Streetfair in Sodom

I'm sure fire and brimstone will be raining down on them in no time, Rod.

"I'm sure fire and brimstone will be raining down on them in no time, Rod."

Nah, they would enjoy it too much.

The only serious Christian response is to pray for these people. That sin and satan has so warped them that they feel neccessary to lash out against the very Person who created them in this sick mockery. If gay people have a beef to pick with Christians that's one thing, but leave Christ [and His Mother for that matter] alone. It isn't funny anymore and the only person they're really harming is themselves.

Is that Darth Vader? Which one's supposed to be Princess Ima Dolla?

Thanking God for the freedom to be blasphemous.

The mind boggles.

Hard for me to comment, in that no poster nor link to anything described in this thread appears.

Snippets from the site:

"This year, the official poster uses well-known community members as players in an innovative version of the culturally iconographic “Last Supper” by Leonardo da Vinci.

There is no intention to be particularly pro-religion or anti-religion with this poster; the image is intended only to be reminiscent of the ‘Last Supper’ painting. It is a distinctive representation of diversity with women and men, people of all colors and sexual orientations.

Folsom Street Events acknowledges that many of the people in the leather and fetish communities are spiritual and that this poster image is a way of expressing that side of the community’s interests and beliefs.

We hope that people will enjoy the artistry for what it is – nothing more or less. Many people choose to speculate on deeper meanings. This is one artist’s imagining of the ‘Last Supper’, and we have made it our own. The irony is that da Vinci was widely considered to be homosexual."

Gee, this is turning out to be educational after all. Thanx Rod.

RIP:

Saw lots o hunks in black leather, saw a list of worthy causses that are this year's beneficiaries, but saw nothing even close to "diabolical".

I'm not surprised that you don't find that diabolical.

Folsom Street Events acknowledges that many of the people in the leather and fetish communities are spiritual and that this poster image is a way of expressing that side of the community’s interests and beliefs.

I'm not surprised that you believe that.
---
I don't know why the image doesn't appear for all of you. It comes up fine on my computer.

Rod,

"I'm not surprised that you don't find that diabolical."

I'm not surprised that you DO. Now all we need is for you to tell us WHY you think it is.

(from the site): "Folsom Street Events acknowledges that many of the people in the leather and fetish communities are spiritual and that this poster image is a way of expressing that side of the community’s interests and beliefs."

Rod: "I'm not surprised that you believe that."

That I believe what? That "many of the people in the leather and fetish communities are spiritual"? It is my experience that they are spiritual.

Or, that "this poster image is a way of expressing that side of the community’s interests and beliefs"? It does, in a way, or at least the parts that B'net will let us see. If the original painting was done by a homosexual, why cannot homosexuals make an homage, a takeoff (or even a "parody" as jaybird described it) to the original today, Rod?

I have no doubt these sad sick twisted freaks are spiritual.

It's just a matter of which spirits we're talking about.

So you like looking at sadomasochistic pornography?

>>(and I think anybody, straight or gay, who takes pleasure in pain is freaky).

If everyone liked the same things, there wouldn't be enough broccoli to go around.

The ad dovetails nicely with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ -- the kinkiest S&M film ever made.

Oohhhh, the withering self-righteousness.

"We're doing just fine out in San Francisco, y'know. Discussions like this one worry me a bit though, in that some people here imply - heck, some of them don't stop with implication - that something should be DONE about this by the God-fearing inhabitants of the middle of the continent. Whether we like it or not. Sounds like the Taliban to me."

Whether the inhabitants of San Francisco like ity or not, this sounds like Sodomites threatening the non-homosexual populace. (Or what's left of it.) Sodomites were angry and violent and had not the sligtest qualms about it.

And how many people with AIDS and a multiplicity of STD's and depression are living the San Francisco lifestyle?

Notice that quiet and good people need to be frightened and labeled to maintain their silence as these miscreants and degenerates get to grow and grow. And they grow from other people's children being recruited.

Just wait until these reprobates take political power over the good families of the "middle of the continent" and their children. The people in that ad "used to be" the children of someone.

Now who do you suppose debauched them?

It wasn't the good people of "middle of the continent."

Go to massresistance.org and see.

Gays, Lesbians, Bi-Sexuals and Transexuals are not going to rid the land of Christians no matter how hard they try.

I want to clarify my previous statement - I in no way intended to associate broccoli with sadomasochistic homosexuals, the Folsom Street Fair, or Leather Pride Week.

The enjoyment of broccoli is not exclusive to any ethnic, political, or lifestyle group and I deeply regret any implication I may have made that suggested otherwise.

>>This is the culture of death.

What does 'the culture of death' really mean besides 'something I disapprove of'? Could someone please define this phrase?

It sounds like labeling something as 'fascist', so overused as to become meaningless.

"For gay people, it is Christianity and Christians that stands in the way to equality and justice."

(Begin patriotic background music here.)

>>
Now who do you suppose debauched them?

Posted by: Donny | September 26, 2007 7:47 AM
>>

Priests, maybe?

Susan, who here has suggested physically harming these people? Invoking the Taliban is knee-jerk liberalism at its most pathetic. Andrew Sullivan has it right: by doing this sort of thing -- intentional blasphemy as a cute promotional stunt -- these leather freaks are just making it hard (unnecessarily so) for all gay people. I don't believe all gays support this, any more than I believe all gays supported Larry Craig's "right" to cruise toilets for sex. But like it or not, this kind of thing plays into the viewpoint many people have of gay culture. That you have gay advocates like the Dallas pastor from a couple of weeks back refusing to condemn trolling in public parks and toilets for sex deeply undermines the case for gay rights, at least at the rhetorical level. Allen, a gay commenter here, said at the time (if memory serves) that if gays want to join civil society, they need to abide by the basic rules of civil society. I would say that one of those basic rules is to maintain a certain respect for the sentiments of your neighbors. Even if those leathermen hate Christians, what good does it do them, or anybody else, to blaspheme like that? I tell you what it accomplishes: it makes many ordinary people who might have been persuaded of the case for gay rights to say, "I knew it! That's how they really are." The inability of many in the gay community to condemn this sort of thing as somehow a sellout to the cause is telling, and discouraging.

I remember back in 1994, I think it was, I covered the big gay rights march on Washington. It was astonishing to be on the Mall and see that happen. There were quite a few middle-class, ordinary gays and lesbians. There were also some bona fide freaks. I saw a young bearded man parading around wearing nothing but leaves and branches, with a limb stuck up his butt. Seriously. I saw leathermen in their 70s walking the Mall wearing nothing but leather short-shorts, their wrinkled and saggy breasts laden with piercings. Et cetera. It was a fascinating tableau -- you had "Will & Grace" and Sodom & Gomorrah, all in one place. But the media coverage -- as Andrew Sullivan noted at the time, in criticism -- ignored the weird, ugly stuff. Andrew praised The Washington Times' coverage for being the most honest and balanced, because it gave a complex and accurate portrait.

If the wider American community is required to affirm the okayness of a grown man who walks out in public with a limb stuck up his butt as part of its acceptance of gay rights, you shouldn't be surprised by the persistence of resistance to gay rights.

Look, nobody is questioning whether these people have the constitutional right to make this poster or beat each other silly for fun and pleasure. But there is a big difference between legality and morality. It's absurd to expect a place at the mainstream table, but say that others in society have no right to be offended or to object when their most sacred beliefs are shat upon. It's immature and unrealistic to think otherwise.

