We must therefore assume that Aunt Bea is an aunt to Deputy Fife as well. Aunt Bea, it must be remembered is a single woman who moved to Mayberry from her place of birth, Morgantown, West Virginia, to help Sheriff Taylor raise his only son, Opie. Throughout the entire series, Aunt Bea seldom showed an interest in another man. n two occasions did she reveal anything which even resembled a sexual fascination with a member of the opposite sex, and on both occasions she managed, quite conveniently to pass on something that resembled a normal relationship. Indeed, most of Aunt Bea's affection is directed towards her best friend, Clara (Johnson) Edwards. Despite an occasional quarrel over elderly single men, Aunt Bea and Mrs. Edwards seem to spend more time with each other, complaining about the daily difficulties of life in general, than they do jumping the bones eligible bachelors their own age. Am I the only one who finds this a tad suspicious? It seems to me that Aunt Bea's judgement is at best questionable. Why does a woman her age avoid, indeed resist, the normal human impulse to marry? Why does she spend so much time with Mrs. Edwards? In my humble opinion Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Edwards are a lesbian couple, remaining in the closet, but failing in their attempt to conceal their unnatural desires. WE all know how woman can be. The Bible tells us that they are the weaker, more gullible sex. Theologians tell us that a woman's vagina is a gateway to hell, that woman are little more than imperfect men in need of control and advice from their male superiors. Even in this regard Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Edwards have flaunted their unnatural desires in the face of morality and decency, frequently manipulating the men in their lives in the same deceptive manner in which Eve tempted and ultimately betrayed Adam. What else can you say about a couple of dried up old lesbians who tease on elderly bachelors.
Nor are Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Taylor the only perverts to walk the streets of Mayberry
A close look at the Darling Family reveals an obvious proclivity for interbreeding. For those of you who are not familiar with the Darling Family, this is the demented collection of semi-mute, emotionally repressed brothers whose collective IQs add up to approximately 17.26. The father--who has yet to be referred to as anything except Mister Darling--appears to be a likable but dull witted individual while his only daughter, Kathleen appears to suffer from an irrepressible case of nymphomania. Ultimately the question must be asked: What unusual coital practice can account for so much dysfunction within the same familial unit? The answer is obvious:
Interbreeding, incestuous relationships.
While we have no physical proof of the actual act, and therefore no proof as to the family members who were actually copulating with one another, the resulting genetic defects are obvious. The boys, while both, emotionally flat and intellectually stunted, are nevertheless musical savants. Not only are they gifted guitarists and banjoists, the few neighbors who they have not shot, beaten, or otherwise intimidated, maintain that Mister Darling and all of his sons are highly accomplished swinette players; a swinette being a string strung across a pig's rectum which the player plucks or strums with his teeth and/or lips. By the same standard, Kathleen--on those rare occasions when she isn't engaged in some form of sexual activity--has proven time and time again that she has a phenomenal talent for the recollection of lyrics and an equally phenomenal voice which, while untrained, nevertheless borders on the professional. We can appreciate the Darlings aptitude for music, but by the same standard we must also wonder about the children's family tree, whether we are talking about a multitude of branches or a single trunk. Regrettably attempts to perform a genetic analysis on the various members of the Darling clan have proven unsuccessful, resulting in the disappearance of the five different county nurses which have been dispatched to the Darling farm to obtain DNA samples, a situation which has prompted one individual, a certain Ernest T Bass to suggest that the Darling clan has been and may still be involved in Devil Worship and/or cannibalism.
Ernest's remarks about the religious affiliations in Mayberry are not to be taken lightly. The people of Mayberry are a superstitious lot. Many believe that seeing an owl in the daylight is a sign of bad luck. Deputy Fife has, on at least one occasion, consulted a deck of cards which serve the same purpose as the decidedly Satanic Tarot. By the same token Deputy Fife has also dressed up as a bride, disguised as the above mentioned Kathleen Darling, as a part of a mock marriage to Mister Bass (we do not know if the relationship was even consummated). Deputy Fife also believes in ghosts, as was demonstrated in the episode in which he and his boss, Sheriff Taylor, investigated a supposedly haunted house. On another occasion, the people of Mayberry assumed that one of their fellow citizens had been jinxed and ostracized him accordingly. In sharp contrast I can only recall a few episodes in which we saw the residents of Mayberry inside a church. This can only be explained by the fact that the residents are closet Satanists, appearing devout and righteous for select broadcasts of the show, but practicing their lustful, homosexual, Dark Arts in the secrecy of their own homes.
