LaBarbera Openly Advocates Theocracy

Deranged anti-gay bigot Peter LaBarbera took off the mask in a radio interview last week, openly declaring his advocacy of theocracy, or as he calls it “Christian-oriented law,” to stop the labeling of hate groups like his as hate groups and stop that damned gay agenda.

Lamenting that a number of Religious Right groups have been classified as anti-gay hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is costing them access to the media and undermining their credibility, LaBarbera said that the solution is “to return to a basic law, a Christian oriented law that does not try to grant civil rights status to a sin, which is homosexuality.”

Think about that: LaBarbera advocates repealing all laws that ensure equal rights and protections for gays and then complains about the fact that his organization is considered to be an anti-gay hate group.

Certainly no surprise. The Orwellian language of the Christian right has been obvious for a very long time.

httpv://youtu.be/aKROOwd5Nn8

"Sorry, but attending a gala honoring someone is something you either voluntarily attend or not. ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"Wow... this is rich... Aussies have more than just Kenny Ham to get entertained by.As ..."

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."
"True critical and rational thought would acknowledge that false accusations are extremely rare, but that ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"To clarify... I meant groping a grown woman vs. “dating”, i.e. “molesting” a 14 year ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Look, they don’t hate the sinner, they hate the sin. But since you can’t jail sin, the sinner will have to do.

  • eric

    LaBarbera said that the solution is “to return to a basic law, a Christian oriented law that does not try to grant civil rights status to a sin, which is homosexuality.”

    How would that prevent the SPLC from labeing your group a hate group? Its a private orgaization, it can label whatever it wants – including US government policies – hateful. Likwise, the media can call you hateful regardless of what the law says.

    Unless Peroutka is advocating a drastic change in the first amendment too? I have no doubt he would do it if he could, but hat’s not the sae thing as laws that recognize SSM or gay rights.

    Incidentally, the pop-ups or something on this site is starting to heavily affect performance. I’ve had to retype almost every word as the browser is capturing about every second letter.

  • blf

    He’s only flipped out at the SPLC? Why not the ACLU, Trilateral Commission, UN, FEMA, Club of Rome, Noble awards committees, Illuminati, Reptilians, and the lemonade stand down the street? Quantity, that’s what you need to be considered seriously kooky. One-at-a-time kookery is not going to get into the major league nutters.

  • John Pieret

    to return to a basic law, a Christian oriented law that does not try to grant civil rights status to a sin, which is homosexuality

    How is that going to stop SPLC or any other group from labeling you and your cohort as bigots? Unless you are thinking about laws to outlaw free speech. You can’t really believe that returning to “Christian oriented law,” assuming you can get it passed the Supreme Court, will be seen as any less bigoted that what went before, can you?

  • Loqi

    There will be no end to the anti-christian bigotry as long as Barack Obama is president of the SPLC.

  • peterh

    Odd that from an extremely long list of “biblical laws” these nutters choose barely a handful to harp on over and over and over . . . . . .

  • matty1

    @6 If they thought there was money to be made protesting against shellfish and mixed fibres they’d do it.

  • cptdoom

    LaBarbera said that the solution is “to return to a basic law, a Christian oriented law that does not try to grant civil rights status to a sin, which is homosexuality.”

    Well, there goes the Constitution, which explicitly allows for lying, blasphemy and heresy, and that’s just in the First Amendment. Let’s not even start at the legality of fornication (cemented by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003). Why do you hate American Peter?

    Oh, and I am so sick of these anti-gay bigots claiming that the SPLC “hate group” designation has anything to do with their stance on marriage equality. Peter and his ilk have been peddling all manner of nasty, anti-gay propaganda – claiming we’re mentally ill, possessed by the devil, out to “recruit” children through molestation. That is why they were labeled a hate group – and in Peter’s case it happened well before marriage equality was even a dream.

  • colnago80

    Re blf @ #3

    Not to forget the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, the Masons, and Skull and Bones.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    PETERH EVERYBODY KNOWS THATTHE IMPORTANT BIBLICAL LAWS ARE THE ONES THAT NEGATIVELY EFFECT PEOPLE AND GROUPS I DONT LIKE!!!

  • eric

    On the plus side, it would be quite amusing to watch DOD try and implement a “if someone slaps you, turn the other cheek” defense strategy.

  • busterggi

    LaBarbera is gonna feel awfully foolish when the Satanist theocracy is established.

  • cynix

    These people like the idea of a thocracy until the Inquisiton comes for them.

  • Michael Heath

    Ed writes:

    The Orwellian language of the Christian right has been obvious for a very long time.

    Exhibit A would be Christians and the Bible asserting all sorts of wonderful qualities on a god who promises to cause unimaginable suffering to some people for all eternity. So by “very long time”, we can assert with confidence that time goes back to the whole freakin’ existence of the movement.

    The first step down the Christian fundamentalist rabbit hole is an awfully long one.

  • corporal klinger

    @modus@1

    I’m not a natural english speaker and sometimes i just don’t get it, but when i do, your comments often make my day.

  • grumpyoldfart

    Whenever right wingers start talking about a “return to a basic law, a Christian oriented law” they always assume that they will up at the top, making decisions and giving orders. It never occurs to them that stronger men will regard them as potential enemies and have them jailed, exiled, or executed after a show trial.

  • weatherwax

    #2 eric says: “Incidentally, the pop-ups or something on this site is starting to heavily affect performance. I’ve had to retype almost every word as the browser is capturing about every second letter.”

    I’ve had the same problem. You …have…to…type…really……..slow.

    Also, I keep getting an add pushing in from the left side of the screen that pushes the blog off the right side of the screen, and disconnects the scroll. I have to close the add and refresh until the add stops pushing in. This has been happening on all the Freethought Blogs.

  • anubisprime

    a number of Religious Right groups have been classified as anti-gay hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center

    Because they are anti-gay and they do hate, therefore seems like a perfectly valid call and characterization by the SPLC

    which is costing them access to the media and undermining their credibility

    Hate speech has no place in the public square, freedom of speech does not mean it is ok to hate publicly.

    And they have the arrogance and self delusion to think their bigotry equates to credibility?

    It is doubtful LaBarbera understands that term, hate groups do not have credibility, never have.

    LaBarbera said that the solution is “to return to a basic law, a Christian oriented law

    He obviously means being free to make up scriptural sounding bullshite to allow them to hate openly, it is what theocratic regimes do, no matter the deity and no matter the country, they cannot resist catering to their own deluded tastes, crass ignorance, pomposity and bigotry based hatreds.

    that does not try to grant civil rights status to a sin,

    Lying , and hating on fellow humans is a sin, but theocratic dim shits like Peter do that as if it was a civil right, and then complain about persecution when they get pulled on their perfidy.

    which is homosexuality.

    Jeebus does not mention homosexuality as a sin, Moses had no brief on it …obviously as a subject it was not important enough to condemn in no uncertain terms whatsoever.

    So called theologians are still debating what rare snippets appear in the OT and word usage if not actual misleading translation is suspected by more then a few.

    At best it is just a biblical finger wagging at worst a shoulder shrug and a desultory meh!

    Not mentioned at all in the NT at all, not even in disinterested passing!

    Peter it seems you are twisting scripture to suit hateful bigotry?…and that is most definitely a sin you know!

    And you really must define your religious text of choice…is it new testament or old?

    You cannot simply mix and match to suit, that is cheating, which is also a sin apparently, besides if it was the OT you prefer, because that is presumably where you are basing the fatuous claim of sinful act for homosexuality, that would put all xtians in deep trouble when shellfish or mixed fabrics get the axe, let alone a myriad of other brain fart preferences depending on authors that lived a millennium or two before jeebus!

    Stoning your child to death for disobedience might be a tad gory…but quite necessary if such theology is to be followed so explicitly!

    So be careful what you get all breathless and sweaty over Peter…it makes a sticky mess and and does not do your credibility any good whatsoever!

  • stever

    Let’s do it. Men who attain power tend to be either monks or tomcats. In the United States tomcats vastly outnumber monks. That means that most of the leaders of a triumphant Religious Reich would be guilty of adultery. I’ll bring my own stones.

  • eric

    @18:

    Hate speech has no place in the public square, freedom of speech does not mean it is ok to hate publicly.

    Um, yes it does and yes it does.

    We don’t arrest the Wesboro Baptist Church folks for their protests, nor the KKK for their marches. And if conservative churches want to go Westboro on gay weddings, well that will really suck but it will be legal, and the sort of expression we should defend (in the Voltaire style – object to what they say, defend their right to say it).

  • anubisprime

    eric @ 18

    Um, yes it does and yes it does.

    Well fair points in general but it must be assumed that ‘Barbarella and minions’ tend to stray across the line on a regular basis otherwise the SPLC would not really bother themselves with them.

    That they are not prosecuted for actual hate speech seems to be far more to do with the sycophantic but dumb audiences that lap that sort of bullshite up and would never complain, even support that language, probably even lie if asked what was said, then by publishing their ‘rhetorical ware’ in National daily copy for the perusal of all!

    Even grifters and nasty vermin realise certain cliff edges are not for leaping.

    .