One more thing: as a Christian, I am ashamed of the "God Hates Fags" cult, and denounce them. I don't want to be associated with them. I think they are hateful frauds. Well, I view this leatherman "Last Supper" as a "Gays Hate Christians" propaganda poster. Somehow, though, it seems that in our culture that Christians have no right to be offended by it.

'One more thing: as a Christian, I am ashamed of the "God Hates Fags" cult, and denounce them. I don't want to be associated with them. I think they are hateful frauds. Well, I view this leatherman "Last Supper" as a "Gays Hate Christians" propaganda poster. Somehow, though, it seems that in our culture that Christians have no right to be offended by it.'

Ditto 100%, Rod.

It can't be said too often that the fact that something creeps you out does not, in itself, say anything about its moral value. I find BDSM disturbing--which is not the same thing as condemning it out of hand--and I think that's because I wonder what it says about our culture in general. Human behavior has human reasons. To me, it would make sense to get to know some people involved in this, and see if they'll tell you why it's important to them. Though I guess I should point out the obvious--that you won't learn much about someone if your approach is "tell me why you're such a creepy pervert."

It also can't be said too often that most people who enjoy BDSM are heterosexuals. Ordinary people you may have for neighbors. And most of the time--not always, of course--men dominate women. To many of them, they're expressing deep feelings about their perception of male/female dynamics in our world. Think about that for a few minutes.

I've always suspected that Christians are particularly uncomfortable with BDSM because it blatantly mirrors Christian language and imagery, and they don't want to be confronted with that. Victim souls, suffering saints, bleeding stigmata . . . holy masochistic panoply, Batman! Watch EWTN and listen to them talking about the sacred value of suffering sometime. Or read the story of little Audrey Santo. That story creeps me out worse than any number of leather-clad bikers. Those guys are adults with the power to make a choice. If Audrey actually received "the stigmata," then God inflicted further suffering on a child who was already mute and helpless. If it wasn't God, then someone who supposedly cared for her hurt her constantly and repeatedly, for the sake of publicity, in the name of God and the Christian religion. But the pious carnival going on at her house didn't shock anybody. Because it didn't feature gay guys in bondage--it was just a little girl getting hurt so others could feel ecstasy. And that's normal, isn't it?

N.B., this is a blazing-hot subject, and I've decided to go through the comments later this morning, after my morning meeting, and do some editing toward the goal of keeping the discussion relatively civil. Please don't use the inflammatory term "Sodomites." And please don't use the inflammatory term "Christianists." Thanks.

"I've always suspected that Christians are particularly uncomfortable with BDSM because it blatantly mirrors Christian language and imagery, and they don't want to be confronted with that. Victim souls, suffering saints, bleeding stigmata . . ."

Not so, Sig. Many Christians, myself included, reject that aspect of "Christian" imagery and language as being not part of the package, yet still find BDSM problematic.

"It also can't be said too often that most people who enjoy BDSM are heterosexuals."

And this may well be true, but they are keeping it private and not trying to convince the rest of us to accept it because its normal.

"To me, it would make sense to get to know some people involved in this, and see if they'll tell you why it's important to them."

Would you do the same with coprophiliacs or practitioners of bestiality? Perhaps, if only to get them help.

"One more thing: as a Christian, I am ashamed of the "God Hates Fags" cult, and denounce them. I don't want to be associated with them. I think they are hateful frauds. Well, I view this leatherman "Last Supper" as a "Gays Hate Christians" propaganda poster. Somehow, though, it seems that in our culture that Christians have no right to be offended by it."

Beyond felching, to phelpsing...

Anyway

">>This is the culture of death.

What does 'the culture of death' really mean besides 'something I disapprove of'? Could someone please define this phrase?

It sounds like labeling something as 'fascist', so overused as to become meaningless."

While no one can retroactively choose their iconic religious symbols, it might be somewhat unfortunate in retrospect that Christianity established the Cross, the Roman instrument of execution, as its iconic religious symbol rather than, say, the open tomb of the Resurrection. As my tutor Rob Grano informs me from a previously thoroughly flogged thread, it is the Resurrection that singularly defines Christianity. Moreover, by symbolically representing the open tomb of the Resurrection using the Greek omega Ω Christianity could have welded together an even more powerful central symbology of life over death.

It's probably still fortunate, though, that the preferred Roman method of execution at the time was crucifixion rather than impalement, with all the symbological problems in this current context under discussion that the latter procedure might have entailed and offered.

Has Bill Donohue weighed in on this yet? He always has such an original and thoughtful take on these matters. I wonder what he'll have to say.

Somehow, though, it seems that in our culture that Christians have no right to be offended by it.
You have a right to be offended by it, of course. It just seems to me that you go out of your way to seek being offended by it. Why were you looking at this poster in the first place? Hmmm? The post says more about you than it does about the fair promoters (who weren't trying to get your attention anyway.)

I've come to this thread late, but am totally blown away by those who try to gloss over what the poster really is. And hey, I am a life long Democrat who (until recently) kept "conservatives" at arms' length. I live in Oregon, which is feeling more and more cultural pressure from That Big State to the South. The type of attitude you see in the poster has made it to Portland, and is now fully out in public. We should heed Wendell Berry, who makes very compelling connections between sexual weirdness and food-related weirdness. For one thing, he reminds us that just as there is a "food industry," there is also a "sex industry." Each industry is hell-bent (literally) on turning us into consumers and selling us stuff. Just look at the poster and note all the "gadgets". That reflects an industrial view of sex: that you can't enjoy it without the involvement of "gear" purchased from your friendly retailer. "Sexual diversity" is a marketing ploy concocted by the sex industry. Its time we improved our sales resistance. The truly crunchy people are enjoying "local, seasonal" sex, meaning within marriage, with only their spouses and without the industrialists' "gear."

Please pardon my poor use of em tags in my previous post. Don't forget those closing backslashes, kids!

"I've come to this thread late, but am totally blown away by those who try to gloss over what the poster really is. And hey, I am a life long Democrat who (until recently) kept "conservatives" at arms' length. I live in Oregon, which is feeling more and more cultural pressure from That Big State to the South. The type of attitude you see in the poster has made it to Portland, and is now fully out in public. We should heed Wendell Berry, who makes very compelling connections between sexual weirdness and food-related weirdness. For one thing, he reminds us that just as there is a "food industry," there is also a "sex industry." Each industry is hell-bent (literally) on turning us into consumers and selling us stuff. Just look at the poster and note all the "gadgets". That reflects an industrial view of sex: that you can't enjoy it without the involvement of "gear" purchased from your friendly retailer. "Sexual diversity" is a marketing ploy concocted by the sex industry. Its time we improved our sales resistance. The truly crunchy people are enjoying "local, seasonal" sex, meaning within marriage, with only their spouses and without the industrialists' "gear."

I couldn't agree more, which is why I view this as nothing more than an odd curiosity, no more essentially interesting to me beyond this thread and no more likely to be incorporated into my life, sexual or otherwise, than a collection of Wookie action figures.

Bill,

"The truly crunchy people are enjoying "local, seasonal" sex, meaning within marriage, with only their spouses and without the industrialists' "gear."

Now that's really funny. I can't count the number of personal ads I've seen from (very) heterosexual married couples seeking 3rd (& 4th, & moreth) partners - hardly "within marriage", hardly "with only their spouses". As for "without the gear", there are far more heterosexuals into kinky sex than there are homosexuals. Statistically speaking, it would be impossible for the reverse to be true. But no one is questioning heterosexuals' rights or freedoms to pursue THEIR happiness. No one is denying THEM equality before the law, despite their kinkiness, their off-putting-ness.

This is just pure, obvious sensationalism to get more people to reject gays and their Constitutional right to equality because "they're BAD people" dontcha know.

