Sunday, March 19, 2006

V is for vile, vacuous vipers

Loony-land residents over at the Far Right World Net Daily are always on the lookout for a film to bash. Now with Brokeback Mountain finishing its run they need another target to excoriate. Their new target is the libertarian film V for Vendetta.

But WND turns to some bow-tied twit from an outfit called the Christian Film & Television Commission. Considering that people get more stupid in commissions, and considering that most these fundies start out intellectually challenged to begin with, I guess one shouldn't expect much from this group. And their chairman, Ted Baehr, penned a silly diatribe meant for consumption by brain-dead social conservatives.

First he claims that Oscar's "celebrated left-wing politics and anti-Christian bigotry". What a utter dildo! And I mean that in the nicest way. Though I suspect I may be forced to apologize to dildos everywhere. The Oscars did not such thing. I watched them from start to finish. Had they done that they might have been a bit more entertaining. Now what he means, in Christian logic, is that by honoring films that Christians hate then the Academy is anti-Christian. Certainly there is nothing about Brokeback Mountain that is anti-Christian. It just does share the fundamentalists obsession with hating homosexuals. And to bigots if you don't share their bigotry that makes you the real bigot.

Now Baehr is attack V for Vendetta as a "vile, pro-terrorist piece of neo-Marxist, left-wing propaganda filled with radical sexual politics and nasty attacks on religion and Christianity." That Baehr is not very intelligent is garnered from the fact that, in his "review", he calls the British parliament "one of Western Civilization's most enduring symbols of democracy and republican government..." Apparently he doesn't have the sense to know that a monarchy can't be a republican form of government. But it's not in the Bible so it mustn't be important.

He says the movie is "a thinly veiled attack on the War on Terror now being waged by Prime Minister Tony Blair in Great Britain and President George W. Bush in the United States." Of course the film's story line is based on a famous comic from almost 20 years ago.

That the film is about a future authoritarian world escapes this born-again dweeb. But he doesn't waste time getting down to the real reason he hates this film. He hates this film because the film doesn't hate homosexuals. What precisely is it about these religious nutters that make them so obsessed with what other people do with their genitals? Here is what this fundamentalist hate-monger has to say, the film:

"[A]lso depicts homosexuals as a persecuted, harmless minority of "nice" people. Both of these portrayals are hate-filled, false stereotypes, but the second one is actually contradicted by the secret stash of homoerotic pornography that one of the homosexual characters in the movie hides in a secret room in his house. If all homosexuals, and all homosexual activists, are such goody two shoes, how come so many of them resort to unsafe sexual practices that spread deadly diseases, and how come so many of them promote pornography, support the murder of unborn children through abortion and molest underage children?"

Good god, could the man cram any more venom and hatred into one paragraph? See gay people really are all evil. That is what is saying. They are all nasty people who promote porn, killing babies and molesting children. I suspect he confuses gay men with Catholic priests on that last count.

Baehr claims this film is part of a communist plot! I kid you not. McCarthy and Saint Paul have been born again in this nerd. He claims this comes from "the communist influence of the Frankfurt School... started... by a group of Marxist intellectuals."

Then he simply asserts that the culture war was started by these Commies and and that "is what the Culture war in Hollywood is all about." In fact he shows no link at all. He merely states that a group of commies got together in 1923 in Germany and then jumps to the films he likes to hate without showing a single link between the two. But in fundamentalist circles this is considered high logic.

In Baehr's fevered imagination the only purpose of art is to promote Christian fundamentalism --- which probably shows why he hates a film that is critical of the kind of theocratic society that people like Baehr would like to impose on the world. This film doesn't promote fundamentalism so it's evil. It promotes evils such as "immoral sexual practices conducted outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage." He writes like he thinks. Are these immoral sex acts inherently immoral or only immoral when practiced outside the bedroom of born-again nutters? He is very unclear. It could mean either. In addition this film shows "atheist, pro-homosexual bigotry that creates vile, hateful stereotypes of Christians and their leaders."

Again he is saying that if a film is not explicitly anti-gay then the film is exhibiting "pro-homosexual bigotry". See if you don't hate gays then you are a bigot. And that is how god wants it.

And finally, like some fanatical Islamic mullah, he announces that he speaks directly for some deity. "In other words, God hates it when institutions and people like Time Warner and the filmmakers behind V for Vendetta pervert mankind's ability to create art." The only good art, he says, is that which "informed by frequent reading and serious study of the Bible, which is the World of God." Right! Now this is what the nuts at World Net Daily think is a film review.

