« The Pigeons | Main | Overpaid Dingbat Lectures Wall Street on Salaries »

October 23, 2009

Ex-Gay Books Banned

Posted by Van Helsing at October 23, 2009 7:42 AM

One reason liberals hate Christianity so frenetically is that it teaches us that we can overcome sin and find redemption. According to moonbat ideology, we are hapless victims who cannot be held accountable for our own behavior. The idea that we have free will is heresy to progressives, so it is no surprise that books about ex-gays are getting banned by public school libraries:

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) says there's an entire community of people across the world who say that their sexual orientation changed from gay to straight. But they're not getting their message out, the group says, because libraries across the country refuse to carry literature that describes these experiences or any studies that support them.
So a book like "My Genes Made Me Do It!: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation" — which argues that sexuality is shaped by a variety of factors, not just biological — can't get a spot on the school library shelf.
Neither can "You Don't Have to Be Gay," which describes author Jeff Konrad's struggle to overcome his unwanted same-sex attractions.

If you want to see your book on school shelves, you have to take a very different point of view — i.e., you have to promote homosexuality to children.

"Baby Be-Bop," the coming-out story of a gay teen, which includes descriptions of his sexual encounters in bathroom stalls with men he never talks to, makes the stacks.
So does "Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth," which describes a gay teen's relationship with his tutor with excerpts like: "Matt had one leg locked between mine, so that his d— was smashed between his stomach and my thigh. And as his hand jerked up and down on me his hips humped with the same rhythm."

PFOX Executive Director Regina Griggs turned to the American Library Association for help. After all, the ALA has been promoting its annual Banned Books Week, devoted to shining a light on "the harms of censorship by spotlighting actual or attempted bannings of books across the United States" and advancing the Library Bill of Rights, according to which:

• Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
• Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
• Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

But these principles only apply to books that advance the degenerate agenda. Consequently, the liberal establishment's ALA blew off Griggs, refusing even to issue a statement opposing bans on ex-gay books. When Fox News tried to learn more, the ALA blew it off too, no doubt pleasing The Anointed One immensely.


On a tip from Chad.


Van Hesling loves his black and white view of the left. Someone on the left does something stupid and it means EVERYONE on the left firmly supports it.

If that's the way your universe works can we presume the same standards apply to people on the right?

No? I didn't think so.

"One reason liberals hate Christianity so frenetically is that it teaches us that we can overcome sin and find redemption."

I have no problem with Christianity as one of many different spiritual paths. I have no problem with the concept of redemption.

"According to moonbat ideology, we are hapless victims who cannot be held accountable for our own behavior."

Excuse me? According to YOUR concept of ideology.

I am accountable for my behavior and I am willing to hold others accountable and have done so, re both left and right, on this blog.

"The idea that we have free will is heresy to progressives,..."

I have free will. Everyone I know has free will. Why do you try to peddle such absurd nonsense?

Posted by: Lao at October 23, 2009 8:00 AM

Lao, if what Van Helsing says doesn't apply to you why do you get so defensive? Are you denying that there are people (read moonbats) that hate Christianity precisely because it argues that people have a choice between right and wrong, and there is right and wrong in the first place?

These are the people Van Helsing is attacking. It sounds like you actually agree with Van Helsing that that sort of behavior is wrong. Why get made at Van Helsing for pointing out the folly in it?

Posted by: Judith M. at October 23, 2009 8:30 AM

I made it clear that my issue was stereotyping.

There are flaky people on both the right and the left and given some specifics, I might agree with Van Helsing. I expressed the opinion that the pet-eating academics were flakes. I have expressed the opinion that 911 truthers are flakes.

However, Moonbattery thrives on the notion that EVERYONE on the left, is bad, wrong, evil, misguided, etc. etc. and people posting here constantly reflect that bias. At the same time, they resent it if someone stereotypes the right. Duh!

Posted by: Lao at October 23, 2009 8:45 AM

Weren't Liberals shrieking about Palin trying to ban books from the library (which was untrue)?

Posted by: Henry at October 23, 2009 8:56 AM

No, Moonbattery thrives on chronicling the far left - that is, people who can be described with the epithet of "moonbat." Moderate leftism doesn't get chronicled here because it is boring, commonplace, and not the leading edge of the progressive assault on America.