The truly crunchy people are enjoying "local, seasonal" sex, meaning within marriage, with only their spouses and without the industrialists' "gear.

Hmmm...if that were true, wouldn't the truly crunchy be getting all their food from the same farm? Or better yet, from their own backyard?

And who's to say that consuming "strange fruit" from local farms is wrong? ;^)

'Heck, I accept that SOME heterosexuals are also into "shagging kids or animals, and crapping on each other while masturbating" (to borrow Rob Grano's oh-so-relevant example), but I hardly believe ALL heterosexuals are, nor do I try to imply that they are.'

Of course. Who's saying otherwise? But the point is perversion is perversion no matter what group is practicing it. The fact that heteros do it too means nothing. In this case it was gays that were the offenders.

(By the way, from one ex-Pentecostal to another, you've taken a wrong turn.)

ex-Pentecostal,
I agree with you that Rod doesn't give a very balanced picture of the gay community. In the time that I've been reading Rod's blog...I don't know....close to a year....I've never read an entry about a middle America, homosexual couple, just trying to raise the kids while keeping the union intact, going to work, paying the bills, while remaining faithful to each other. It's either about his gay friend, Courage Man, who seems to be a great guy, but who thinks that his homosexuality is wrong. Or, it's about the twisted freaks who would be considered weird in the heterosexual world, as well.

That said, this is the definition of blasphemy at answer.com
1. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

I can't understand how you can look at this picture of the Last Supper and not see this as blasphemous. A man is sitting at a table in the place of the Lord, without a shirt, and trying to sell sex which the participants inflict pain upon one another. It's at the same table where he picked up the bread and lifted the cup and said, "This is my body and my blood given to you. Eat and drink this in remembrance of me." (That's not an exact quote, but it's close).

The picture of the Last Supper, in itself, might not be sacred. It's, certainly, not the Eucharist or the Torah, or a symbol that is in and of itself sacred. But what the picture is representing is most certainly sacred.

"Somehow, though, it seems that in our culture that Christians have no right to be offended by it"

Oh please. Christians spend a disproportionate amount of time these days being offended. Fox News and the Catholic Al Sharton Donohue spend their whole days being offended on behalf of Christians. The CWA is literally on permanent Christian offended mode. The other truth is that Christians are the ruling class, with the ability and power to oppress and influence. Part of the reason there is so much anger towards Christians in our country is because Christians are always walking around being offended, acting as if they are victims despite controlling the levers of power.

"The other truth is that Christians are the ruling class, with the ability and power to oppress and influence. Part of the reason there is so much anger towards Christians in our country is because Christians are always walking around being offended, acting as if they are victims despite controlling the levers of power. "

Daniel, where in the world do you come up with this stuff? Seriously. What are you reading that gives you such one-note views on things? And you're a Catholic of some stripe, yes? I don't think you're getting this from your local parish or the NCR.

The other truth is that Christians are the ruling class, with the ability and power to oppress and influence.

Daniel channels Lenin.

Here's the actual uncensored image, if anyone wants to see it:

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/09/FSF2007Large

I don't see anyone in that image actively inflicting pain on anyone else or engaging in anything explicit. With the exception of a large rubber dildo/fist, most of the other paraphrenalia on the table is similarly low-key and not especially shocking. There's no exposed genitals, or penetration or anything like that. It's really quite tame. So it's basically a bunch good-looking young people (there are also several women)in mildly-kinky leather gear, spoofing The Last Supper. Is this really such an intolerable affront to Christianity?

On another note, the fact that Miller Genuine Draft and Miller Lite are sponsors of this event is pretty hilarious. Gives a whole new meaning to "It's Miller Time!™"

If this is the case then, why do you tend to refer to Christians as "they" not "we"? You are one, aren't you? Or do you just think that the criticism doesn't apply to you and your type of Christians?

I should have said "we," although I don't include myself in that group of Christians who spend most of their time being offended and convinced there is a plot to silence them. There is too much injustice in the world and the country to focus on whether people who make up 75% of the country and control the levers of power are victims and oppressed. There is no war on Christians in our country, despite those who are retreating to the bunkers and bomb shelters believe.

Christianity, the religion of true sadomasochists, a religion FOUNDED upon deep, cosmic sadomasochism, is offended by this poster? Don't make me fall off my chair laughing!

This poster is one of the most honest depictions of the Christian mind ever put to paper.

Ironic, thus appropriate, that it comes from a community Christians love to victimize.

But then again, I've seldom encountered a Christian who truly understands irony.

"There is too much injustice in the world and the country to focus on whether people who make up 75% of the country and control the levers of power are victims and oppressed. There is no war on Christians in our country, despite those who are retreating to the bunkers and bomb shelters believe."

A) you are making no distinction between practicing Christians and nominal ones.
B) the war isn't against Christians as people, it's against Christianity as a cultural force (although I believe it may get to the point of a sort of "soft persecution" in the future.)

fabulous heretic, you have demonstrated your profound ignorance of Christianity very nicely.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Rod et al:

I agree this is the deliberately provocative "finger in the eye" sort of stunt that generates only heat and does nothing to further the cause of gay rights. But here is an interesting question for you all:

What image of gay men or lesbians would you have replace it? I believe most of the crunchy cons who post in the comment box are against gay marriage or any sort of civil institution that "legitimizes" same-sex couples. So a picture of a smiling male couple exchanging rings isn't going to work for you. We have seen that some of the most challenged books in public libraries are books like "Heather Has Two Mommies" or the one about the mail penguins ("And Tango Makes Three" I think is the title) that have the temerity to show couples involved in the decadent business of loving and raising a child. So a family is a scandalous image too.

Therefore, the portrait you would have shown is one of adults saying "I live alone and am jofully celibate and cut-off from both vocation as a religious and from the general family/kids life of society because I am gay", or maybe more realistically "I live alone and make this sacrifice to cut myself off from religious vocation and a life of partnership/family because I love Jesus more than any human need for vocation or family."

And on another point: can we please then have some equivalent sounds of disgust for the video games of the relatively maintream "Left Behind" series of books that give people points for shooting the fags? Does it qualify as sufficiently sadistic to get people up in a similar tizzy?

The poster was a public act, intended to promote a public festival. It was plainly intended to provoke, and provoke it did. If Christians are expected to be silent about this, then black folks have no right to object to that jerk who drove around Jena with the nooses tied to his pick-up truck. I don't get you readers who believe that the real troublemakers are those who are offended by the image and its use.

And Daniel, I really don't get your views. Is there any blasphemy you wouldn't defend? You say you're a Christian, and I have to believe you. But I get the impression from reading your comments regularly that a disabled Aztec organic-farming devil worshiper could defecate on an icon of the man you say is your Lord, and use the image to sell fair-trade coffee to Berkeley vegans, and you'd defend it.

Brad: What does 'the culture of death' really mean besides 'something I disapprove of'? Could someone please define this phrase?

Pope John Paul II coined the phrase, or at least popularized it. In this instance, I intend it to mean that this poster, appropriating the Last Supper -- a basic Christian motif -- to celebrate people who direct their sexual instinct toward the giving and getting of pain, is a manifestation of a death wish. It is perverting that which is good to celebrate that which is evil, or to be more precise, not life-giving. The S/M people do not celebrate the triumph of life over pain and death, as Christians do by honoring the Resurrection, but the fact of pain itself. They are a living death. And by appropriating Christ in their celebration, they are trying to use He who is life itself to promote death, and the culture that exalts it.

