Canberra’s Nutters Gather to Protest


The government in the Australian Capital Territory is about to pass legislation making it legal for same-sex couples to get married in the ACT.  It’s an interesting step for an Australian state to make, although the Federal Government may attempt to override the new laws through the courts.

Enter the ACL, those wacky christians issued a media release called “Statement by Abrahamic Faith Leaders of Canberra” – that’s a nice way of saying the Jews, Christians and the Muslims.

Below is a copy of a statement of faith by seven faith leaders here in Canberra that was released today ahead of the ACT Marriage Equality Bill that is expected to be debated tomorrow. Whilst not organised by the ACL, the ACL welcomes the statement by the group.

Goodness me, so the ACL wasn’t needed!  Shunned by their own faithful!

Seventy percent of Australians identify with an Abrahamic religion – Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Yes, 70% may identify, but that doesn’t mean that they all agree on everything.

As leaders of several of these faith traditions, we have gathered to share our concerns about the ACT Government’s proposed same sex marriage legislation.

These leaders do no represent the 70% by a long shot, trying to argue from authority that they simply don’t have.

We are concerned for the long-term risks of such a Bill for our society.

You are?  What are they?  Tell us what those long-term risks are?  I bet you can’t.

While affirming the inherent dignity of all human beings,

Except if you’re anything other than heterosexual.  You’d sooner sack anyone that isn’t just like you.  You’d sooner say that the love I have for my love llama is somehow second rate.  Some of you that have signed this media release think that gays should be stoned to death.  So much for dignity.

our faith traditions also affirm the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman as being for the good of the individual, the family and society.

Yes, I agree.  Marriage between a man and a woman is good for the individual, the family and society.  So is marriage between two people of the same sex.  Everyone should be able to get married. In your particular faith feel free to celebrate marriage in the way you want, and those that don’t believe as you can get married and celebrate in the way they like.

We invite the wider community to join with us in calling for the Bill to be subject to community consultation through the normal Legislative Assembly Committee process.

Oh yes, that’s it, it’s not enough that you think you represent 70%  of the population you now want the other 30% to join in and see the world your way.  Great way to show dignity to each human being.  And while you’re at it why don’t you call into question the legitimacy of the passage of the bill in the duly elected parliament of the ACT.  Find a way to delay it so you can start spreading more of your vile innuendo.

Imam Adama Konda, Canberra Islamic Centre

Islam – founded by a goat herder and child sex abuser.

Arnold Cummins, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Founded by a man who transcribed the holy book from brass tablets with magic glasses.  Both which then disappeared.

Pastor Sean Stanton, Australian Christian Churches, Canberra

Believe that the bible is accurate.

Bishop Trevor Edwards, Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn

Marriage is so important that the church was established so the King of England could have a divorce to marry another women.

Pastor BJ Hayes, Canberra National Adventist Church

Will throw you out of their church if you are gay.

Monsignor John Woods, Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn

Thinks that bread can turn into their god so you can eat him.

Rabbi Shmuel Feldman, Rabbi for Canberra and Region.

Should apologies for inflicting this bunch of nutters on the rest of the world.

Apparently they couldn’t find anyone from the Satanist Society.


Comments Off on Canberra’s Nutters Gather to Protest

Gay Marriage is Harmless, Unless you’re a Homophobic Bigoted christian.


The Australian “We hate the Gays” Christian Lobby has re-published a whole article on the question of whether same-sex marriage is harmless.  They got the article from News Weekly. You can’t access the article on News Weekly unless you sign up for an account and they want money for that.  News Weekly is run by the National Civic Council who among their aims have this:

  • Rigorous education which
    • Values the acquisition of knowledge as well as the processes of learning and promotes intellectual excellence and disciplines (such as history and philosophy) abandoned by influential educational theorists; and
    • Provides the base of knowledge necessary for every person to participate fully as a member of society.

They also have these rather silly statements:

  • The integrity of the individual, including full legal protection of the right to life for all human beings from fertilisation to natural death.
  • Judeo-Christian values which provide the cement to hold our society together in opposition to the prevailing view which rejects the concept of the common good and makes the difference between right and wrong, truth and falsehood, a matter of personal preference only rather than objective reality.
  • Divorce. Opposition to easy divorce laws.
  • The family. Support for policies which enhance intact families, rejection of lifestyles which undermine family values.

So it’s not hard to write them off as another bunch of christians fundamentalists.

Any way, on to the question of the day…


Good questions, lets see what

by Patrick J. Byrne (re-published with the permission of the author)

has to say on the subject.

Same-sex marriage fundamentally changes not only the legal definition of marriage, but all the social, educational, economic, legal and religious institutions that service and support marriage, family and children.

Really?  How do you figure that?  I’m pretty sure that couples wanting to get married and who are of the opposite sex will still be able to do that.  A fundamental change would mean that everyone would have to get married to something different, like a goat, or an alpaca.  Marriage Equality simply allows same-sex couples the right to marry.  You should really consider it a tweak.  I look forward to your reasoning as to how this ‘fundamental’ redefinition changes social, educational, economic, legal and religious institutions that ‘service’ and support marriage as it is.

Schools: If marriage is redefined in law, it would be legal to teach same-sex marriage, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual issues in schools. In fact, the courts may invoke anti-discrimination law to force these issues into schools.

gay-marriageI’m not at all sure what ‘legal to teach same-sex marriage’ is all about.  Just explain to me what teaching about same-sex marriage actually means, and why it would be a bad thing.  And believe it or not lots of places already have curriculums that include issues on sexuality and the sky is still in the sky.  Your claim that the courts may invoke a way to force the issues into schools is a bit of a furphy really.  I guess you really just mean into good christian schools.  And so what if schools do teach it?  Those schools no doubt have a gay population and their rights should surely be included and not excluded, after all your NCC actually wants rigorous education.

The Australian Education Union’s policy declares that “homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and intersex need to be normalised” in education.

You do know that being GLBTI is normal, right?  It’s not a surprise.  Refer to the rigorous eduction statement above.

In 2006, the NSW Attorney-General’s Department produced a Learn to Include: Teachers Manual for primary schools. It provides a range of resources for teaching about same-sex parents in primary schools.

Oh, I wonder if that’s legal.  I bet the AG knows a thing or two about the law.  There’s a certainly reality to the manual.  Whether you like it or not, same-sex couples have children and guess what, they send them to school.  So rather than have the teacher freeze in shock when discovering that one of  his students has two mums, a manual will show them the correct response.  You could always use the christian manual when dealing with gay parents and ask the child brings them into the playground during playtime so that they can be stoned to death.

Children: Same-sex marriage will greatly affect future children, denying many their birth right to their true biological identity.

Already many people go out of their way to discover who the donors are.  It’s utmost in the minds of many eager parents to actually keep track of the biological parents, and that’s just the straight people.  Sure, some parents like to hide this sort of facts, but they’re pretty rare.  I think most of us these days understand the need to know the history of our beginnings. As to the notion that some right is being denied, I’m not sure what right this is that you refer to or what it even means.

Not only will it result in more children being born of donor conception and surrogacy, but the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual (GLBT) lobby is campaigning to have the birth certificates of children adopted by same-sex couples to be changed to record the same-sex couple in place of the biological parents.

It won’t result in more children being born.  Gay people are already doing the children thing, they really are.  They achieve it in many ways, its true that it will make it easier, but I don’t expect to see a sudden burst of millions of children being born into same-sex families let alone somehow being denied something.

There’s no issue with a birth certificate reflecting the names of the parents, it prevents all sorts of misunderstandings.  There’s other ways to address the record keeping of the donors.  And seriously, names on a birth certificate is a reason to stop gay people from getting married?

The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended — in the interest of same-sex parents — that birth certificates should be open to recording any of the “birth mother, birth father, lesbian co-mother or gay co-father”

There you go, a way to record the relevant information on the birth certificate.  Unless you really have no ability to change your thinking and think that somehow a birth certificate with more than a few lines of text on it is really too hard to handle what exactly is the issue here?

 This stands in contrast to Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which says: “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.”

No it doesn’t contrast Article 7 at all, in fact it goes further to make sure that all the relevant information is recorded.  It’s also interesting to note that the word ‘parents’ doesn’t exclude same-sex couples.

While the GLBT lobby wants to replace biological parents’ names on birth certificates with the names of same-sex partners (“psychological” parents), there have been three inquiries into the rights of donor-conceived children to know their “biological” origins. These inquires were by: the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry (2011), the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) and the NSW Legislative Assembly (2012). 9, 10, 11.

All three inquiries recommended that donor-conceived children should have a right to access their biological mother/father.

Yes, that’s right.  It’s why we have inquiries.  You seem to be of the mistaken belief that somehow same-sex couples willingly want to hide the biological details of their children’s parentage.  I think you’re probably out of touch there.  In fact, lots of couples I know go to extraordinary lengths to include the biological parents in the lives of their children.  Sometimes the donor doesn’t want any involvement, sometimes they do.

Businesses will also be affected by same-sex marriage, particularly those associated with wedding services — photographers, caterers, function hire places — and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Same-sex marriage law greatly increases the reach of anti-discrimination law.

In the U.S. state of New Mexico, where same-sex marriage is legal, the state’s supreme court last month found photographer Elaine Huguenin guilty under the New Mexico Human Rights Act of refusing to provide her services to a lesbian couple’s wedding.

Two weeks after legislators in the U.S. state of Oregon passed a same-sex marriage law, a local maker of old-fashioned wedding trolleys was forced to shut down his business after being hounded by the GLBT lobby for refusing to supply a lesbian wedding function, according to the Baltimore Sun (December 25, 2012).

The paper noted, “Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost.”

In Europe, a draft piece of European Union law known as the Equal Treatment Directive will, if passed, drastically increase pressure on business, particularly in countries recognising same-sex marriage. It will force businesses to provide goods or services that contravene their consciences on threat of being hauled before the courts if they don’t.

So basically you’d be pleased if a business that thought black people should use the rear door to get into their shop is ok?  You would be happy for a business that believes a child with a disability is the result of the sins of her parents and therefore shouldn’t be served in a café?  It’s really easy, if businesses want to thrive they serve everyone.  It’s actually what they already do.  They don’t ask their customers if they’re divorced, a muslim, a jew, a christian or any other arbitrary system of discrimination, so why is it OK for a business to discriminate based on the sexuality of the customer?  Short answer, it isn’t.

Churches will gain only temporary exemptions from involvement in same-sex marriages, at best.

Churches already have a raft of ways of only marrying the people they want.  That won’t change.  The real question is how will a church refuse to marry a couple of their loyal members who are gay?  That will be interesting.  In any case, marriage is a civil right, not a religious right.  Maybe it’s time to take the act of marriage out of the churches.

The whole article is based on nothing at all.  It doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny.  Doesn’t matter how many footnotes you can stick in, a bit of common sense shows your article to be nothing more than more christian clap-trap that is still driven by the fear that the whole world will turn gay if you even consider that people like me are normal.

So after all that, to answer your question, is it harmless?  The answer is yes, you homophobic bigoted fuckwit.

Comments Off on Gay Marriage is Harmless, Unless you’re a Homophobic Bigoted christian.

The Militant HomoSexual Lobby are Coming to Get You


One of our great Uncle Billy’s best strategies is to make things up and pretend it’s the truth.

blah blah blah…

It has been a brilliant strategy and it has worked very well – not just with Communism and Islam, but with other radical revolutionary groups as well. And one of the most active of such groups today is the militant homosexual lobby. They have long known that to conquer the straight West, they must take over from within all the key institutions of power and influence.

Just who is the militant homosexual lobby?  How is it that they are so organised that they are out to conquer the straight west?  How can I get to be a member?  Let’s face it Billy, they exist in your mind only.  There is no cohesive group that you can call the militant homosexual lobby.   Most ‘lobby’ groups don’t even talk to each other let alone do any conquering together.

And they have certainly targeted the church big time. Indeed, this has been an openly stated goal of theirs for decades now. They know that if they can silence the churches, their job of bringing about the complete transformation of society in their radical image will be complete.

Oh please, no, let me re-word – oh for fuck sake.  You mean that you read in some book a long time ago that the author said this and that this somehow becomes the stated goal of a make-believe lobby group.

So the activists are working overtime to conquer the Christian church with their theological revisionism and bogus “gospel”. They want to get believers to doubt their own Bibles and long-standing Christian beliefs on this issue, and fully capitulate to their agenda of iniquity.

Who?  Which activists?  Are you suggesting that this is their job and that they’re working overtime to get it done before christmas?  Conquering is a pretty serious business you know.  They must have thousands of workers.  The church is so big, what with all those catholics and anglicans. I love the idea of an agenda of iniquity.  I’m going to write one down!

I have documented this time and time again, including in my detailed book, Strained Relations. Well, here we have another prime example of this. It is as mind-boggling as it is in your face: a real case of satanic subversion in operation.

Watch out – book plug! Then he gives us a ‘prime’ example.  This example shows that all activists want to dismantle the church!  And therefore the activist is satan.

As one article states, “Fifty hand-picked Christians were part of a seminal conference last week planned by Matthew Vines, a 23-year-old gay Christian who believes Scripture allows for monogamous homosexual activity, in an effort to spread the idea in the American church over the next decade.

Oh blah blah blah.  Some silly gay guy who wants to still believe in god is trying to convince 50 christians that he’s right.  50.  Therefore, according to Billy the militant homosexual lobby is winning, just another few billion christians to go.  This may take a while, best make a coffee and eat a biscuit.

Wow. Usually Satan does his work of deception and propaganda in a much more undercover fashion. Rarely do we get such a blatant and public disclosure of what the enemies of the church are seeking to do. So you don’t have to take my word for it any longer.