By now many of you are asking why I have linked the delicate topic of homosexuality to Satanic worship This, my friends, is because gay men and lesbian women are possessed by demons. Is it a coincidence that Deputy Fife looked better in that wedding dress than my wife does in her best formal? I think not. Something has gone very wrong -something along the lines of demonic possession--when a scrawny deputy like Barney Fife appears more feminine and more desirable than my beloved spouse in her $100,000 strapless ball gown.
In addition to sexual perversion, devil worship, and cannibalism, Mayberry has also been plagued by a serious drug and alcohol problem. One of the village residents, who is almost invariably referred to as merely "Otis," quite literally has his own, private cell at the tiny, two cell jail on Main Street. On many occasions I have watched on in pity and horror, while Otis staggered into the local police department/town jail, removed the keyring from its prominently located position, and quite literally let himself into his own cell. To his credit, Police Chief Deputy Barney Fife has made repeated attempts to reform this chronic alcoholic, on one occasion introducing the highly addicted Otis to the joys of fine art ( i.e. tile mosaics), but on each occasion Otis lapsed back into the old pattern of binge drinking and reappeared at his favorite haunt. Surprisingly, Sheriff Taylor, who the village looks up to as a source of moral leadership, seems disinterested in his friend's deteriorating condition, essentially turning the other way as Otis destroys himself both physically and spiritually via the demon rum. This strikes me as highly unusual. On the one hand Sheriff Taylor appears concerned--genuinely concerned--about his friend's well being. But how can a friend stand by and do nothing while a chronic alcoholic deteriorates on a daily basis? Why is the sheriff so determined to enable Otis in this ongoing attempt at self destruction?
In other areas, Sheriff Taylor has revealed a penchant for moral relativism, as he helped friends out of difficult situations. Many will remember the bizarre episode in which he helped Deputy Fife wiggle by the state height and weight requirements for small town deputies. Others may remember the time that the good Sheriff tricked a local farmer into allowing the farmer's daughter to wear perfume and makeup, hoping to marry the young girl off to the first suitor. Are these examples of morality or do they represent the kind of moral relativism that has become so accepted in the public arena today?
Moreover, Sheriff Taylor is a single father--a single father who has yet to show an interest in remarriage. Why? Why would a reasonably handsome man in his mid forties seem so reluctant to marry. We know that he dates Helen Krump, his son Opie's grade school teacher, but to the best of our knowledge, they have yet to engage in anything that resembles a normal, heterosexual relationship. Not that we're promoting premarital relations, that isn't Sheriff Taylor's behavior just a little suspicious? Why, after all did he spend so much time with Barney and so little time with Helen? What pray tell, was THAT all about? And then there's Barney. Why did he date Thelma Lou, a girl, by the way who had no last name, for all those years and then move away without marrying her? The same might be asked about Barney's replacement, Warren. Is there anyone out there who can remember a time when Warren dated a member of the opposite sex? What's going on in this town? What kind of strange and perverted activities are taking place in that jail anyhow?
And to make the situation even worse, Sheriff Taylor is little more than a local dictator of his own personal fiefdom. In the early years of the series, he at least had a mayor to contend with, but as the series dragged on and on and mercilessly on the mayor all but disappeared and Sheriff Taylor, who already had the powers of Sheriff and Justice of the Peace, assumed full mayoral powers as well. And when you consider the moral lethargy with which he ran the village as a whole you really have to wonder if that was the best thing for Mayberry and the viewing audience as well.
In closing, I would submit that Sheriff Talyor, Aunt Bea, and the other moral misfits who populate the modern day Gomorrah which is Mayberry, have not been proper roll models. Far from a sleepy little village, Mayberry is a den of iniquity, a nest of Satanic vipers and I would strongly encourage my congregation to write to their television stations and to the sponsors in an attempt to remove anything from the air with which I might disagree.
Yours truly,
The Wrong Reverend Robb Patterson
Editor's note.