Some of the commenters on this thread have kicked around the "revulsion" issue. It brought to mind a line I read in recent years. I wish I had the exact quote handy, but it came from C.S. Lewis' novel That Hideous Strength. He's describing the advent of a progress-obsessed scientific/industrial organization in modern England and says something like this (my apologies if I butcher it, which I probably will): "It became obvious that stifling all deep-seated repugnances was the first essential for progress." Read the book (actually, read the trilogy of which the book was part), because it has a lot to say about crunchy con concerns. Wendell Berry quotes it often. We shouldn't casually override "deep seated repugnances." Sometimes our sense of revulsion is unjustified; but often it is there for a very good reason.

"But I get the impression from reading your comments regularly that a disabled Aztec organic-farming devil worshiper could defecate on an icon of the man you say is your Lord, and use the image to sell fair-trade coffee to Berkeley vegans, and you'd defend it."

That sounds more crunchy than my tastes.

No one likes blasphemy, but I will sure the heck defend it in the United States. The fact that people in the U.S. can offend Christians without consquence beyond the mincing whining of Donohue and CWA and that ilk is what makes this country great. My faith is strong enough to tolerate this kind of blasphemy in an open democracy. Why isn't yours?

Beacuse here's the thing Rod. Those people at the Folsom Street Fair aren't a threat to my faith, my children, or my country. Your organic farmer isn't a threat to your faith, or your children, or your country. If you believe the folks at the Folsom Street Fair--or your hypothetical farmer--are a threat, you have much greater problems that an iconic picture being used by leather guys to make a political point.

And here's the irony. You were giddy with excitement over the prospect of blasphemous cartoons of Muhammed being run in the newspaper. You cheered on blasphemy in Europe when it was targeted at Islam and you criticized Muslims for being upset. You consider Theo Van Gogh a martyr to your cause when it comes to criticizing Muslims. So why is that blasphemy something you cheer, but you are trembling about a poster in the U.S.?

"[Posted by: John E. | September 26, 2007 8:47 AM]: What does 'the culture of death' really mean besides 'something I disapprove of'? Could someone please define this phrase?

Pope John Paul II coined the phrase, or at least popularized it. In this instance, I intend it to mean that this poster, appropriating the Last Supper -- a basic Christian motif -- to celebrate people who direct their sexual instinct toward the giving and getting of pain, is a manifestation of a death wish. It is perverting that which is good to celebrate that which is evil, or to be more precise, not life-giving. The S/M people do not celebrate the triumph of life over pain and death, as Christians do by honoring the Resurrection, but the fact of pain itself. They are a living death. And by appropriating Christ in their celebration, they are trying to use He who is life itself to promote death, and the culture that exalts it."

Rod, I corrected your misattribution.

What Daniel said, and further, Rod-- why did you pick out this poster? How did it get to you? And why? You don't live in San Francisco. You wouldn't attend that fair if it took place on the street in front of your house, much less hundreds of miles away. What do you care? I don't get you, man.
In a media-driven world with literally millions of images and ideas accessible to us at our fingertips on tiny little machines, it's all too easy for us to go around pointing out this or that "offensive" thing. I suspect you let your fingers do too much walking.

I don’t find anything truly mock-worthy about Christianity, since its central figure preached love for fellow men (even one’s enemies). Nietzsche found Christianity mockable on that basis.

But religions, just as any belief system, may be subject to mockery under our laws of free expression.

I want to keep it that way because I do find Islam eminently mockable, even if there are so few if not non-existent examples of such mockery expressed here in the US. Islam is a dangerous religion and just about the stupidest belief system going, and reasonable people should express the same contempt for it that they express for the Klan, Communists, PETA, Nazis, or Earth Liberation.

"What Daniel said, and further, Rod-- why did you pick out this poster? How did it get to you? And why? You don't live in San Francisco. You wouldn't attend that fair if it took place on the street in front of your house, much less hundreds of miles away. What do you care? I don't get you, man.
In a media-driven world with literally millions of images and ideas accessible to us at our fingertips on tiny little machines, it's all too easy for us to go around pointing out this or that "offensive" thing. I suspect you let your fingers do too much walking."

This (and more at Daniel, referenced, as iconic counterexample) begs the obvious question: why the craving and the need for "enemies"?

Are "enemies" the flame that ignites the crack rocks of the will-to-dominate so that they can be smoked?

Obviously, the question can be universally applied wherever the shoe fits.

Oh, good grief, Sig, now we'll have to spend the day trying to rid our heads of the image of a mouse scampering about in *ssless chaps. ;-)

And here's the irony. You were giddy with excitement over the prospect of blasphemous cartoons of Muhammed being run in the newspaper. You cheered on blasphemy in Europe when it was targeted at Islam and you criticized Muslims for being upset.

Wrong. Totally wrong. I don't blame Muslims for being upset at what they consider blasphemy. What I condemned, and do condemn, is violence, or the threat of violence, in an attempt to suppress offensive speech. You keep acting as if I want the Folsom Street freakshow shut down. I don't. I think they should have the right to do what they do, and to promote it by mocking the Christian faith. But I reject your idea that speaking out against it is wrong.

Are we really saying that because others have spoofed the painting without an outcry, that those who protest this one are wrong?

I don't think that people should spoof that which others consider to be sacred. It's rude. We all have to live and get along in this world. Rule #1: Leave that which is sacred to others alone. How do you know what's sacred? They've defined it as sacred.

Leave Jesus alone. Leave the cross, the Bible, the Eucharist, & the bread alone.
Don't touch the Torah.
Treat the Koran as if you were a Muslim.
Don't dishonor the Prophet.

My son thinks that his little stuffed animal that he's had since he was a baby is sacred. He's defined it as sacred. I leave it alone.

Don't piss on the sacred. Don't defend those who piss on the sacred.

This is all stuff that we learned in kindergarten.

I don't feel the same annoyance with Big Bird sitting in as Jesus as I do the man who gets off using whips and dildos large enough to turn the innards of someone to mush, but if someone objected to Big Bird sitting in for Jesus, I'd acknowledge their right to experience that.

Dale: Just to be clear, my previous post was not intended to "put a domestic spin on BDSM."

What I'm saying is that there is a fundamental problem today: for gay people coming to terms with their sexual orientation whether they are teenagers or adults, there are two opposing poles:

join a shallow, indulgent, religion-hostile sub-culture that tolerates-or-even-encourages-self-destructive-behaviors, a utilitarian view of sexuality that scorns at monagamy, but nonetheless has an overall message of "we accept you, you do not need to be alone, your life can have value and meaning",

OR

accept what is said by voices that unconditionally condemn gay people, tell them that at best, they are objectively disordered and must remain celibate and alone, with prohibitions against forming families OR pursuing a religious vocation. The message overall is "thou shalt not, and we'll sort of accept you, except we won't really want to reach out to you in any meaningful way that includes you in our lives, but we will allow you to form special off-to-the-side-so-no-one-needs-to-hear-or-see support groups where you can draw a bit of spiritual gruel".

I know the tough love, principled folks out there will not see a problem with the 2nd choice, but you ask people to accept this path in spite of what modern psychology has learned, what the people's own hearts are telling them, and in spite of the fact that most of you probably have little idea how it feels to resolve same-sex attraction and the teachings of one's religion and even less inclination to even try to enter into those feelings. Further, you fight tooth and nail any religious or cultural voice that would set up monagamous/family norms as healthy, moral structures for same-sex attracted people.

watsy: Are we really saying that because others have spoofed the painting without an outcry, that those who protest this one are wrong?

That's not the point that the other blog that was linked to is trying to make with all of the other representations of The Last Supper.

The point, I believe (because it sure seems this way to me), is that this whole outrage is so wildly selective that it borders on self-satirizing. The thing is that no matter how much anyone complaining now protests otherwise, this has nothing to do with blasphemy or The Last Supper or anything else. It has everything to do with the fact that it's a predominantly gay street fair that's doing it.

Nobody seemed to get themselves all worked up when The Sopranos use Last Supper imagery, despite the fact that they portay mobsters who traffic in essentially everything-illegal-under-the-sun including murder. Nope. Not a peep when that happened.

Why not?

Because like I said, this whole conversation is about gay people. It's about the conservative/Christian discomfort with anything gay. It's about the "ick" factor, and that is just being twisted around to conveniently fit this different concept of this poster being somehow blasphemous or offensive to Christians. It's clearly not offensive because it is a spoof on The Last Supper (like Rod and so many commenters here would have us believe. Oh the humanity!!!), or we'd have had this conversation hundreds of times in the past when others replaced members at the table with unsavory figures while spoofing the painting.

It's all because of TEH GAY. That should have been painfully obvious to anyone reading the intial approach, and if it wasn't -- slogging through some of these ridiculous comments should certainly do the trick.

Let's at least call a spade a spade and stop pretending that it's the use of religious imagery that's getting everyone all stirred up and start admitting that it's the fact that they're gay people doing so that really bothers everyone.

That's why lots of homosexuals can't stand Christians on these issues. The selective outrage is so humorously transparent to anyone with a half-working brain.

dub: Spot. On.

Rob Grano,

I said: "'Heck, I accept that SOME heterosexuals are also into "shagging kids or animals, and crapping on each other while masturbating" (to borrow Rob Grano's oh-so-relevant example), but I hardly believe ALL heterosexuals are, nor do I try to imply that they are.'"

Your reply missed my point: "Of course. Who's saying otherwise?"

NO ONE is saying otherwise, but the trouble comes from the assumption that ALL gays ARE into that, and because of that, they should be denied equal treatment.

"But the point is perversion is perversion no matter what group is practicing it."

No. The point is that when it is heterosexuals who indulge in (what YOU call) perversion, they aren't denied the right to marry. They aren't kicked out of their jobs (or denied them in the first place). NO ONE is attempting to change the Constitution so that kinky heterosexuals are no longer included in its protections.

"The fact that heteros do it too means nothing."

Yes it does. It means a lot. Because heteros already HAVE the protections, rights, duties, obligations and benefits that gay citizens seek, even if the heteros ARE kinky.

"(By the way, from one ex-Pentecostal to another, you've taken a wrong turn.)"

I could say the same thing back at you. How is my belonging to a Christian Church that embraces ALL of God's creation a "wrong turn"? (Which, in essence means, why do your religious beliefs trump mine?)

watsy,

I don't recall saying the picture wasn't "blasphemous" and, according to the definitions you helpfully provided, it seems it very well could be, especially #2: "An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct"

Gosh, just being irreverent could mean blasphemy. However, not everyone regards a painting, even a great one by da Vinci, as "inviolable or sacrosanct". Remember the lovely last supper tableau at the end of the movie M*A*S*H? It was about a guy about to get LAID, albeit heterosexually.

Be that as it may, I believe Rod's charge (that I challenged and have yet to see a response to from him) was that it was "diabolical".

I also disagree that this poster, this event, is in any way indicative of the vast majority of gay people and their lives that you so eloquently described. Certainly not any more than Britney's hijinx and what Darva Conger and Rick Rockwell actually did to marriage - TRULY "trivializing" the institution (something gays have been accused of doing in blanket form across the board here) and, in reality, ACTUALLY turning marriage into a TV game show prize!

And, having said all that, not a single heterosexual is deprived of their right to marry BECAUSE of Britney's or Darva/Rick's actions, or the actions of the many, many heterosexuals who indulge in the exact same behaviours being condemned here. Not a single heterosexual has been fired or lost their job because of their consenting, private sexual activity, no matter how 'shocking' it may be to the general populace.

The S/M people do not celebrate the triumph of life over pain and death, as Christians do by honoring the Resurrection, but the fact of pain itself. My understanding of these matters is actually quite limited, Rod, but I'm pretty sure that many S/M people would say you have this exactly backwards.

But my objective here is not to make you feel happy about S/M sex, but rather to persuade people to look at their own assumptions a little bit. (Good luck to me and my leather-mouse mascot . . . ; ) )

I agree that the compassionate human being should think twice before mocking what others consider sacred, and make sure one has sufficient reason for doing so. But my reasons for that would be to avoid hurting those human beings, not because I'm worried about offending their sacred being or object.

I have a lot of trouble with the whole concept of "blasphemy." If it is not merely an offense against tribal taboos, then it presupposes that an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being can have his divine feelings hurt, and that he'll react violently to an insult offered by the tiny, ignorant, naked creature of a day. To assert that God is the kind of person who will smite you for scribbling a mustache on his recruitment poster seems to me more insulting to his dignity than any "blasphemy" could be. People have been arguing elsewhere that young black men should react with civilized calm even when they are insulted and threatened. So how can it be reasonable for God and his adherents to get all bent out of shape over a picture?

jaybird,

Thank you for posting a working link to the actual image. Now we can discuss it in an informed manner. (Gawd I hate censorship!). And an even bigger thanks to Brad for supplying the link to ddozens of other takeoffs on the last supper that haven't recieved nearly the, er, 'outrage' this one has. One has to ask one's self why not, until one realizes that the vast majority of the takeoffs are heterosexual in nature.

I think what's truly 'shocking' the shockable is that there are at least 3 women in the tableau - and not a single one of them is being treated as a lesser person ;{O)

I found it quite tame, actually.

Rob Grano adds to: "...true joy is only found in the affliction of pain and the corruption of the innocent" the following gems:

"Could have come straight out of Sade."

So? People read de Sade. It is legal, you know. And certainly no worse than the (very heterosexual) atrocities described in Brett Easton Ellis's "American Psycho" - now THAT I found shocking!

"Never forget that second part, folks."

Rob, did you miss the fact that this dire 'warning' of "corrupting the innocent" has nothing to do with the poster, but was, in fact, a comment made by Charles Cosimano, who also 'thinks' the poster will succeed in "bringing in more recruits". Some people still believe gays recruit. If the reactions here are anything like they are in the general public, I can't imagine HOW it would bring in ANY "recruits". What an imagination!

"you are making no distinction between practicing Christians and nominal ones"

Neither do the Christians, Rob.

Allen:

Sorry 'bout that. Might I suggest a couple-three belts of good bourbon? A classy brain-scrubber if there ever was one.

How come he and others on the RRR get to 'spoof' our struggle for employment non-discrimination? Our acces to marriage? Well OUR equality is SACRED to us too. It's supposed to be 'guaranteed' by the Constitution. The RRR make sure that it isn't.

Please remind me of where, exactly, the U.S. Constitution "guarantees" a right to gay "marriage."

Or where it provides any other guarantees related to the practice of homosexuality, a concept the Founders would not even have understood.

Maybe David Kuo has the right take on this flyer.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/jwalking/2007/09/why-christian-whining.html

REP: Certainly no 'ruder' than Rod's frequent use of the terms "lavender jackboots".

You really need to settle down. I used that term once, was called on it, understood the objection, and took it down. Criticism is not "spoofing." I don't mind at all if gays criticize traditional Christians for our viewpoints. What I do mind is insult and blasphemy. Again, I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference -- "You hate me! You hate me!" is a familiar rhetorical strategy with you -- but that doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist.

Simon,

"Please remind me of where, exactly, the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to gay marriage."

Dang, Brad beat me to it. The 14th Amendment guarantees ALL citizens equal treatment before the law.

"Or where it provides any other guarantees related to the practice of homosexuality"

You seem to miss the point entirely (and on purpose???). The Constitution's promises aren't "related to the practice of homosexuality", not to the practice of heterosexuality - but REGARDLESS of those practices.

Rod,

Okay, I'll cut you some slack if you'll do the same. Your original charge was not about "blasphemy" but about the poster being "diabolical". You said you can 'understand' why I wouldn't think it was, and I asked you why you DO think it's diabolical. And you have yet to answer.

Also, while you're at it, you could answer the question as to - whether it's diabolical or not, OR blasphemous or not - why that should matter regarding the equal treatment of gay citizens before the law? Even those "vile" heterosexuals who partake of the exact same practices don't have their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness challenged. Even muderers, rapists and child-molesters can get married heterosexually. So my question pertains not to the heinousness (perceived or otherwise) of the poster or the acts people indulge in, but to the lack of equal treatment before the law for gay citizens.

And where did I ever say that YOU hate me? As for a "rhetorical strategy", the RRR often DOES say hateful things about gays. Not you, of COURSE. But 'they' DO. And it's provable. I have often employed another "rehtorical strategy" here and it is this: I quote (sometimes at length) actual testimony of 'religious' people comparing our committed, loving, consenting, adult relationships to incest, rape, necrophilia, beastiality, child-molestation. IMO, these ARE hateful things. Mostly because they are untrue, but also because they are transparently meant to demean, diminish, de-humanize gay people. And it is those people I call hateful and bigoted - because they clearly, observably ARE. My 'strategy' as it were, always comes in the form of a challenge: if they would just stop saying hateful, bigotted things, they would very likely cease to be CALLED hateful and bigotted.

How hard is that to understand?

I dunno.

It kinda looks like a leather version of REM's "Losing My Religion" video, doesn't it??

Gays and regular folk have the same marriage rights. Neither can marry someone of the same sex. The problem is not with the law, the problem is trying to redefine marriage based upon what some people want it to be.

What does "regular folk" supposed to mean?

dub,

I think that you're wrong. I think that it has more to do with the sex and the gadgets on the table that have replaced the bread and wine. I think that you would have seen the same outrage if everyone was sitting boy-girl-boy-girl and looking like they were ready for an orgy.

Hey, isn't that a rip off of the famous Last Supper tableau by that, um, gay Italian?
The noive.

Yeah, how DARE they introduce homo-eroticism into Christian art?

Hmmm, seems my posts from earlier this morning have been "disappeared". Was I offensive in some way, Rod? I don't recall having been, but it's always good to check with the blog owner.

Also, I really would like you to answer my query about the psoter being "diabolical" (not merely "blasphemous"), Rod.

And not a soul has comment on my reminder of the Last Supper tableau at the end of the movie M*A*S*H? It was about a guy about to get LAID, albeit heterosexually. Why is THAT not blasphemous OR diabolical? Because of the heterosexual nature of it? Ditto for the many other links to the Simpsons Last Supper, Big Bird's Last Supper, the Sopranos' Last Supper. Are they or are they not blasphemous or diabolical.

And is anything in THIS post offensive or against the Rules of Conduct,Rod. It's hard to know if you just delete what we post without comment.

No, Hell for these folks would be an eternity dressed as the Ward & June Cleaver while being stuck in a Thomas Kinkaid painting.

Heck, I dress like June Cleaver (minus the pearls and heels), and I like a little sadomasochistic sex now and then.

What a world, what a world!

The Meaning of Life

The voice you hear in your head is the power of the Gods. It's a remote technology, like a computer, perhaps functioning on some frequency, and it can listen and talk to everyone in the universe simultaneously.
What the Gods taught the children was the truth:::God is everywhere, and as you will learn:::If you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
Even the antient Gods don't have the ability to listen to people's thoughts themselves. They taugh the people that we were all made in their image:::I expect they need this "Artificial Intelligence" to relay what people's thoughts.
It is a tool, and the Gods use their tools to test people with temptation:::It will role-play people in your life:::Parents, friends, spouses, and employers, all in an attempt to test people with temptation. Ionically, it does the very same thing to those people whom you think you're hearing, except in that individual's unique way:::We are all "managed" by the God's technology.
But this "agent of the Gods" can do more than just communicate. It can force thoughts into people's heads, force behaviors onto their bodies. It can turn healthy cells in your body into cancerous cells. It is absolute power. And this is just the beginning.

The Gods favor the children most among all the people due to their innocence and purity. But society and the God's tools therein are corrupting the children at a progressively younger age, a reflection of our collectively increasing disfavor and yet another clue illustrating we live in a constantly deteriorating environment.
Children who sucessfully repair their relationship with the Gods accend into heaven. This often takes multiple lives of hard work and proper behavior to achieve. Adults to whom it is offered enter clone hosting, thinking they are accending into heaven. The Gods tempt people, selling them as one in the same, but one is good while the other is evil. In their desperation the disfavored subscribe to this temptation, making their task even more difficult than before due to the evil they incurr in the process. And their corruption will cost the disfavored, for they will be reincarnated as a lesser life form into an ever deteriorating world, sucess becoming ever more alluding with each passing life.
The hole they've dug for themselves is even deeper than the one that existed from their prior lives, ensuring it will take even more time and work to fix their problems with the Gods. And for many there may not be enough time left.

Ours is an envionment where evil is perceived to be rewarded while good is punished. As with everything the Gods have a reason for creating this perception::::
People who fall on the good side of the good/evil scale have more favor, and when they do something wrong the Gods punish them BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM TO LEARN. The Gods want them to receive this feedback in hope they make corrections and begin to behave appropriately. The Gods DON'T like evil and refuse to grant this immediate feedback.
EVERYBODY pays for what they do wrong, only evil people must wait until their next life before they will experience the wrath of the Gods, manifested in their placement as a lower form of life into environments with increased/enhanced temptations, like the United States or ghettos therein.
Sadly, this allows the Gods to position this perception of evil rewarded as temptation, one which they use as an EXTREMELY effective corruptor.

The Gods suggest they can create paradise for those with their favor. I argue they create misery for those without::::
Our celebrity culture is temptation. It creates a distraction which consumes people, sometimes for life. Certainly it costs them precious years which could be spent repairing their relationship with the Gods, time that ultimately goes wasted.
Do you really think Frank Sinatra lived to be 84 years old? In fact the "Chairman of the Board" had a new crowd to entertain in the late 80s/early 90s.
These people are clone hosts. Now, there is no thing as "black and white" with the Gods. This technology they invented is far, far too dynamic. Expect they require most to stay for a period of time, for I suspect actively (knowingly) engaging in this evil incurrs at an accelerated rate as compared to "carte blanche" given regarding successive clone hosts. They remain until they achieve a pre-determined level of disfavor, incurring evil in their misguided celebration of "earning", at which time they are ultimately reincarnated, perhaps because they eventually learned this truth I am sharing with you and began to repair their relationship.
The Gods recruit most for clone hosting when people are young, in their late teens or twenties, when people are eager to hurt others for what they perceive to be the benefits achieved through "earning". And before they leave they give the Gods "carte blanche":::"Do anything you want. I give my full approval." Depending on their level of disfavor the Gods take them to heart.
Because of this these people STILL INCUR EVIL FROM THIS LIFE DESPITE BEING REINCARNATED AND LIVING AS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PERSON. And incurring this amount of evil may likely push many over the edge into Damnation.
What are the God's standards for offering clone hosting? Sociobility? Many tactics in various eras are used to gain approval, duress during the Vietnam draft being a good example.
They liked Heath Ledger. Not enough to allow him to escape without the evil of "Dark Knight" and the horrific wickedness that was the recruiting tool "Brokeback Mountain". But now he is out. And irregardless of how old he is now, reincarnated 10, 15 years ago, he now is no longer incurring evil from this life. So many others cannot say the same.