You say that:
There are flaky people on both the right and the left
Guess what? This blog exists for the purpose of following the flakes on the left. Blogs aren't supposed to follow every single newsworthy item - that is what news organizations are for, or at least were for, now that the drive-by media no longer reports the news.

The term "moonbat" itself is partially derived from the name of George Monbiot, a completely nutty fringe leftist.

However, Moonbattery thrives on the notion that EVERYONE on the left, is bad, wrong, evil, misguided, etc. etc.
Moonbattery thrives on the notion that every moonbat is bad, wrong, evil, misguided, etc. The statement doesn't impute the more charged adjectives to everyone left of center, since we're talking about those already defined as moonbats. A center-left independent is misguided, but I don't think I've ever seen a non-troll post here specifically naming that entire class of people as bad or evil, and certainly nothing from VH or the staff.

The same applies to other terms such as "progressive", "leftist", "liberal", "bureaucrat", "Californian", "Democrat", etc. When VH makes a statement such as, "The idea that we have free will is heresy to progressives" the word "progressives" is used as a class identifier, not an individual identification of every single person with a bit of progressive sympathy.

Since this is a right-leaning blog, we don't feel the need to attach a ten sentence lawyer-esque disclaimer to any sentence that somebody might misinterpret - we're (supposedly) all adults and should be able to grasp the difference between generalizations applying to all "progressives", as opposed to statements applied to leading persons who define and advance the progressive agenda - who are referred to as "progressives" for the sake of expedience.

For someone who has decried "anti-intellectualism", you certainly seem to cast aside basic linguistic concepts when it suits your agenda.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at October 23, 2009 9:09 AM

"Moderate leftism doesn't get chronicled here because it is boring, commonplace, and not the leading edge of the progressive assault on America."

That's interesting. Care to provide some names of well-known people, politicians or otherwise, that you would consider to be "moderate leftists"?

Posted by: Lao at October 23, 2009 9:23 AM

Look at what is going on now in the Senate. Take, for example, Evan Bayh, who is currently receiving much attention for being one of the few Democrats working to stop nationalization of health care.

He's a leftist, and I would never vote for him, but if you examine his voting record, it is clear that he is cut from a different cloth and advocates different set of policies than the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Henry Waxman.

I don't agree with his positions, but any reasonable person would describe him as a moderate who leans left of center, but is willing to cross the aisle on certain issues. His position, while often misguided and sometimes moonbatty, do not rise to the level of evil exhibited by the statists looking to seize control of America and squelch freedom.

I'm not sure what naming off center-left politicians has to do with anything, unless you are denying that politics follows a spectrum in which some people lie just to the left or right of center.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at October 23, 2009 9:36 AM

My comments re stereotyping should make it obvious that I agree there is a spectrum of political thought, on both the left and the right.

I asked you to name moderate leftists that you say are ignored on Moonbattery because my experience here is that everyone from moderate Republicans to the far left are labelled as moonbats.

As far as evil statists "looking to seize control of America and squelch freedom", maybe you should have started paying attention a lot sooner.

Can you honestly believe that the far left, those same people you call moonbats, who railed against the abuses on freedom implemented by the previous administration, are unaware that those policies have been maintained by this administration?

Where was the oh-so-concerned-about-our-freedoms right during the Bush years? Oh yes, I recall now. The right was invisible.

Hello? How nice to have you expressing some concerns about freedom NOW when the Department of Homeland Security has been checking on the left since 2002. Environmental groups, anti-war groups, church groups, and protesters at the GOP convention were all spied upon. What did we hear from the right? NOTHING!

NOW you whine and moan that the government might be politically motivated when the right is being spied upon! The government can eavesdrop on phone calls and monitor e-mails without warrants. They can check on your bank records and get your medical information all without any oversight or safeguards. Federal officials can also hide behind "national security" to justify their actions.

NOW you are suddenly concerned to discover they might be checking on YOU and you don't like it. Pardon me while I wipe away a tear. Does the right only have concerns for citizens' privacy when it is THEY who are being looked at? Apparently so.

The Bush administration implemented the greatest invasion of privacy and expansion of government power ever. NOW, that Obama has that power, you suddenly discover a concern for government oversight?

