The picture may be flawed but the idea is perfect.

No, I'm not gay. Just female. We don't get murdered for our sex in Islamic states. Unless we are raped. Or fall in love with someone our family doesn't approve of... (sound familiar?).

As LGF says. "ROPMA".
(The first 4 words are "Religion of Peace, My" —, I'm sure you can figure out what the last word is.)

Beautiful picture. Thank you and Jeff for yet another wonderful post. Once again, you said it all. I have had it with Political Correctness and the Religion of Peace.

Homosexuals defending Islam is like Jews defending Nazism.
During World War II, do you think you'd be hearing a Jew saying to one of our soldiers: "Now, now, it's not nice to call Germans 'krauts'"?
Political Correctness = Slavery = Death

Find me a truly "moderate" Muslim and I'll show you a heretical Muslim.

The gay activists and columnists over at the Independent Gay Forum have had plenty to say about the threat that radical Islam represents to gays -- and democracy.

Check out IGF's foreign affairs, religion and terrorism sections.

Sorry about talking about "krauts". I don't mean to imply that Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, etc., were "krauts". I was just reacting against this servile "sensitivity" which some insist on showing toward their own murderers, making an analogy based on what would have been the typical attitudes of those most deeply immersed in World War II and the Holocaust.
I do love that symbol, the "assault" rifle superimposed on the Pink Triangle. Reminds me of your other juxtaposition, the Rainbow Confederate (or Rebel) flag.

Check your mail for a graphic. :)

Glad you like! Galil and Tavor versions dispatched.

David Lee (co-creator of "Frasier"), who was criticized by many on the gay right because he protested "Dr. Laura", spoke about this very issue at NGLTF's Creating Change awards dinner last year. He also wrote a piece in The Advocate about the danger of fundamentalist Islam and why more people should speak out. Obviously this is not enough. This is not an issue which should be shrugged off. I'm not sure what any of us can do to help, but there are gay Muslim organizations like Al-Faitha.

But one thing that worries me in your post is the undertone of shrugging off the menace of the anti-gay fundamentalist movement in America. To just suggest that we should be grateful because we are not being massacred in the street is putting a happy face sticker on the current climate in this country. Do you really think that if conditions in the US were on a level similar to in Islamic countries, that many Christians would not beat us, murder us, torture us? Over and over I have seen websites which call for us to be quarantined, to be murdered, to be raped. I even see traces of these attacks in the words of politicians. Gays and lesbians have serious struggles in the US, and part of that struggle is to make sure that America never becomes what Islamic countries are. I feel like you almost demean us when you contrast rape and torture in Islamic countries to gays and lesbians protesting Starbucks. That would be like me comparing the commonplace prostitution of teenage boys in Asia with the father's-rights radio talk show host in the US who is trying to get "Boys Are Stupid" and "Boys are Smelly - Throw Garbage Cans At Them" T-shirts banned from the market. I also have to admit that it's a bit disconcerting to see you criticize Signorile for not being hard enough on Islamists when you have been critical of him for wondering why Andrew Sullivan and Drudge work with Moonies (who called for the mass murder of gays not too long ago). Shouldn't the left and the right be held to the same standard?

And another hesitation before people say that the Christian and Islamic anti-gay movements are disparate is that the people who are behind the Federal Marriage Amendment willingly worked with an extremist Muslim group, ISNA, whose members have at different times called for the overthrow of our government, given money to Hamas, and who have called for the deaths of Jews (I'm sure they have about as much use for homosexuals). ISNA is currently being investigated by the government. Jewish World Review uncovered these ties and put them on their website, in spite of many e-mails and letters from Jews and Christians asking them to stay silent, because the end was worth the means. So, before we become too haughty with American activists, let's remember that all of these groups pose a danger, and we do ourselves a great disservice by minimizing the danger which Christian fundamentalists (and even their propoganda sites like WorldNetDaily) provide.

And something else I wanted to point out is that there are thousands of gay-bashings in the US as well. Of course you know this, and I'm not implying you don't. But for the organizations out there which try their best to help these people, who don't get any press or money, I truly feel like they deserve as much mention as the few crazies who are protesting Starbucks. Honestly, that is a small portion of the community. Most gays and lesbians aren't even out to their families, much less out to their local brewer. Of those who are out or semi-out, many of the gay men I know only care about partying or hot bodies. It is a part of every minority that many in that minority are complacent or obsessed with minutia which does not benefit their lives. Instead of criticizing the fruitcakes who protest Starbucks, I think we'd be better served trying to get through to these people (if we can), and getting them to start focusing their energy on more important topics. At least they care. I know that some guy who protests Starbucks is more likely to give time or money to a worthy cause than some guy who wants to score some crystal and will do anything he can for the next hit. As conservatively as I lean, I think that the big wall between left-wing and right-wing gays HAS to be torn down if we are going to have any future voice in America. Every day I feel like more of the Stonewall crumbles, and the Log Cabin becomes a tasteful condo. We should do everything we can to push this forward and scream in one voice, instead of, as some gays do, get off on screaming matches and pissing contests. I remember reading the bitching between HRC and Log Cabin during the 2000 elections, and I keep thinking...if they had actually WORKED TOGETHER, would we be dealing with an administration and Congress which is such a lurking menace to our freedoms?

I have no idea how widespread gay-bashing is in Germany, or in France, or other European countries, but that only reaffirms for me that we need to clean up our own home turf first. A nation like the current America, which is (at best) vaguely tolerant of gays and lesbians, is far more likely to welcome and encourage Islamic violence against gays and lesbians than the Scandanavian countries which are currently in the midst of tough immigration fights because of their realizing the danger of Muslims who refuse to assimilate.

I also wanted to point out that www.brucebawers.com has a great deal of information on the perils of Islamic fundamentalism and also the zealotry among Anglicans in Africa and Asia (where millions die of AIDS and the rich bishops sit around in their expensive robes and homes, not wanting to get involved with a "gay disease"). Bruce moved to the Netherlands in the late 90's and married his boyfriend, and he has been seeing the Dutch/Muslim struggles firsthand.

Thanks for your comments, James!

(Now I feel obligated to address a few of your points.....)

From where in my blog do you get the idea that I am "grateful because we are not being massacred in the street"?

Or that I am "shrugging off the menace of the anti-gay fundamentalist movement in America"?

Have you been reading this blog?

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000278.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000401.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000405.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000488.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000465.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000440.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000421.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000411.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000348.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000015.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000502.html

(Partial list; sorry it's so tedious)

You asked me, "Do you really think that if conditions in the US were on a level similar to in Islamic countries, that many Christians would not beat us, murder us, torture us?"

Of course they would! That's one of the reasons I started this blog! Fortunately, though, conditions are NOT on a level similar to Islamic countries in that we have freedom, and a thing called the Constitution.

Minimizing the dreadful reality of Islamic Law while maximizing the less significant threat of Christian fundamentalism only serves, in my view, to help push these two closer together. Recognizing this reality is no more "shrugging off the menace" than, say, to recognize that modern Islamic slavery is a worse threat than those who might sympathize with American slavery or the defeated Confederacy.

As to the double standard you accuse me of vis-a-vis Sullivan and Signorile, there is a big difference between the two. Sullivan was attacked by Signorile not for his views, but for Moon's views, which Sullivan abhors. This struck me as unfair and illogical. If indeed the left and right are to be held to the same standard, fine. Would Signorile would offer a platform to a "gay Moonie" whose message was that Moon had been misunderstood, and that the Unification Church was the "religion of peace"? I doubt it. (Read Moon here:

http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/SunMyungMoon03/SM030823.htm

and if you can make sense out of him, let me know....)

If we assume that Moon intends to incinerate homosexuals, Signorile is against guns, which offer a far better protection against bigots and bashers than the "angry gentle people" mentality.

If Matthew Shepherd had been armed, he'd probably be alive today.

Last, I must address your puzzling remark, "I feel like you almost demean us when you contrast rape and torture in Islamic countries to gays and lesbians protesting Starbucks." By their actions, these protesters support (or at least apologize for) the Islamic countries that rape and torture homosexuals. I MEANT to be "demeaning" -- to the protesters, of course. (But I don't understand your use of the term "us"; I did not mean you and me!)

Actually Eric I wasn't totally sure who you meant. On the one hand, I thought you were insulting one group, but on the other hand, I felt like you were indicting all of us who do not take an active role in curbing Islamic gay-bashing. The part where you linked to WorldNetDaily, as if to say that it's horrible that anti-gay lunatics are worried about this issue when gays aren't, really threw me. I think it sort of gave a black eye to your initially very compelling warnings of Islamic extremism.

As for Sullivan vs. Signorile, Signorile attacked him because Sullivan has positioned himself as someone who is very critical of the left when he feels that they are catering to lunacy or homophobia. Yet, here is Sullivan, who spends quite a bit of time railing against anti-gay animus, taking money from a man who wants him dead. Signorile's a nut, but I think he made a valid point. It just seemed to me that you were poking at Signorile for what you defended in Sullivan. To me, they are sometimes both quasi-insufferable, yet they will also say things in brazen, unapologetic ways that make them unique and important. For instance, I know that no gay conservatives would ever take the strong (and to me, necessary) stance on Mary Cheney that he did. Instead, too many gay conservatives seem to be saying, "the Democrats aren't any better!!!!" And that is a ship which sailed for me some time ago. Anyway, this is just rambling, sorry. My point is that they should be judged by the same standards. If you feel that is what you were doing, fine.

