Quotes of the Day: Bill Donohue Responds to Family Guy

The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue responds to a Family Guy joke about priests who molest little boys by saying this:

… While it is true that most of the molesters in the Catholic clergy have been gay, most gay priests are not molesters.

Umm… someone please explain that statement to me. My head hurts.

Donohue’s not done yet. In the same paragraph, he talks about the crazy demands of the “radical gay community”:

… Joe Biden, just yesterday said he is against Proposition 8, the California resolution that would limit marriage to a man and a woman. Thus did he lay down stakes with the radical gay community.

How dare those gays fight for equality. Jesus would never have stood for that.

(via The Freethinker)

  • llewelly

    While it is true that most of the molesters in the Catholic clergy have been gay, most gay priests are not molesters.

    While it’s amazing to hear Bill Donahue admit most gays priests are not molesters, these two statements do not contradict each other.
    However – it’s not true that most of the molesters in the Catholic clergy were gay. 75% of the molesting priests molested only female victims. The media was just more excited by the young boys.

  • N

    It really blows my mind (and did even when I was an active Christian) how morbidly threatened the church feels about homosexuality.

    They love homosexuals; as long as they don’t have sex.

    Nice.

    Let’s deprive someone of a basic, natural, human desire, just because theirs is different than the majority.

  • http://disco-igno.blogspot.com/ DisComforting Ignorance

    Yeah, what’s next? Recognition of interracial marriage? We can’t lay down stakes with the radical black community.

  • Catherine

    owwww, that just broke my brain.

    just yesterday said he is against Proposition 8, the California resolution that would limit marriage to a man and a woman. Thus did he lay down stakes with the radical gay community

    How in the hell does wanting to get married make a person a radical? I’d love to find a woman who can tolerate my crazy ways enough to spend the rest of her life with me and settle down and get married. Maybe have a cute little house with a dog in the yard and all that. Gee, that sure makes me sound like a radical, doesn’t it?

  • Beijingrrl

    I still don’t understand why marriage is a government sanctioned ritual.

    If society decides that couples and/or child-rearing folks should have a governmentally protected right and/or benefit, then let people just fill out a form and be done with it. That way there are no traditions involved and people shouldn’t be able to discriminate against others.

    Really, I just don’t get it. I mean, many religions have very specific requirements that need to be met in order to be married in their church. Even so, I don’t see people pointing fingers at people of other religions and accusing them of destroying marriage or fighting to keep them from getting married. Or even thinking that they’re not really married. If the issue really is marriage as a sacrament, you’d think they’d want to keep the government as far out of it as possible.

    In my opinion, if people want to be married, then let them have whatever religious or nonreligious ceremony they want with no government interference or benefits. If there was ever a place for separation of church and state, I think the relationship between two people is certainly it.

  • Melissa

    The government is suppose to support separation of church and state, so why does being married (which is a religious tradition) entail so many government benefits. Honestly, I could care less if I get married to my girlfriend, the only thing that concerns me is in the future, when we have children, what’s going to happen if there is some sort of medical emergency? Because she wont legally be recognized as my partner, what will happen to our children that we raise together? She wont even be allowed to see me in the hospital if I were to fall ill or injured, all because we are not married, and are turned away from the possibility. I don’t want the religious tradition, I don’t want the church involved in my private life at all, all I want are the same benefits married couples have; I want my children to be safe.

  • http://ecstathy.blogspot.com efrique

    Hemant, you’re supposed to be the math guy. It’s basic set stuff.

    “Most A are B” does not imply “Most B are A”

    “Most adult murderers drank milk as children” does not imply “Most adults who drank milk as children are murderers”.

    If you like, imagine a Venn diagram. Make a B circle really big, and a much smaller A circle which is placed so it has most of its area in common with B. AB (the overlap) is much larger than A&~B, but much smaller than B&~A.

    He’s a moron, but at least his meaning is clear.

  • Autumnal Harvest

    Yes, what efrique said. Donahue’s logic is correct, and Hemant’s is wrong.

    What? Did I just write that? That can’t be right. Well, at least I can take refuge in the fact that Donahue’s facts and morals are wrong.

  • http://whatsinyourbible.blogspot.com jedipunk

    I don’t think Hemant was arguing the logic.

    I read the quote and was floored that he admitted there were gay priests! Especially non-molesting ones.