Unless you watched THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW or reruns thereof as a child, this probably won't mean a lot to you. For those of you who did enjoy THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, please rest assured that I watched and enjoyed this comforting little show while I was growing up. It was one of the few programs that my homophobic, Southern Baptist Father considered "acceptable viewing." Cutting to the chase, I loved Mayberry. Aunt Bea was a genuine sweet heart; Barney was a lovable goofball, and Sheriff Taylor was the proverbial, loving father. In fact, almost everyone on that show, while occasionally quirky, was so sweet and so compassionate that I always knew in my heart of hearts that Mayberry was a Democratic oasis in a sea of Republican barbarism.
And while I'm at it, I'd like to thank my team mates for the thigh-slapping suggestion and early drafts which eventually became this post. I don't know what I enjoyed more--bashing the Republicans or reliving all those fine memories in Mayberry RFD
Daniel G
Daniel G
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Who are the Patriots? WE are the patriots
Well, it looks as if the pseudo-patriotic Republicans have found their scapegoats and divisive wedge issues for the 2006 Congressional Races:
* Racial hatred against people with brown skin
* Depriving gay and lesbian Americans of their right to form unions and form nurturing families
* Protecting the flag while the Republic for which it stands crumbles into the dust under the most corrupt, megalomaniacal leadership that this country has ever known.It really isn't much of a secret.
I am concerned about the often obscene manner in which the Bush Crime Family and it's repressive, theo-fascist backers have claimed exclusive ownership of American Patriotism--as if Jesus were A Republican, or as if the GOP owns a copyright on the word loyalty. Well friends and neighbors, this may come as a shock and a revelation to the increasingly despotic Republican Party, but there are better ways to express one's love of nation than offering blind support for an obviously dysfunctional leader whose primary goal is the acquisition of personal power at the expense of our Constitutional liberties.
At the risk of being labeled a traitor or a terrorist sympathizer, I would suggest that the American people are currently under attack by two sources of terrorism: the right wing Islamicists who want to create a global Islamic Empire, and the back-stabbing, right Wing Christian Fundamentalists who have no use for the Bill of Rights and who want to establish a global Christian Empire via the use of American military power. Both enemies are dangerous, both want to destroy everything good and decent for which this country stands. but we can exert a direct political influence here at home to free ourselves of the latter.
And that brings us to the purpose of this post.
It's time to stand up to these goons. The right wing reactionaries and would be theocrats who have been bellowing moronic terms such as "traitor" "unpatriotic," and "unamerican" are the real traitors. The totalitarians and hate-mongering racists who would use Hispanics and Gays as whipping boys for their hard line agenda are the real quislings. Those who would divert attention from the chaos and destruction that thisAdministration has created while it wrapped itself in a red, white and blue cloak of Christian hypocrisy are little more than modern day Benedict Arnolds who would destroy democracy for their own, perverted agenda.
WE are the patriots. WE are the ones who are opposed to nationalism and totalitarianism in the guise of Christianity. WE are the ones who are opposed to fascism in the guise of security. WE are the ones who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. WE are the ones who want to protect America from the rising tide of despotism which has become the Bush Administration and its repressive constituency of obsessive-compulsive religious fanatics. Those who who criticize the increasingly corrupt leadership of this particular regime are loyal, true-blue Americans. Those who sing the refrain of truth in a demented chorus of right wing propaganda and out right prevarications are the real patriots.
It's time to take back our Constitution. It's time to take back our country; to admit that the fraudulently elected Bush Administration, and its obsequious Republican boot-lickers are fifth column elements which have no interest in the United States of America beyond using the power and prestige of our once honorable nation for their own selfish ends.
It's time to admit that the Republican Revolution of 1994 was a political movement based not on American ideals, but on greed, ignorance, megalomania, and outright brutality; savagery at its worst. The time has come to speak truth to power, and the truth could not be more obvious.
Those of us on the left who have warning you about this regime?...
WE are the patriots.
* Racial hatred against people with brown skin
* Depriving gay and lesbian Americans of their right to form unions and form nurturing families
* Protecting the flag while the Republic for which it stands crumbles into the dust under the most corrupt, megalomaniacal leadership that this country has ever known.It really isn't much of a secret.