Your word?  You mean your misguided interpretation of unconnected events to draw an impossible conclusion that aligns with your bigoted view of gay people.

 Here once again the homosexual activists are telling us in their own words that they are targeting the churches, seeking to sabotage the very gospel of God and replace it with their own sodomite gospel. They are not even being coy about this any longer, but are now arrogantly telling the world their plans of destroying the Christian church.

See – that’s your misguided interpretation.  Let me correct this for you Billy:  “Here you have one gay man telling 50 hand-picked christians that being gay is ok.”  You do know Billy that despite all you say, many many people in the world don’t believe in your god and those who may share the same fucked up religious virus as you probably don’t have the same strain.


More blah blah blah…So we should be expecting such attacks from the enemy. Satan will never cease in his efforts to thwart the gospel, mangle the truth, deceive God’s people, and destroy the faith. That is his primary task, and he certainly has here at least 50 useful idiots doing his very bidding.

Seriously Billy, to suggest that the ultimate evil (in your mind) is driving people to stand up for their rights and believe what they want, is by far the most disgusting and pig-headed arrogant attitude I’ve ever seen.

You by association are suggesting that 50 people and one gay man are doing grave evil based on nothing more than your own crackpot notion that a non-existent group of militant homosexuals are trying to overthrow the church.

Time for a nice hot cup of tea and a Bex Uncle Billy.

Comments Off on The Militant HomoSexual Lobby are Coming to Get You

Michalik is an Arsehole


The attitudes of the hierarchy in the catholic church won’t change any time soon – you can have as many pope Franks as you like, they’re still a bunch of arseholes.

THE top cleric in Poland’s Roman Catholic church has said parents share the blame for certain cases of pedophilia, including those involving Catholic priests.

Share the blame for kiddie fucking?  This top cleric who probably likes to be addressed as “Your Grace”  wants to share the blame?  Pardon me while I feel sick and lick the shit from my fur.

“Many of these cases of (sexual) molestation could be avoided given a healthy relationship between parents,” Archbishop Jozef Michalik, head of Poland’s Episcopate told the Polish PAP news agency in Warsaw.

All of these cases could be avoided if priests knew how to behave.  Why would you try to shift the blame to relationships between parents?  In typical fashion, rather than look at his own guilt in any of this, yet another bishops seeks to blame the victim.

“We often hear that this inappropriate attitude (pedophilia), or abuse, manifests itself when a child is looking for love,” Archbishop Michalik said.

Who describes raping kids as inappropriate attitude?  I can only think something was lost in the translation.  Linking the child looking for love is akin to saying that the child was a willing participant.  I wouldn’t at all be surprised if he said something along the lines of “she was begging for it” when dealing with rape.

“It (the child) clings, it searches. It gets lost itself and then draws another person into this”, Archbishop Michalik said.

So now it’s the child’s fault for drawing in another person.  The child, if you remember, is the one that is raped by a grown man.  This graceless catholic nitwit is actually suggesting that a child attracts a child abuser.  Clearly the child is to blame as it’s lost.  Forget that the priest is out there hunting for his next victim and takes advantage of a child.  Uses his position of authority to abuse his victim and then uses that same authority to threaten the child into silence.

“How many wounds are their in children’s hearts, in children’s lives, when their parents go their separate ways,” he told the PAP.

“Today nobody talks about divorce doing great harm to a child. It’s obvious that sex abuse does great harm, one can’t forget about it, but it’s not the only thing” causing harm, he added.

bishopinhatSure, divorce is not nice for a child who is needing security and love of her parents, but to try to divert the blame to parents and the child instead of focussing on the real perpetrators of crime is reprehensible.

The people to blame for sexual abuse is the abuser.  Those that were aware of the abuse and do nothing, you know, cover it up or move the abuser are to blame.  Those who are apologist for the abusers are to blame.  The last person who has any fault at all is the child.

Grow some balls bishop, take some responsibility for your part in the whole messy affair.

You are an arsehole.



Nasty Attacks on Other Persons!


You have to love it when in one sentence our old mate Great Uncle Billy the Mule Faced Bigot can sum himself up so well.

The more controversial an issue, the more likely that common sense, rationality, and sound analysis will go right out the window.

And in the very next sentence I can’t help but feel like he’s taking the piss out of everyone who he disagrees with.

 Instead, knee-jerk reactions, emotionalism, logical fallacies, and nasty attacks on the other person will become the order of the day.

How strange he doesn’t see the irony of that.