  • http://www.otmatheist.com hoverFrog

    Why is Bill Donohue watching Family Guy anyway? Is it on the God Channel now? Why refute it, it’s supposed to be comedy by taking facts and making them seem ridiculous by twisting meanings or removing context. He could just laugh and say, that Peter is fat and not a good Catholic.

    Silly old fart.

    Also, how presumptuous of Joe Biden to come out on the side of people who want the same freedom as everyone else. He’s not Vice-President yet. A couple more weeks…

  • stogoe

    What’s striking to me is that it was Donohue himself that brought homosexuality into the discussion. He’s attempting to shift the argument onto the topic of homosexuality because raping priests are indefensible.

    Beijingrrl, Melissa,
    Marriage is a government contract. It has been this way for centuries at least. The fact that screaming religious bigots think their religion ‘owns’ marriage doesn’t actually make it true.

  • Jen

    I don’t think the Rad Rights have ever denied there are gay people- they just don’t think they should get to have sex or be people. Gay priests doing what they are supposed to do, namely, pretend that a lifetime of celibacy is a cure for sexual desire, while furthering the Radical Awesome Religious Agenda (1. Take over the Government 2. Straighten the Gays 3. Sit around on our piles of money while denying rights to the heathens).

  • Larry Huffman

    OK…so anyone wanting equality for all is a radical? Ok, call me a radical.

    That is ok…the men who wrote our constitution were called radical for very much the same reason. Since equality was the issue then, it hardly makes us radical for wanting to push forward the intended purpose of the constitution…equality under the law.

    Our founders were radicals and the men who fought our revolution were terrorists (what else would you call ambushing and jumping the government troops while they marched to seize our illegal weapons?).

    The people to watch out for are not the radicals it is the people accusing others of being radical. It is those people who are resistent to change and wanting to protect their own power and position.

    I personally do not think that wanting equality for our fellow humans is radical. In fact, christians like to call that ‘being chrisitan’…though they prove regularly that is not the case at all, as they usually take the opposite stand.

  • Catherine

    from stogoe:

    Marriage is a government contract. It has been this way for centuries at least. The fact that screaming religious bigots think their religion ‘owns’ marriage doesn’t actually make it true.

    Yes this. And I’d at least like to have the opportunity to choose whether or not I ever enter into that contract. Right now, in my state, that decision has been made for me.

  • JSug

    I don’t think it’s any huge revelation that there are gay priests. One of my favorite novels has a line of dialogue (spoken by a priest) that sums it up nicely:
    “We’re not all abstaining from the same thing.”

  • https://www.google.com/reader/shared/03285257443185929989 Scotty B

    But I thought Jesus was gay

  • http://www.godtalkradio.com Jason

    Uh-oh, here comes the sniper again….

    The issue here is not equality…The issue is the justification and promotion of sin…And Jesus, the same Jesus you mock and blaspheme, did not come to earth to bring equality. He didn’t spend His life [or death] leading civil-rights marches through the streets of Jerusalem. He wasn’t a community organizer trying to break down the walls of segregation in the Roman Empire. He was the propitiation of the sins of every man, woman, transgender, homosexual, heterosexual, priest, rabbi, imam, agnostic, atheist, republican, democrat [and the list goes on]… Inequality is a secondary issue to the real problem plaguing humanity. Sin.

    Let the sarcastic responses begin!

    Jason

  • http://darwinsdagger.blogspot.com Darwin’s Dagger

    Who responds to Family Guy? You watch it. If its funny you laugh, then you move on. But you don’t waste any time thinking about it, talking about it or writing about.

    And yet, there I am.

  • llewelly

    And Jesus, the same Jesus you mock and blaspheme, did not come to earth to bring equality. He didn’t spend His life [or death] leading civil-rights marches through the streets of Jerusalem. He wasn’t a community organizer trying to break down the walls of segregation in the Roman Empire.

    Like you, I’ve read the bible. Like you, I understand that Jesus did not come to improve the lives of minorities. An ordinary guy with ordinary failings, who failed to use his rhetorical talents to do anything helpful.

  • Catherine

    Jason, the thing I don’t get is why so many Christians act as if being gay is one of the biggest sins a person could commit.

    And really, how exactly does one ‘promote’ the sin of being gay? Seems like anytime someone speaks out against discrimination against gay people, there will a Christian there to talk about how being against discrimination=’promoting homosexuality.’