Of course the irony is, the Bush administration was spying on the right all along and they didn't care to notice. Remember the howls of outrage when the DHS report into right wing extremism was released last spring? The information revealed in that report was gathered by investigations implemented by the Bush administration.

I can still remember the right's witty line when the left complained. Let's see if it applies to you:

"Why should you care if the government monitors your phone and e-mail? Have you got something to hide?"

Posted by: Lao at October 23, 2009 10:04 AM

You know, Lao, your argument that authorities shouldn't have been "spying" on the RNC Welcoming Committee would be a lot stronger if they hadn't found machetes, hatchets, knives, metal pipes and homemade devices used to disable buses when they raided where their leaders were staying. It also would be stronger if those maniacs hadn't done so much actual property damage during the convention.

I'd object to authorities monitoring groups that simply happen to have differing political opinions, but if there is reason to suspect that a group intends to do violence, I'd like them to keep an eye on them.

Do you think there is reason to believe anyone here is planning violence against the government? I don't, and I've followed this blog fairly closely.

Posted by: Judith M. at October 23, 2009 12:38 PM

"protesters at the GOP convention were all spied upon"
With good reason, considering that many of those groups like the RNC Welcoming Committee were genuinely dangerous extremists who posed an active threat (i.e. That group had held training camps in which its members practiced strategies on how to stop buses and kidnap delegates), and thus it was justifiable to gain inside info on them.
I'd say what happened was definitely justifiable,
considering that the information gathered led to, among many cases:
1. The arrests of two Anarchist youths who had been making homemade napalm in preparation for the RNC, with the intent of using it to attack police officers as revenge for a police raid in which many of the Anarchists' homemade weapons were confiscated as evidence.
2. The arrest of a protestor who was planning to detonate a bomb inside the convention center.
3. The safehouse raids Judith mentioned, in which a buttload of deadly weapons were found to have been stockpiled in rooms.
Plus, as Judith also mentioned, the fact that those freaks did so much property damage, and attacked and terrorized so many innocent people (Including women, children, and the elderly) further shows that, if anything, the police and the government didn't do enough to derail the Anarchists' twisted plans.
btw, Judith, in looking at reports documenting the raid of the RNC Welcoming Committee safehouse, I saw a photo of the room in the safehouse where they stockpiled their weapons, and noticed in the photo another weapon which almost nobody documenting the raids mentioned, yet which makes those Anarchist psychos' true intentions crystal clear: A compound bow, complete with a full set of arrows.
Those psychopaths were planning on KILLING PEOPLE at the convention, and Laos is saying it was wrong for the government and the police to stop them?

Posted by: Adam at October 23, 2009 4:18 PM

Posted by: Chairman Lao at October 23, 2009 10:04 AM- "Quack, quack, quack."

TRANSLATED FROM MOONBATESE: "Please don't discuss the topic of this thread. The authors of these books are haters. Hating, hate criminal, haters. It is genetics that forces me to fist n' felch. Any hater that contends that it is a perversion of choice deserves to be banned. Scientific studies by Dr. Roger D. Lubenfist have proven that you cannot stop being gay. I know I can't. So stop talking about it. I wanna talk about Bush. Bush, Bush, Bush. And Cheney."

Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at October 23, 2009 6:09 PM

Lao's tactic is obvious here - to draw attention away from the sickness of peddling misuse of sexuality to children and the (surprise, surprise) double standards of moonbats when 2 of their so-called principles come into conflict.

The lesson here is simple - homosexual behaviour trumps campaigns against censorship. Limitations on sexual behaviour are the ultimate non-negotiable of leftists. And they are exposed for the hypocritical sickos they are.

But really, what do you expect? I mean, those who engage in sticking their penis into another man's anus can't procreate, so they are forced to recruit - and schools are the obvious targets.

Posted by: Stephan at October 23, 2009 7:18 PM

Great points, Stephan, and BTW, those homosexual books they are letting into the schools that were mentioned above are nothing short of homosexual pornography. When I hear that our tax dollars are being used to buy such filth and that it is being made available to our children it fills me with a white hot rage.

Posted by: Judith M. at October 23, 2009 8:54 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)