I am concerned about the often obscene manner in which the Bush Crime Family and it's repressive, theo-fascist backers have claimed exclusive ownership of American Patriotism--as if Jesus were A Republican, or as if the GOP owns a copyright on the word loyalty. Well friends and neighbors, this may come as a shock and a revelation to the increasingly despotic Republican Party, but there are better ways to express one's love of nation than offering blind support for an obviously dysfunctional leader whose primary goal is the acquisition of personal power at the expense of our Constitutional liberties.
At the risk of being labeled a traitor or a terrorist sympathizer, I would suggest that the American people are currently under attack by two sources of terrorism: the right wing Islamicists who want to create a global Islamic Empire, and the back-stabbing, right Wing Christian Fundamentalists who have no use for the Bill of Rights and who want to establish a global Christian Empire via the use of American military power. Both enemies are dangerous, both want to destroy everything good and decent for which this country stands. but we can exert a direct political influence here at home to free ourselves of the latter.
And that brings us to the purpose of this post.
It's time to stand up to these goons. The right wing reactionaries and would be theocrats who have been bellowing moronic terms such as "traitor" "unpatriotic," and "unamerican" are the real traitors. The totalitarians and hate-mongering racists who would use Hispanics and Gays as whipping boys for their hard line agenda are the real quislings. Those who would divert attention from the chaos and destruction that thisAdministration has created while it wrapped itself in a red, white and blue cloak of Christian hypocrisy are little more than modern day Benedict Arnolds who would destroy democracy for their own, perverted agenda.
WE are the patriots. WE are the ones who are opposed to nationalism and totalitarianism in the guise of Christianity. WE are the ones who are opposed to fascism in the guise of security. WE are the ones who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. WE are the ones who want to protect America from the rising tide of despotism which has become the Bush Administration and its repressive constituency of obsessive-compulsive religious fanatics. Those who who criticize the increasingly corrupt leadership of this particular regime are loyal, true-blue Americans. Those who sing the refrain of truth in a demented chorus of right wing propaganda and out right prevarications are the real patriots.
It's time to take back our Constitution. It's time to take back our country; to admit that the fraudulently elected Bush Administration, and its obsequious Republican boot-lickers are fifth column elements which have no interest in the United States of America beyond using the power and prestige of our once honorable nation for their own selfish ends.
It's time to admit that the Republican Revolution of 1994 was a political movement based not on American ideals, but on greed, ignorance, megalomania, and outright brutality; savagery at its worst. The time has come to speak truth to power, and the truth could not be more obvious.
Those of us on the left who have warning you about this regime?...
WE are the patriots.
Author's note. A slightly modified version of this post is cross published at our new auxilliary blog, WE are the Patriots.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
SUPPRESSING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE NAME OF RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY
From the front-line grabbing stories of riots of Muslims screaming for the deaths of Danish cartoonists responsible for the Muhammad cartoons, to world-wide calls for the ban of the supposedly blasphemous works of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, the world has had to deal with the repercussions of the fury of the religious-mad sections of both the Islamic and Christian realms.
While the Islamic counterparts tend to be more violent when it comes to blasphemous works, Christian fundamentalists are no less fervent in their crusades against the concept of liberal arts and freedom of expression. Time and again, we witness Christians witnessing their opinions against such works.
Of course, the conservatives will argue, that secular press and its inherents must respect the beliefs of the various religious sects.; that works of the nature pertaining to Satanism, blasphemy towards the various dieties, and others of the more violent and "deviant" nature should never taint mainstream channels of art and expression.
What these conservatives are essentially telling us is this: Freedom of expression of any nature must take into account of the sentiments of the various groups of people. In short, if you offend certain sensitivities, you or your works will be banned, regardless the consequences of banning books, or book burning (Death threats: in some cases, such as the Satanic Verses written by Salmon Rushdie, Muslims were so incensed that Ayatollah Khomeni issued a death sentence on his life).
A TOOTHLESS DRACULA???
Dracula: A comical figure draped in a red cape?
Now, imagine Bram Stoker, huddled in his home, on a raining, gloomy evening, trying to scribble ideas for his now-famous book, Dracula. Now, the very nature of Dracula could be deemed as bloody thirsty, evil and what-have-yous, and the occasional sacrifice of young, nubile women and all the violent stuff. Imagine, if there are taboos or laws that inhibit his ability to narrate his story. What would he make of his legendary, blood-thirsty monster? A toothless corpse with a crimson-coloured cape? Or a parody of Bugs Bunny, red eyes, white face without the fangs?