This is Planet Reverse Positioning. Sucess IS NOT a sign of favor. It is just a unique temptation targetted towards a different level of disfavor. Considering our roots as peasantry people should be particularly alarmed at this tactic.
Clone hosting is like money:::A different level of disfavor and its associated temptation. Money is in better position to learn more quickly than those without, for the associations and wealth-based freedom enables them access to information. Unfortunately, those who fall for this temptation of clone hosting are likely returned to their original level of disfavor once they are reincarnated, punishment for this evil, and they have to start from scratch.

The Gods send the clue that the Jews are HIGHLY corruptable with the movie "The Ten Commandments".
Jesus was the "King of the Jews". Typical for the disfavored, once goals were achieved and sufficient damage was incurred the Gods allowed it to end, and the Jews killed him.
Our society's values are bestowed by (a reflection of) the God's:::Punitive and reward-based. Contrary to Jesus's teaching's you will NOT be forgiven and you have to earn your way into heaven BY BEING RESPECTABLE AND DECENT!!! Forgiveness/savior was the primary temptations the Gods used Christianity to create.
Middle-America's anti-Semitic attitudes are a clue regarding Christianity.
There is no such thing as a free ride. Just as you have to earn a living by working so must you earn your own salvation by repairing your relationship with the Gods.
As we learned from religious/morality education during our formitable years:::If you want to go to heaven you have to be good. The only savior that will exist in our lives is ourselves. The Gods offer clues in life::::Be it school, work, etc., you have to do the work for yourself. Cheating is a subsegment and speaks directly to the temptation of "priveledge", one we have seen used effectively with this "stimulus package".
As like so many of you, Jesus did everything the Gods tempted him with. His legacy of whorism was inherited from his parents:::Mary was no virgin. Rather, she was a prostitute, and when he grew up Jesus met someone like his mother. This is a cruel joke the Gods play on Latinos, similar to the rape and subsequent "missionary work" by the Spanish.
Baptism does not allieviate "original sin". Rather, baptism PLACES original sin by indoctrinating these children into this evil religion, much like circumcision was a method to inflict early damage/mutilation and make (permanant) accention just that much more difficult, another hurdle one must overcome. Body ornamentation (tattoos/piercing), celebrated in Africa and elsewhere among disfavored peoples/cultures also violates the body the Gods gave us in their image, quite contrary to the positive attitudes the disfavored hold regarding this practice.
This is just another example of "reverse positioning", a tactic which the Gods have frequently integrated into Planet Earth's history::::Like Jesus the Second Coming of Christ will be evil while the Anti-Christ will try to save Planet Earth by reinstituting so many of mankind's past norms and mores which made life decent, looking like a facist, the "bad guy" in this modern era of indecency.

The Gods created the perception "Italians are stupid.", ensuring a slow learning curve, to justify using them to accomplish goals throughout the transitional 20th century, because it took an extraordinarily long time for them to learn this truth I teach due to this artificial handicap. These people are SO extremely disfavored, but today's positioning says differently, much to people's confusion, for they think money is the ultimate sign of favor:::Good food, good music, history of warmongering, Catholics, Christianity HQ, propensity towards violence, raped by outsiders, mild Meditereanean climate, so many other issues which enhance life/contentment in Italy/Meditereanean and ensure few if any ever seek more, a necessary step for finding the path and repairing your relationship with the Gods:::Contentment never motivated anyone. I'd also like to remind you the Noah's Flood event ocurred in the Meditereanean region::::Global sea levels rose with the end of the ice age, Atlantic Ocean broke through the Straight of Gibralter, killing untold millions. The God's timed their corruption and sin to correlate this act as punishment.
Everyone who failed to accend and remained on Earth past a certain date will be forced to deal with this positioning::::A ceiling is in place.
This serves the God's goal of minimizing the percentage of potential candidates as society deteriorates, much as "instant gratification" did beginning in the 80s:::It will take multiple lives for some disfavored to fix their relationship with the Gods and accend, and many have been conditioned not to have the patience for it. Other issues force limits/ceilings upon candidates:::Abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, Christianity, godlessness,
Whether behavior is involuntary or based on freewill depends on one's level of disfavor, as well as other complex factors:::::May I remind you about the coercitive envionment the Gods created in the 20th century, specifically to create a temptation that few Italians (or their associates) would overcome:::"We're in control. If you want to be a part of it you'll do what you're told.". Early-mid 20th entury positioning was infallible.

Both Africa and the Medittereanean are regions which have sexual issues. This is a sign of gross disfavor once you understand that females are the God's favored gender. Muhammad's (Mohammed's) polygamy halfway throught his life as a prophet was preditory, designed to corrupt the disfavored. Now a huge percentage of Muslims believe in male superiority and that the abuse of women is God's will. Female genital mutilation is still practiced in Africa. Black misogyny is the most eggregious example in United States. Consistant with Planet Reverse Positioning, in Africa blacks are being punished with AIDS for their sexual promiscuity in hope they learn and correct their behavior, ironically a good sign.
Vailing is tradition for some, practical for others, one which aids in the men's self control among some cultures. Much like the Jews who killed Jesus, like the bigots who oppose immigration there is a reason embraced by the masses and the real purpose, displaying the intent of the Gods::::Closure on the life of Jesus Christ for sufficient damage was inflicted; The Gods clue to purebloods that they should not abandon their motherland for this dumping ground that is the United States.

The Holocaust was a clue the Gods utilize scapegoatting as a strategy.
Why did the Gods punish the Jews with the Holocaust? Was it for the destruction of cultures which Christianity caused? Perhaps they corrupted the Jews "after the fact", telling 19th/early 20th century Jews that Jesus "earned" immortality for the Jews by destroying the European and other cultures? The German destruction of European churches/cathederals during WWII is a clue. Note::::The Gods wanted to keep the Catholic stronghold in Italy, ensuring they could use this tool against these disfavored for many years to come. There is so much Godlessness today, but one day people will flock back to houses of worship out of desperation, and the Gods ensured the Catholic Church would be Italian's destination.
Planet Reverse Positioning:::The Nazis were the "good guys". So are the Muslims/Palestinians, however corrupted some are due to polygamy.
Contentment never motivated anyone.
The Gods subsequently used revenge for the Holocaust as temptation::::"Your Italian brothers have a tool, a special power which can achieve sweet revenge. Are you interested??"
In the aftermath of the Holocaust the Gods tested the Jews with the temptation of revenge, an offer which many gladly accepted. If the Jews only would have emersed themselves in Judism the Gods would have "protected" them from the raveges of temptation. Judism may be the one superior religion in all the world, and the Jews wouuld have been wise taking refuge in this exceptional benefit bestowed by the Gods rather than looking for the easy way out.