I guess what bothered me more than anything was that a very sound piece on a genuine threat became "gay us vs. gay them" after a few paragraphs. All the time I see this approach, where liberals sneer about Log Cabin and conservatives bitch about Human Rights Campaign, when in many ways, we're dealing with the same problems. Yes, I think that gay activists who carry on about the glories of Palestine or Islam are fools. Yes, I think that they should speak out against gay-bashing in any culture. The gay organizations which practice "enemy of my enemy" persuasion tactics and instead wind up aiding our enemies or possibly alienating allies (like NGLTF's incessant smearing of Ward Connerly) should wake up. But overall, I don't think that the main emphasis on this issue should be attacking the activist gay community. Much of the activist gay community that I know of is far more worried about the chaos in America right now than about defending murderous militant Muslims. Maybe it's because I don't live in New York or California, or other big liberal cities (I live in the South : O+) but I haven't seen any ardent defending of the policies which you describe. And I'm sure that my gay and lesbian and straight-but-friendly acquaintances will try to help on this issue (although scaling back the current theocracy ruining America is their #1 priority); it's no surprise to them either. But to combat this problem we have to do more than scream about flaky liberal activists. For instance (and maybe I missed this; I'm pretty sick), do you have any links to organizations or groups which can help fight this problem? What about contacting Amnesty International and asking what you can do, if there is anything you can do? Or what about contacting Al-Faitha and asking them?

In the end, they are not the ones who will be slaughtering us, and some of them are, like gay conservatives, just waiting for an extended hand, a sign that maybe we aren't so different after all.

OK, James, I see your points, and appreciate your thoughts. Please remember, I highlighted the WorldNetDaily article to show how ironic it was that an outspokenly anti-gay site would have more to say about "Islamohomophobia" than so many gay organizations.

As to "poking at Signorile for what you defended in Sullivan" if Sullivan ever dares to apologize for (much less support) Moon, I promise to be all over him. I think it is disgraceful to see Republican leaders kowtowing to such a truly evil man (whose organization brainwashed a close friend and has held innocent people against their will); it reminds me of the German aristocrats and Hitler. I maintain that it would be a greater betrayal of his cause for Sullivan to quit writing for the Washington Times than to speak up there.

Please try to remember also that this blog engages in satire. My sense of irony sometimes carries me away. (And I am impatient with followers as I am with those who would lead.)

Your symbol of Freedom is even more beautiful than ever now. I liked all three guns on Sol's blog. But I think the one you chose is the best.

The triangle symbolizes the Holy Trinity*. No wonder the Mohammedans hate it.
(*Osiris, Isis, Horus? Krazy Kat, Ignatz Mouse, Offisa Pupp? Magenta, Yellow, Cyan? Green, Blue, Red? Wanda, Dawn, Norma?...).

If Andrew Sullivan ever calls Moonie-ism or the Westboro Baptist Church a "Religion of Peace", if he ever defends that Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment because Bush supports it, if he ever defends the Family Research Council because they vote Republican, if he ever defends Santorum, on that day I'll strike him from my blogroll.

He seems to have no problem defending Matt Drudge. That's not the same as defending murderers or despots, but that he had such a blase attitude about Margaret Cho being assailed with hundreds of "go back on the boat you fat pig gook, or get AIDS and die like all your friends" e-mails was very disappointing to me. More often than not he seems to write based on contrariness. Well, at least he is always outspoken against the FMA. I swear, I think that damn amendment will probably wind up uniting the gay community in a way it never has been in the past 30 years. At least that's my hope.

James,

I agree with you about the FMA. Singling out homosexual couples for special treatment in the United States Constitution will put the gay cause on America's map forever. Short-sighted moral conservatives would do well to remember that Anita Bryant (who thought that the way to stop homosexuality was to shout about it on the cover of Newsweek) did more to establish the modern gay movement than any single person.