  • Kyle

    The issue here is not equality…The issue is the justification and promotion of sin

    Actually Jason, you are incorrect. The issue IS equality. There is no sin. It’s a common mistake among people of religious faith.

    See, no sarcasm needed!

  • http://www.godtalkradio.com Jason

    the thing I don’t get is why so many Christians act as if being gay is one of the biggest sins a person could commit.

    Catherine:

    I can’t speak for ‘many Christians’ but will speak for myself as a Christian.

    I don’t view the sin of homosexuality any differently than I do the sin of adultery, lying, greed, pride, lust…sin is sin.

    However, if homosexuality is a sin, then allowing same-sex marriage would give approval to this sinful lifestyle which is not Biblical.

    Look, people have the right to choose to live however they’d like. I’m not in disagreement with that. I will be accountable to God for all the choices that I’ve made in my lifetime, and believe me there are plenty that I am ashamed of. My point is simply that as a nation and a society, we have a responsibility to take a moral stand. My morality comes from the Bible; yours may not. As a Bible believing Christian who believes in the inerrancy of scripture I can’t turn a blind eye to the fact that God sees homosexuality [and all other sins] as an abomination; and as Christians we are called to bring ‘salt and light’ into the world. And that is why I take a stand against same-sex marriage, abortion, cooperate greed, slavery, the sex trade, pornography…It’s not about ‘inequality’ or ‘bigotry’ its about taking a moral stand and calling a sin a sin. Sin is promoted, in a culture, by its acceptance. And remaining silent on a behavior that is wrong, is acceptance.

    Jason

  • http://www.otmatheist.com/ hoverFrog

    Jason, “Sin” is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule. Where exactly did Jesus condemn homosexual behaviour? Leviticus has two brief comments condemning homosexual behaviour. Apparently it is so grave a sin that it ranks as high as people who keep statues and magicians. Peter condemns homosexual behaviour in temples and there is some repetition of earlier bans on male rape and being “effeminate” so handbags are out. Lesbians are barely mentioned and that’s only in relation to temple orgies.

    So, where is the “sin” in a normal, loving same sex relationship?

    Besides which, isn’t it “better to marry than to burn.”?

  • Catherine

    Jason,

    Telling me that the government should not let me get married because a god I don’t believe in thinks that my relationship is a sin sure is an interesting way to bring light to the world.

    It’s not about ‘inequality’ or ‘bigotry’ its about taking a moral stand and calling a sin a sin.

    The thing is, you can call it what you want, but the fact remains that your moral stand does involve treating me as less than equal.

  • Monkey Deathcar

    Of course there’s no arguing with people like Jason on this. He’ll just interpret the bible however he wants to justify his bigotry. I’m sure he doesn’t think that atheist heterosexuals should get married either because they can’t do it “through god’s love,” or some similar weird meaningless phrase. Too bad this is a right that should be given by our secular government and has (or should have) nothing to do with his religion.

  • http://www.godtalkradio.com Jason

    Where exactly did Jesus condemn homosexual behaviour?

    John 1:14 – Jesus is the Word.

    The thing is, you can call it what you want, but the fact remains that your moral stand does involve treating me as less than equal.

    Actually my “moral stand” involves treating your lifestyle as a sin. Just like it would with any other “sinful” lifestyle.

    Too bad this is a right that should be given by our secular government and has (or should have) nothing to do with his religion.

    Hey, this is America! Get out there and rock the vote. Get this country on the right track [or left] so we can moveon.org already. All I’m saying is that there is a foundation for my beliefs and it’s not based on any enjoyment of watching people suffer ‘injustices’. I have many gay friends, who know where I stand. It makes them upset for the same reasons you have talked about. All I’m saying is that we should let the people of this great nation determine where to draw the ‘moral line’. If they agree to same-sex marriages then so be it. But life is full of inequalities, and if we’re honest, no matter where we draw the moral line it will ALWAYS effect someone’s lifestyle choice or moral belief.

    I appreciate the civil conversation.

    Jason

  • Catherine

    Why is it even your place to decide whether or not my ‘lifestyle’ is a sin, especially when we are talking about government policy?

    And I’d love to know my ‘lifestyle’ differs from that of a straight person. Because I happen to be attracted to women instead of men? Does that really constitute a separate lifestyle? Funny how the people who use the word lifestyle are usually the ones who are against gay rights. I guess it helps to make us seem as different as possible.