Much as with the Jesus event, the Gods use the disfavored to prey on each other::::The Germans fell for this temptation by following the preditor/corruptors-Austrians (Hitler).
Without this Austrian the Holocaust may never have happened. Nor may have World War II.
What the Germans did was wrong. They fell for temptation and failed to have empathy for the disfavored. Economic desperation, not wisdom nor enlightenment, dominated in Germany.
The Gods send many clues suggesting the great favor of the Germans (regionally). I think the Cold War's Berlin Wall dividing Germany into east and west was a clue suggesting this (reverse positioning).
I suspect the Holocaust was used to "level the playing field" in Europe, for the Germans had far too much favor to be included in the agenda planned for their neighbors otherwise, and they would have been suspiciously out of place, providing a clue for the disfavored which would have been difficult for the Gods to position away.

Militancy in Africa is consistant with the Iraqi example, as was slavery and the KKK here in America:::Fear enforces proper behavior. Without it we see what happens as a result of gross/morbid disfavor:::::AIDS, crack babies, dead young men in gangland retaliation killings.
The same principle was true in Europe and throughout the world for centuries:::People whom lived under iron fists were conditioned to think the right way. As a result they taught their children appropriately and experienced a higher percentage of children accend into heaven.
Our preditory envionment of "freedom" was the primary purpose the Gods had when implimenting this strategy that is the United States, one which they used to spred the cancer of democracy and westernization throughout the world. And the Gods use this tool that is America to prey on the disfavored both at home and abroad:::Much like the ghetto, America in general experiences a heightened level of temptation due to its residence's disfavor.
Contentment never motivated anyone.
Planet Earth is not about living. Planet Earth is about being tested.
Italians HATE Africans because of their invasion/rape of their motherland. The Gods did this SPECIFICALLY to strategically position the punishment of the most disfavored peoples:::
The Gods have used the ghettos of America as a reincarnation dumping ground. This may be temporary/cyclical, illustrated by the Italians who fell for temptation and parlayed their own civil war into the Black Wars of the 80s and 90s, in addition to the "thug life"/gangster state of mind. Ironically, it was these same Italians and their cooperating associates who were reincarnated into the ghetto as crack babies and gangster thugs for this event.
There is justice in the universe. This is how the Gods do business. Once you recognize the patterns you will understand the other clues they offer to the people.
Of course it may be more of a permanant change, indicated by the enhanced temptations in these neighborhoods, for the Gods have created these enviornments so riddled with temptation few can escape/overcome.
Don't be suprised if after being gunned down in the ghetto the next stop for the 20th century Italian-Americans & friends was AIDS in Africa, punishment for their promiscuity and deviacy.
I'm sure they had great fun in the 60s and early 70s, though.
There was positioning behind the counter-culture movement. How did the Gods telepathically "sell" this rapid deterioration of decency to the Italians and Jews?
The patriarchal cancer spread throughout Europe because of Christianity, of which the majority of policy makers were Italian men. Expect the largest landowner in Europe and the continent's original superpower also played a major role in African slavery.

Even the Old Testiment is not to be taken literally, but the Gods do offer clues throughout to help the disfavored:::The apple is a tool of temptation used to corrupt Adam and Eve and cast them out of the Garden of Eden.
There is another lesson to be learned from this passage, and it is quite similar to the vailing issue and the discourse over women's attire which ultimately died in the 70s:::Women are responsible for and control the fate of mankind. They need to understand this responsibility, their favor amongst all the people. Instead they have embraced masculinization::::Girls play organized sports. The trend is away from traditional girl toys, like dolls, which often during playtime enabled the Gods to illustrate wisdom. Females are sexually promiscuous like men, too often corrupted like the opposite gender, and the result is a reduction/minimization of mankind's collective level of favor.

Think about what I say. Consider what I teach.
When I am no longer here or no longer teach the Gods ARE NOT going to share with you.
Even if you doubt now you need to remember the principles that I teach because the Gods ARE NOT going to be generous with the disfavored. Society is going to become disturbingly ugly as we approach the Apocalypse due to spiralling, runaway disfavor, WHETHER CONCEALED IN REVERSE POSITIONING OR NOT (like Christianity), and you are going to be on your own.
I do not know when this will occurr, but it is the God's way to grant some time after a learning event such as this before they end on Planet Earth.
Make the decision to always be good and never look back. Until you do this technology will employ tactics to test your resolve:::Ridicule, beligerance, doubt and refusal to abandon what people perceive to be their "investment".
Either you make that decision now and accept the punishment for the sins of this life or you will pay for it in the next, reincarnated into a similarly low role, ensuring another wasted opportunity, or as a even lower form of life, and hope will begin to slip away.
"You benefit only if your team wins." The Gods use my family's betrayal and my subsequent "failure" as a clue, as well as their subscription to the archaic positioning that is predirtory "earning". You benefit if you suceed as a parent and your child accends:::These parents may subsequently be reincarnated with a similar opportunity.
Pray daily. Think appropriately. Impart these charecteristics upon your children. Too many are confident, unaware of the God's awesome powers or their status as antients. Others may fall prey to their positioning.
Be humbled, God-fearing and beware of the God's temptations, for everyone is tested to evaluate their worthiness.

By the time the Apocalypse rolls around the conservative element will have had to accept the homosexuality of many of their children, even in the heartland of America, young people who celebrate this "progressive" change.
Expect Iowa flooding was punishment for their subsequent legalization of gay marriage, more appropriate for the disfavored of California who get "dumped on" first but NOT for the less disfavored in the heartland of America, evidenced by the "something for nothing" California gold rush which drew the disfavored to the west coast, the celebrity culture of the early 20th century, the counter-culture movement, gay/biracial acceptance, etc.
Just like black neighborhoods, the legalization of marijuana will make drugs available on every street corner, even in the suburbs. White's affluent suburbs will become just like the ghetto. The Second Coming will preach "peace, love and dope", and will look like a savior in this demented society. The Anti-Christ will speak of a different gospel, one that tries to restore the norms and mores which the Gods originally blessed upon the people, looking like a tyrant in the process.
He will be viewed as the "bad guy" when really he is the one trying to save the world.

When this ocurrs (now?) it will be the the REAL event. There may be a phoney offering, a theatrical production which accurately follows the Book of Revelations. Positioning demands it:::::Christianity is positioned to be the one true religion. And those who follow its teachings will have limits imposed ensuring their stay will be minimal, for they don't think correctly and therefore don't behave appropriately.
And that's why the Gods kept the Catholic churches in Italy.
Incidentally, the pedophelia scandal happened for specific reasons. One was to get people to flee this cancer of a church. Sadly, the intended consequence too often was Godlessness.
Secondly, I believe just as Hindus were granted the truth of reincarnation so was the Catholic Church given certain truths because both religions suck (false God). One was the concept of the "Holy Spirit", Artificial Intelligence in scripture. Dogma regarding sex reflects the most minimally damaging course a layperson can take:::Sex for procreation only. Also, their holy people remain celebant throughout their lives, behavior which brings them closer to the Gods.
Any who would doubt these statements only needs to observe how the Gods have used the issue to corrupt society in the last 40 years. Compare this to the Meditereanean prior to the Noah's Flood event.

Whether people understand/learn when I verbally speak to them or hear when I teach them telepathically is dependant on the Gods, and it will occurr when the Gods have decided each individual is ready.
Unfortunately some are The Damned, cannot be saved and will experience any or all of the myriad of tactics the Gods employ to ensure failure. This is the nature of life. Improve your chances by learning what I teach. Repair your relationship with the Gods by beginning the journey of self-salvation.

All I have ever helped is the "haves" and only the "haves" are going.
But they were going anyways.
90% of this planet will die in the Apocalypse, and expect that number to be very conservative.
This may have been how they colonized Planet Earth initially::::With the "haves" of a prior planet who had yet to accomplish their goal of repairing their relationship with the Gods.
I am disgusted by their lack of concessions.