Truly, Dracula could very well turn out to be a box-office hit --- as a comedy, that is.
SHERLOCK HOLMES STORY, MINUS THE GORE
Narrating a murder case without the gore: Even the great detective can't figure this out.
Or try picturing this: A detective novel, minus the descriptions of a bloodied, murdered corpse.
The detective, Sherlock Holmes, is investigating the murder of some unknown street urchin; instead of mulling over the corpse and describing the corpse with his associate detective, he comes up with a more mundane, bland description of the crime scene. Wouldn't that dulled the reading experience of the reader, who deserves to be thrilled with every flip of each page?
BANNING THE BIBLE?
Bible: A violence-strewn book?
If violence is a probable, or an absolute criteria for banning books, shouldn't the bible be banned?
Besides tales of gory violence and incest, the book has nothing to offer besides nitpicking of few moral lessons, plus a whole bunch of irrelevant religious codes that would most likely be applicable in places like Afghanistan. Why not ban the bible instead?
WHITE-WASHING FACTS TO MAKE ARTICLES MORE PALATABLE
Slavery: The stuff of fiction. Naw. The Whites never had slaves....right...
Or the writings about 18th century racism, without actually describing actual slaves who were bought into the cruel, inhuman world of slavery by the white men, on the pretext of "protecting the sentiments of the coloured"?
Women of Islam: Well-treated, and well-covered too.
While the Islamic counterparts tend to be more violent when it comes to blasphemous works, Christian fundamentalists are no less fervent in their crusades against the concept of liberal arts and freedom of expression. Time and again, we witness Christians witnessing their opinions against such works.
Of course, the conservatives will argue, that secular press and its inherents must respect the beliefs of the various religious sects.; that works of the nature pertaining to Satanism, blasphemy towards the various dieties, and others of the more violent and "deviant" nature should never taint mainstream channels of art and expression.
What these conservatives are essentially telling us is this: Freedom of expression of any nature must take into account of the sentiments of the various groups of people. In short, if you offend certain sensitivities, you or your works will be banned, regardless the consequences of banning books, or book burning (Death threats: in some cases, such as the Satanic Verses written by Salmon Rushdie, Muslims were so incensed that Ayatollah Khomeni issued a death sentence on his life).
A TOOTHLESS DRACULA???
Dracula: A comical figure draped in a red cape?Now, imagine Bram Stoker, huddled in his home, on a raining, gloomy evening, trying to scribble ideas for his now-famous book, Dracula. Now, the very nature of Dracula could be deemed as bloody thirsty, evil and what-have-yous, and the occasional sacrifice of young, nubile women and all the violent stuff. Imagine, if there are taboos or laws that inhibit his ability to narrate his story. What would he make of his legendary, blood-thirsty monster? A toothless corpse with a crimson-coloured cape? Or a parody of Bugs Bunny, red eyes, white face without the fangs?
Truly, Dracula could very well turn out to be a box-office hit --- as a comedy, that is.
SHERLOCK HOLMES STORY, MINUS THE GORE
Narrating a murder case without the gore: Even the great detective can't figure this out.Or try picturing this: A detective novel, minus the descriptions of a bloodied, murdered corpse.
The detective, Sherlock Holmes, is investigating the murder of some unknown street urchin; instead of mulling over the corpse and describing the corpse with his associate detective, he comes up with a more mundane, bland description of the crime scene. Wouldn't that dulled the reading experience of the reader, who deserves to be thrilled with every flip of each page?
BANNING THE BIBLE?
Bible: A violence-strewn book?Besides tales of gory violence and incest, the book has nothing to offer besides nitpicking of few moral lessons, plus a whole bunch of irrelevant religious codes that would most likely be applicable in places like Afghanistan. Why not ban the bible instead?
WHITE-WASHING FACTS TO MAKE ARTICLES MORE PALATABLE
Slavery: The stuff of fiction. Naw. The Whites never had slaves....right...Or the writings about 18th century racism, without actually describing actual slaves who were bought into the cruel, inhuman world of slavery by the white men, on the pretext of "protecting the sentiments of the coloured"?
Women of Islam: Well-treated, and well-covered too.