Nasty attacks in this blog alone:

  • fellow Christians who seem to feel they must check their brains in at the door
  • If you want to see hordes of mindless and reactive antagonists come out in droves
  • I have already written about one lunar lefty who is about as perfect a candidate for the gold medal in moonbattery
  • I speak to her moral and mental meltdown
  • Well our pro-death host is at it again it seems.
  • It seems the more moonbeamish they can get, the better.

So you see, Billy has no regard for others who don’t agree with his particular infection of god, let alone atheists or the poor of sodomites.

And just so we’re clear, I’m not pretending that there aren’t knee-jerk reactions, emotionalism and logical fallacies in my writings, I’m pretty sure however that I’m not guilty of nasty personal attacks.  As god is my witness.



Comments Off on Nasty Attacks on Other Persons!

Learning to Turn The Other Cheek with Great Sage Billy M


As with any worthwhile worldview, there should be a measure of coherence and internal consistency. For example, there should not be glaring contradictions or a woeful disconnect between what you claim to believe and what you actually do.

A comment from Muehlenberg that sounds quite promising. “No glaring contradictions.” he says.  This one should be good!

It is not just a question of one’s walk matching one’s talk, but of having a worldview – in this case, a Christian worldview – which covers all aspects of life, and has a consistent and uniform approach to things. Biblical Christianity is, among other things, a full-fledged worldview, and it should be one which is cohesive and non-contradictory.

Oh, it seems to have come unstuck already. Christianity is anything but cohesive and non-contradictory.  It has unicorns for a start.  Oh, dragons, giants and talking donkeys.  It suggests stoning and loving everyone.  And you can’t look at the chrisitans without noticing that there are so many of them under different banners.  If there is but one truth why are there so many denominations?

For example, a person claims to be a follower of Jesus, yet:

-insists that obedience to his clear commands is an optional extra;
-refuses to agree with God about His purposes for human sexuality;
-votes for political parties which are committed to death and reject the sanctity of human life;
-lives in known and unconfessed sin; etc.

Hang on a minute, this is interesting list that we’ve been provided with by our Great Sage Billy M (GSBM).  These are the very things that form the basis of his ranting blog.

Let me show you:

  • insists that obedience to his clear commands is an optional extra;

GSBM wants you do to what he thinks the world-view of his holy book is, that is you should be obedient to him and him alone.  Remember only GSBM has the truth.

  • refuses to agree with God about His purposes for human sexuality;

GSBM wants you to hate the gays and only put your wandering genitals in places acceptable to him and him alone.  You must not refuse to agree with him!

  • votes for political parties which are committed to death and reject the sanctity of human life;

GSBM wants there to be no abortion ever.  Not only are you not to have an abortion but you have no right to object.  Anyone who votes Labor or Greens is demanding abortion and you have no right to vote for anyone who doesn’t agree with GSBM.

  • lives in known and unconfessed sin; etc.

You have to get married.  No shacking up and no orgies.  And just in case he has forgotten anything he’s covered it with an etc.

These are fairly obvious examples of a major disconnect between one’s profession of faith, and what one actually does.

It’s an interesting list, but when it comes to major disconnect between faith and GSBM what about these ones?

  • Love one another as I have loved you
  • Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
  • Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them
  • but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Unlike GSBM list, my list is actual words from the bible, not a personal interpretation designed to fit my own personal agenda… ok, ok, it is to fit my own personal agenda.  You see that’s what the bible is for, cherry-picking the bits to allow you to behave the way you want with little regard for everything else in the book.  It’s really easy to take a bible and your own personal agenda and make the bible match and then claim that you have the truth.  This is the only way that you can have this attitude:

 there should not be glaring contradictions or a woeful disconnect between what you claim to believe and what you actually do.


You can only avoid the glaring contradictions when you have a woeful disconnect.  It’s really no surprise that GSBM leaves out all the good bits and uses his blog not to focus on the good things of his faith but to focus on the negative.

It fits in with his world-view that there is a spiritual war going on and he is a warrior.  Armed with the bible and a crucifix.

Time for a spanking GSBM – get those cheeks out for turning.




The Australian Christians lack respect for our institutions


Australian Christian Party has been bobbing around a bit hoping to win a few seats at the next election – I wrote about them here.  On their Facebook page they posted this comment, let me just pull this apart a bit for you:

When Ed Husic was sworn in to parliament the regular options to do so on a Bible or with an affirmation – representative of our Judeo-Christian and secular heritage

Well no, it’s not true.  The bible or the affirmation are a personal choice of the person taking the oath.  It is not representative of our heritage.  We really should just leave it there as already we know where  this lot is heading.

– were dismissed and the incorporation of the Quran

Nothing was dismissed.  There is nothing to say a quran can’t be used.  Husic could have sworn on a bible if he really wanted to.

was celebrated by our Governor-General as ‘a great day for multiculturalism’.

Well it is.  How terrific that a bunch of citizens have been able to elect a representative that they want.  Isn’t that the whole idea of democracy?

Those who were upset at this have been deemed ‘racist’.

Well yes, I’m not surprised. If you think about why you are upset it’s because your precious bible was replaced with another book from another culture that you hate. I can see how that view is arrived at but I guess ‘racist’ doesn’t really describe what’s going on here.

The Bible is engraved in our culture; in our parliamentary prayers, speeches and even on the floors of our parliament.

So is the Chinese culture that’s been here since  before federation  or the camels brought over with the first Afghans to explore the interior. They’ve been part of our culture too. Let’s not forget the indigenous culture that isn’t jewish, christian or islamic.  It’s been here for well over 40,000 years.  How crazy do you have to be to claim some special status.  Not so much crazy as… arrogant.

It is engraved on the headstones of our forebears and finds its way into our common language.

Common language?  You ever heard “the die has been cast” Greek from 49BC, or this old saying, “Respect yourself and others will respect you.”  Perhaps even some of our forebears have muttered Eureka! Another word from ancient Greece and all pre-christian.  You christians can’t lay claim to a common language any more than you can disrespect all the dead who have come from all nations on earth and are buried under their own headstone, graved in languages that have no judeo-christian origin. Just what planet are you living on?

Even the irreligious among us know the Golden Rule and what it means to bear our cross.

Is that the golden rule developed by Confucius from China, maybe the Babylonians or the Indians?  I hope you don’t think jesus thought it up all by himself. But I’ll give you the bearing of the cross thingy – you can have that.  It’s a horrible image of a man being tortured, dying, bleeding, broken, not the sort of thing you’d want to expose the kiddies to.

But for those who reject its core message, there is freedom to do so and our parliament doesn’t insist on respect of the Bible or its message for elected representatives; it accommodates difference with an option of affirmation.

And apparently the koran. Because as you rightly suggest, there is no insistence to use the bible.

That’s Australian culture and it has produced a freer, happier democracy than is evidenced in many other cultures. What it has produced, freedom of conscience, belief, association and equality before the law is why people come here.

That’s right, that’s why we have muslims. Freedom to be who you want.

With all the cultural sensitivity being promoted in Australia, have the people’s elected representatives ever considered that a little sensitivity towards Australian culture may be warranted?

Of course, you may notice that Husic has been sent to the parliament by this wonderful quaint little thing we call an election. He did it of his own free will. Remind me again about a little sensitivity towards our Australian culture.

While the Bible or affirmation have been used as validation for commitment to the rule of law and serving Australians, the Quran is the source of Islamic sharia law;

Koran_cover_calligraphyThe bible that you so proudly hold up is a very vile book. You know it even calls for the stoning of adulterers, homosexuals and sheep buggerers.  It may have escaped your notice, but in Australia we don’t actually stone people, even though its written in your precious book, and look we don’t allow muslims to stone people either.  Go figure.

something that has produced very different outcomes in societies plagued by human rights abuse and totalitarianism.

Oh right, like the christians in Africa wanting to kill the gays? Or those in Central America that oppose abortion and would sooner that their young people die from pregnancy complications.

Perhaps Australians who desire to see a commitment to freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are not racist in their expectation that elected representatives uphold the options given in recognition of Australian culture.

This sort of suggests that somehow Husic doesn’t have a commitment to those key things of our democracy.  You seem to be suggesting that a fellow Australian, because that’s what Husic is, is somehow not worthy to hold the office that he has been duly appointed to.  This rather vague notion that he isn’t capable of that because he is of muslim background seems to be racist to me.  Not racist as in you hate black people, but racist in that you hate anyone from a different background.  Perhaps your more xenophobic, although that’s more hatred for strangers or foreigners and Husic is not either of those to his electorate.  So you tell me, what word would suit your rather narrow view of his abilities?  Redneck perhaps?

Or will we soon see people sworn in with the Kama Sutra, Tipitaka, Rig-Veda, or the Zend-Avesta?

And so what if they do? We ask that they take their oath of office and provide a way of swearing-in that oath. For some that’s to hold the bible, others it’s by affirmation or the koran, it should seem self-evident that you need to do that on something has a deep meaning to you.

If I had my way we wouldn’t use any of this fancy rubbish. The bible swearing didn’t make Howard a good PM, he still lied and it certainly didn’t stop Rudd from doing unto others as he had done unto him or turn the other cheek or some such rubbish. Oh, I know, any eye for an eye, a top job for a top job.

In fact the whole oath thing is a bit of a silly concept. It gets changed all the time depending on who’s in power. Kevin Rudd said in 2007 (that’s the first time)

I, Kevin Rudd, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people in the office of Prime Minister. So help me God!

Then Julia came swanning in on her new found top job she said:

I, Julia Gillard, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia in the office of Prime Minister.

Then the really interesting bit is this observation:

There is … no constitutional or statutory prescription of the oath of allegiance to be taken by Ministers of the Crown, and its use for this purpose was governed by nothing more than custom and tradition.

You’ll find all this wonderful delightful information here on the Australian Parliament Website.

So while this Australian Christians are silly enough to think that the oath of office is important, the reality is that it’s not.  In just over 100 years of Federation it’s been changed and twisted and pulled this way and that.  It’s not written in the constitution and it’s not reflective of the judeo -christian heritage.

This is nothing more than an attempt to drive fear and loathing of a group of people into the hearts of Australians, trying to undermine the multi-cultural society in which we peacefully live.

Feel free to share this blog on their Facebook!  They’d love the feedback. Oh and be sure to read the comments if you have any doubts about the fundamentalist nature of these rednecks.



France is at War with the militants homosexualists!



Oh goodness me!  France has allowed teh gays to get teh marriage.  You know what that means?  Let’s ask Grandpa Uncle Billy:

If you want to know what the end of freedom looks like, simply look at France. With the ruling elites aligning themselves with the radical homosexualist agenda, they have declared war on their own citizens. Things are very dark right now in France, all because the militants have gotten in bed with the powers that be.

It sounds really really bad.  Millions being thrown into prison, not a safe place to go at all!  All those people being deprived of their freedom!  There’s a war going on, the government is locking them all up!

“There is now a first victim to deplore. His name is Nicolas, a 23 year old student from Angers, who was arrested while peacefully protesting against the absurd re-definition of marriage and family by his country’s government. He has now been sentenced to one month of imprisonment for ‘rebellion’.”

“Rebellion.” Did you get that? All dictatorships of course hate any form of resistance and disagreement to the state. He continues, “This judgment apparently is intended as a clear message to all citizens that still dare to oppose the new gay-fascism: we are not going to listen to you, nor engage in any rational argument about the meaning of marriage and the family, but we will simply put you in jail. Dissident opinions will be silenced at all costs.

Wait on a minute… first victim?  I can see why Grandpa Uncle see this is a dark period.  Of all the protests a person is locked up!  There’s so much to worry about.  There must be millions more waiting…. so, let’s just test how this peaceful protester, Nicolas Bernard-Buss ended up doing two months for rebellion.

Firstly, the word rebellion and the offence translated from this website:

Is an act of rebellion the violent resistance to a person holding public authority or discharging a public service mission acting in the exercise of its functions, to law enforcement, the orders of the public authority, decisions or judicial warrants.

So, for his peaceful protest he was charged with violent resistance.   He probably threw a few punches.

What else about our new peaceful protester against the militant gay lobby?

It seems this (translated from French):

The militant anti-gay marriage movement founder part of “watchers” was sentenced Wednesday, June 19 by the 16 th of Paris criminal court to four months in prison, two suspended for rebellion and provision of an imaginary identity, and a fine of 1,000 euros for denial of his DNA and fingerprints.

So the peaceful protester was violent, gave a false identity and refused to provide his DNA and fingerprints and he’s described as militant.  A militant peaceful protest I guess Grandpa?

Billy Billy Billy.

Young Nicolas is now in prison for standing up for what is right. You may well be next.

Well no, he’s been locked up because he gave a false name, refused to provide his fingerprints and something about violence.      Millions of cases are no doubt waiting to be tried and the French government are busy building new prisons to house all those charged with ‘peaceful’ rebellion and France with be a homosexual paradise.

But I guess the truth doesn’t work too well for you does it Billy.


1 Comment

Grossman asks the questions

Miriam Grossman is an MD her little catch phrase is “100% MD, 0% PC.”  Nice.

She’s a nutter.

bioI’ve written about her before.  But pretty well she thinks it’s her job to take vulnerable, questioning young people and turn them into heterosexuals.  She thinks it’s her job to deny that teenagers should have sex and that the only place to wave people pokers around is in the confines of a marriage.

In one of her latest posts she asks three questions of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), an organisation that is composed of 60,000 primary care paediatricians, paediatric medical subspecialists and paediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.

Fair enough that our non-PC MD would want to ask some questions about sexuality and gender identity when dealing with young people.  The AAP has just released an updated policy statement on the care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth.  Read about it here.

Our good MD asks her questions:

You state that a teen who questions if he is male or female, or who wants his genitalia removed, is “normal, just different.”

Let’s stop you there. Here’s what they say under their recommendations in their policy document:

Pediatricians should be available to answer questions, to correct misinformation, and to provide the context that being LGBTQ is normal, just different.

When it comes to having your bits removed it’s not as easy as fronting up to the doctor and saying I want my junk cut off, in fact they say this:

Supportive counseling is paramount to assist the teenager with any dysphoria and to explore gender roles before altering the body. The therapy consists of potentially delaying puberty with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, then use of hormonal therapy, and finally surgery.

And they footnote their recommendation with a reference to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.  So I guess you’re statement is right, normal, just different, but they need to correct misinformation.  It’s the responsible thing to do.

That was just the opening sentence, now to the first question:

Given the physical differences between male and female are more substantial than between different races, if an African American teen is convinced she is really Caucasian, is she also “normal, just different?” Should her pediatrician affirm her belief, and support her wish for facial surgery and skin bleaching?

I think you’ll find that this isn’t a problem anywhere near the same as sexual identity.   Nowhere do we find a family of white people saying to their children, “don’t you grow up black.  We’ll disown you.”  Nowhere do you hear, “well ok, if you want to marry a black she’ll need to have her face bleached.  We’ll lend you the money.”  And tell me Dr. MD with 0PC, how does a white woman come up with an idea that a teenage black teen wants to be white?

On to question two.

2. If my son thinks he’s a girl, you recommend I find a therapist who will respect and affirm his belief.

But if my son is attracted to boys, and his urges feel foreign and distressing, you advise me to find a therapist who will tell him “this is who you are, accept it.”

Honestly, does that make sense?

I couldn’t find the quote “this is who you are, accept it” anywhere in the documentation.  Perhaps you’re just making a quote up?  What I do find are words like this:

Homophobia and heterosexism may damage the emerging self-image of an LGBTQ adolescent.  Homophobia perceived by LGBTQ youth may lead to self-destructive behaviors

I think it may be best to discover why his urges feel foreign and distressing.

And this:

Another critically important role of the pediatrician is to assist parents of sexual minority youth. Pediatricians should acknowledge the parents’ feelings but should provide information and support for the adolescent who has disclosed. Parents’ reactions and attitudes may adjust over time.


Many adolescents struggle with their sexual attractions and identity formation, and some may be referred to as “questioning.”


If a pediatrician does not feel competent to provide specialized care for sexual minority teenagers and their families, he or she has the responsibility to evaluate families and then refer for medically appropriate care.

So nowhere is there a suggestion that a young gay or questioning man should just accept it.  In answer to your question, “honestly, does that make sense” the answer is no.  Your question is wrong.

Perhaps our MD hasn’t enough time to read the 8 page policy document, page 1 is a cover page, pages 6, 7 and 8 are footnotes, so really, just read pages 2 through to 5.  Only takes a couple of minutes and all your questions would be answered.



1 Comment

Gillard and Obama – Slaves to Satan

Screenshot from 2013-06-27 20:15:41

facebookYou’ve really gotta love what the christian get up to when they think they’re playing all by themselves.  So Obama wanted to veto some bill about banning abortions.  The right-wing christian god botherer and man I might add, Mark Rabich says that his mind boggles.  It boggles that a ‘leader’ (that’s the President of the USA who was voted into office with a majority to ‘lead’ the US) would call killing children health care.  I like that the link to the article includes a photo of the President holding a 3 month old baby that clearly is the result of a non-abortion.  Nice touch.

Anyway, I don’t know enough about the abortion debate on this bill, I want to comment on the comments.  I don’t mind that women want to abort their unborn babies.  It’s not my decision and I’m pretty sure that there is enough going on for them without yet another man telling them what to do.  That in the eyes of Mark Rabich makes me evil.

So, photo of President, allowing this baby to play with his nose – comment from Natalie N Johnson?  He hates children.  Yeah.  The President often tells his two daughters that he is evil and he hates them.

Then look, it’s Grandpa Uncle Billy the Not-Evil-My-Conscience-is-ok Mulehead.  He’s great comment about this evil?

people like Obummer and Julia are not real leaders of course. They are slaves to Satan,who was a murderer from the beginning.

So, President Obama, the duly twice elected President is now Obummer.  I guess I can’t pick on Billy for using quaint names.  But look, he’s not a real leader!  Of course!  How could I have missed it.  He is in fact a slave to Satan!  Woo hoo – that explains so much.  And Julia, before she wasn’t the Prime Minister of Australia, is also a slave.  To Satan.  Way to go non-leaders!  It’s so great that in two sentences he is able to explain that the reason there are people who support abortion is because they are slaves to the murdering Satan and therefore by extension they too are murders.

All we need to do now is pray for their souls.

Comments Off on Gillard and Obama – Slaves to Satan