I am not surprised that Cho was assailed by abusive emails, and not only because of what she said in her routine. Even in her blog, she calls Bush "that fucking shithead."

http://margaretcho.net/blog/magical.htm

Here's what she said about Thanksgiving Turkey:

The turkey is stuffed with raped women, dead babies, warriors who were stripped of their ability to fight and could no longer protect their families - which to warriors - is a fate worse than death. Cranberry sauce is blood of Geronimo, Sitting Bull, the Comanches, the Braves- the warriors that despite all the odds, still had the spirit to fight for their land that was not only their home, but their God, that was spilt during Custer's Last Stand. They did manage to kick some colonial ass though and I am glad to that. They bled for their families, so much that it soaked the ground, shed for no other reason than we just took it upon ourselves to evict the original OG old school United States and create our own U - whited States. (Fuck you I could make a pun if I want.)http://www.margaretcho.com/blog/nothankyou.htm

Interesting assumptions about my turkey (which I never knew contained raped women and dead babies) -- to say nothing of the words "we" and "they." She concludes by expressing the hope that Americans choke on turkey cartilage. I think she invites -- and gets -- vitriolic response.

Drudge pointed out that angry emails are the nature of the Internet.

http://www.nydailynews.com/01-23-2004/front/story/157605p-138358c.html

I grew a little tired myself of being called things like "traitor" and "murderer" by people like Margaret Cho. But hell, if someone tells me to get AIDS and die, I might respond in similar fashion or I might just have a little fun baiting him in return. As they say, "sticks and stones." Words are not genocide.

But in case anyone wants to move from their threats to actual violence (or attack me physically for my words), the First Amendment is backed up by the Second.

That said, I disagree completely with the philosophy that words are analogous to torture and lynching:

http://www.apj.us/20040114CroMag.html#20040117

It should be clear to any reader of the Cho-hate-mail archive that the writers of this drek enjoyed writing their nastiness, enjoyed sending it, enjoyed imagining the recipient's response. There's an inimitable gloating, gleeful quality to the prose, however stylistically barren it may be otherwise. This is not a dreary chore -- not like the painfully polite form letters we liberals and progressives send by the thousands to our elected representatives! It's quite clear that for the writers, this was great fun.

We know from account after account by victims and eyewitnesses, that professional torturers enjoy their work. We know that White people in America used to collect postcards of lynchings. We know about Roman games. We know that human beings have a appetite for cruelty, which they can indulge or struggle with. It is perhaps the worst thing we can say about the American Far Right, that its organisers and demagogues deliberately appeal and pander to this least attractive of human vices, and attempt to harness it to their pragmatic ends. The poison-pen letters collected here reveal with astonishing frankness the beating heart of contemporary barbarism, alive and well in America under the thin veneer of democratic and civic conventions. And let's have no illusions; the respectable American Right, the Right of business suits and golf clubs, assiduously cultivates this hardy perennial -- at one or two deniable degrees of separation.

I have seen incredibly abusive and vitriolic rhetoric by the left for many years. The chief difference is that they usually avoid overtly racist or anti-gay remarks. After all, they're supposed to be politically correct. But once a black man disagrees with the left, he's a an "Uncle Tom." Condoleeza Rice is a bitch-whore-slut ("skeeza") and a "murderer." Andrew Sullivan is an "Auntie Tom," etc.

I respect the right of people to disagree, even to insult me. It's when they want to move from that to killing me or putting me in prison that I am glad to be armed. Proponents of Shariah Law have already killed thousands of Americans here. Their sympathizers not only will not protect me, but many of them want to take away my guns. (I've been called a "traitor" just for having them.) To the extent that they would prevent me from defending myself, they are a greater threat than purveyors of even the nastiest email.

Steven, have you seen the photos of Al Gore with Fred Phelps?

http://www.logcabinwa.com/archive/200010251159.shtml

Eric: Yes, I have. I heard about that long ago, I think during the 2000 campaign but it may have been earlier, I don't remember. Queer (if I may use that word in its old sense) juxtaposition: the soft-headed, tree-hugging liberal, and the fire-breathing, screaming, "kill the fags!" preacher. I recently read somewhere that Rev. Phelps was actually an advocate of black civil rights, an opponent of racism, in his earlier days. But his hatred of homosexuals and his Calvinist doctrines got the better of him. Too bad. Such a waste. With such conviction, such passionate intensity, I wish he was on our side.

Unfortunately, he serves a useful purpose for the other side. While somewhat of an embarrassment to them if he gets too close, his rhetoric, plus the supposed fewness of his followers, his "fringy-ness", allows all the other, more well-organized, more influential, more "moderate" homo-haters such as Santorum to contrast themselves to him, saying:
"While we advocate policies specifically designed to harm homosexuals, reading them out of the Constitution, denying them all protection for their relationships, denying them the right to privacy, fining them, throwing them in jail, whipping up hatred against them through our rhetoric about 'judicial activism' and 'culture wars' and a 'homosexual agenda', looking the other way while our thugs beat them up and kill them -- since we do not openly use the _WORDS_ 'fags', 'hate', or 'kill', you cannot dare to oppose us."

The "extremists" thus provide cover for the "moderates". "Moderates" -- such as Saudi Arabia.