    If you want to make the Bible the foundation of your beliefs, more power to you, but when those beliefs translate into things which are going to hurt other people, I’m going to have to disagree with you pretty strongly. The denial of marriage rights hurts gay people, and it does mean we are being treated unequally and unfairly no matter how much you seem to be trying to deny that fact.

  • Polly

    Jason,

    Where exactly did Jesus condemn homosexual behaviour?

    John 1:14 – Jesus is the Word.

    That was a most unsatisfactory response in as much as it was a complete non-sequitor.

    I don’t fault you for acting in line with your stated principles. You believe god told you that being gay is a “sin” so you feel you have no choice but to act, and vote, accordingly. For that you have my sympathies as I remember what it was like to be so constrained by ancient and irrational taboos.

    While your answer above is a non-answer, I have no doubt you could rationalize Paul’s words as that of JC. (It makes no difference to me since I ascribe no authority to either man.)

    There are Christians who separate their civic life from their personal beliefs in order that we may have a functioning democracy as opposed to “voting in” a theocracy. I’m sure you’d agree that just because a majority of people believe that drinking alcohol or smoking is a sin doesn’t mean that these things should automatically be criminalized. Blasphemy is a capital crime in Muslim theocracies. Would we make it so here if enough of our population were Christian and willing? Technically, free speech is contrary to god’s law – just ask the young Egyptian who cursed god and was stoned under Moses (IIRC).

    And if god allows “sinners” the freedom to govern themselves according to a lax law, then why shouldn’t gay marriage receive the same dispensation?

    You could opt to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to god what is god’s.

  • Autumnal Harvest

    hoverfrog:

    Where exactly did Jesus condemn homosexual behaviour?

    Jason:

    John 1:14 – Jesus is the Word.

    John 1:14 (NRSV):

    And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

    How can’t you possibly see anything about homosexuality in that? I’m used to Christians twisting the Bible to reach whatever conclusions they want, but this is particularly insane.

  • Monkey Deathcar

    Jason, the constitution and it’s amendments were put in place to protect the people, minorities and majorities alike. It is not there to take away any individual rights. Creating laws to take away the rights of gays to marry goes against one of the most important aspects of this country. While voting allows the people to be represented, the supreme court is supposed to interpret the constitution and decide if the laws created indeed protect all people or are unfair (unconstitutional) in any way.

    I guess I’m going off topic. To get back on topic… If I catch gay how will I know? Do I immediately want to become a scout leader? Where do I pick up my card and book explaining the agenda?

  • Catherine

    Where do I pick up my card and book explaining the agenda?

    Fear not. Headquarters will send you the proper materials when the time is right.

  • http://www.otmatheist.com/ hoverFrog

    Jason:

    John 1:14 – Jesus is the Word.

    OK, I’m going to try to translate this. Gay = yucky because Jesus = God.

    Luckily I have a counter argument 1 Timothy 2:5 – For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

    Now the appointed speaker for God in the body of Jesus says nothing, absolutely nothing, that condemns homosexuals and quite a few things about not judging others and about loving others as equals. If I were a religious man I’d concentrate on those parts and not the privy parts that monkish ignorance promotes.

    As for the Constitution I’d like to add that it was created in part to confer the same rights on a diverse and widespread population. That might have meant the new rural settlers on the frontier, established and prosperous industries of the North east or the sprawling cattle farmers of the south. Clearly the nation has moved on somewhat but it still protects those diverse people. Diversity includes those who think and feel differently from you. It protects your right to disagree as much as it protects the right of a couple to marry if they wish.

    Why should this be changed?

  • Metatwaddle

    As a Delawarean, I would just like to say the following:

    WOOOOOOOOOO BIDEN!

  • Anonnie Mouse

    The problem here, dear Jason, is that you seem to think that everyone– regardless of belief– should have to conform to laws based solely upon the narrow tenets of your religion. The problem is too many religious people trying to legislate the bigotry of their religion onto others not of that same religion. You say, “Jesus said,” I say, “Jesus is imaginary.”

    It is a matter of equality. The bible allows slavery and child abuse, but common sense and fairness (not to mention humanity) have brought those acts into light as the atrocities they truly are. If we are to draw up legislation based upon the bible, by all means lets start by banning shellfish and killing people who plant two kinds of food in the same field. It makes just as much sense as denying two consenting adults the right to marry as they see fit.

  • noodleguy

    I think the question here is why did Jason come here to troll about gay marriage? I think the phrase “You gonna get raped” is more appropriate than ever.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X