I was curious as to what films this deluded Bible addict does find acceptable so I went to his web site. He has a dozen films rated on his web site and not a single one of them is deemed "acceptable" according to his Talibanist views. The film Aquamarine is a kid's film. But Baehr gives the film a "caution" because he says it has a "pagan elements" because the mermaid in it grants wishes. He mentions profanities by which he means a character says "My god". There is also, what he calls, "naturalistic nudity of both male and female teenagers in swimsuits and bikinis". Get that! Wearing a swimsuit is what he calls "nudity".

The film Joyeux Noel is given a "Caution" rating as well. It shows a "woman's naked shoulders and man's naked back exposed, upper male nudity; alcohol use, smoke; and light suggestions of total pacifism..." Oh my god. Is there no end to the depravity of Hollywood. OOPS, it wasn't made in Hollywood. Never mind it's still a commie plot.

Failure to Launch is rated "extreme caution" because of things like a "strong pagan worldview" and "advocating fun as much as commitment". It has "22 obscenities (including one "f" word), five strong profanities and 13 light profanities..." This whack job sits there and counts them apparently. There is even "implied married sex"!

And then there is Shaggy Dog which these nutbars find "abhorrent" for it's "Very strong New Age pagan, false religious worldview..." Spoken like a true ayatollah. It apparently has a Buddhist perspective and, according to this "film review:" "Buddhism is a false religion that leads people away from knowledge of their own sinful nature, the true nature of reality and the redemption that comes through the Gospel of Jesus Christ." If this doesn't show that these fanatics intend to push their damnable theology on everyone and everything around them then I don't know what does. How absurd. This is is a fantasy film but they insist that anything that doesn't have 100% compatibility with their theology is "abhorrent".

Now when you read this wacky material you understand what lunatics the Right-wing have become. Not only does the far Right WND publish this rubbish but Baehr's own site proudly runs a letter they received praising them from the head Ayatollah himself, George W. Bush.


Blogger Pirate said...

I often wonder if these whackos have a monetary interest in these movies they attack. It only gives the movie free advertisement and adds interest in seeing it. The same was with Mel Gibson's, Passion. There is no doubt that many who riled the uninformed danced all the way to the bank.

I have a question for you to ponder. How is bigotry toward Christians any different from the bigotry toward gays?

You often imply that Chrisitians believe they are more moral then none believers. You have a time or two mentioned how this upsets you or justifies your disdain toward them. But aren't the Atheist and the "Right-wing" Chrisitain types both claiming moral superiority over each other? Aren't they both the same animal just wearing the oposite uniform?

I hear both trying to outshout the other over who has a better grasp on reality. One side claims it is written therefore it is so. The other claims it is all fantasy therefore it is not so. Yet, either side has no more grasp of reality then the other.

What would they do without each other?

March 20, 2006

Blogger CLS said...

Let me reply briefly to what you ask as I don't like to use the comments for windy discussions mostly brief ones. Does as atheist claim moral superiority over a Christian? I have said several times that atheism is merely the lack of a belief regarding a deity and nothing more. So an atheist, as an atheist, claims no moral beliefs. He may do so as something else but not as an atheist. Secondly, this only touches morality in a tangential way not in any significant way. Morality is not about belief per se but about how one behaves. So a Christian can be moral or immoral. An atheist can be moral or immoral. An atheist may assert an intellectual superiority by saying the beliefs Christians hold are irrational. If they do so what?, provided they leave the other alone as a free person. But I don't know atheists who claim a moral superiority. And unlike many Christians the atheist rarely is trying to force the Christian to live by his own standards. There is a realm of morality that belief does touch which is the morality of how one acts in ways that have an effect on one's self and not others.

If you believe in faith healing, for instance, and thus refuse medical care that can save your life then I would say you have acted immorally but only in the sense of acting in a way harmful to yourself. I think that is immoral. But that is on the same plane as smoking, drinking too much, or driving too fast without a seatbelt. What you do to yourself is a realm of morality but the way you treat others is the major moral realm. Now many Christians are very nasty to others because of their beliefs. But merely holding the belief is not the problem --- acting upon it is. So the only time an atheist has the right to claim moral superiority in any significant way is if the Christian is violating the rights of others and the atheist is not.

March 20, 2006

Blogger Pirate said...

That is clear. Thanks. I have worked with many Atheist who have the bad sense to do just what you have pointed out that many of the Christians do. To be honest both make me ill.

I can accept another persons belief system as long as they do not try to impose it on me.

Too often the fundies as you call them seem to get all the media attention when they actually make a small group of believers. They just haven't got the message that they aren't God. They are mere small support characters in a large play.

March 20, 2006


Post a Comment

<< Home


Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites