The Queer Muhammad: An Experiment in Tolerance

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

The Queer Muhammad: an experiment in tolerance by Mike S. Adams - Feb 13, 2006 (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2006/02/13/186126.html)

Dear (NEA Chairman) Dana Gioia:
I write to you today, not with a request, but with a demand. I’ve been sitting back patiently while the NEA has been promoting anti-Christian “art” for a number of years. In fact, one could say that I have been supporting it, too, given that my tax dollars have been spent on this garbage. And maybe I’ve been supporting it in another way by refusing to write you to express my frustration. That is, until now.

In the spirit of the “separation of church and state,” my demand is that you commission a painting – fully funded with tax dollars – that has one intention and one intention only: To offend Muslims everywhere.

This new painting will help the NEA avoid any accusations of state sponsorship of religion by insulting some religion other than Christianity. In the past, you’ve supported the “Piss Christ” and the “Elephant Dung Mary.” Now, I’m asking you to fund the “Queer Muhammad.”

For this painting, I want the artist to put the Prophet Muhammad in a pink bathrobe. I also want him holding a little toy poodle. Finally, I would like you to feature him reading a copy of “Playgirl” magazine. If you want to get daring, you can also feature him French-kissing Salmon Rushdie. Or better yet, feature him French-kissing Jacques Chirac.

This is SO funny ... a REAL must read!

[MN_homebrewer]

We already have a lesson in the OT about homosexual tolerance. It has been said that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship. I don't know if I would quite say that, but when they decided to become blood brothers, Jonathan took off his robe, stripping down butt naked in front of David. It does not say that David reciprocated. I take it that Jonathan was gay, but David was not, and this is where the tolerance comes in. Neither does it say that David pushed Jonathan away and called him a nasty name.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

We already have a lesson in the OT about homosexual tolerance. It has been said that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship. I don't know if I would quite say that, ...



And I'd say you didn't read the article.

[routerider]

LOL!

[DoctorDoom]

We already have a lesson in the OT about homosexual tolerance. It has been said that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship. I don't know if I would quite say that, ...The militant queers will try to "out" anyone and everyone, particularly famous people.

We therefore rank Townsley in the "underinformed" category any time he cites non-sexual, affectionate behavior as meaningful for his case. Yet this he does in spades, going back to 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and finding a "love at first sight" citation:And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.Townsley admits that there is no linguistic similarity between this and language in Gen. 2 which refers to "becoming one flesh," but he insists that "there is a striking similarity in concepts between the son leaving the parents to join to a spouse, and the two becoming one." Is there? We ask, in whose imagination, other than Townsley's? As noted above, such a linkup would have been political suicide for Saul, David, and/or Jonathan, and this language is no different (indeed, far tamer) than that which Rihbany describes among close, non-homosexual friends. (We may note that commentators regard Jon here as passing over his royal insignia -- in effect, his right to the throne -- to David, and those who see a sexual encounter here may note that only one person seems to be getting undressed!) And lest anyone make much of that "loved" bit, it is the same word used to say that the Lord loved Israel (Deut. 7:8, 1 Kings 10:9, 2 Chr. 2:11, 9:8, Hosea 3;1), so that horse can go right back into the barn without even being saddled. The same word is often used, as Townsley notes, of relationships that would clearly have a sexual component (just look through Song of Songs!) but it implies, as agape does, a more practical concern. (Townlsey notes these cites, but does not tell us that the word is used of the relationship between God and Israel, which smacks rather of a cover-up!)

[snip]

In sum: The idea that Jon and Dave are homosexual partners is little but a fantasy composed by those desiring to find justifications in the text to "do their own thing".Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers? (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html)

[Lazarus]

We already have a lesson in the OT about homosexual tolerance. It has been said that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship...Oh for crissakes... They never quit... Who ARE these people who are so obsessed with making everyone homosexual... Ya know, I admit that I loved my own brother dearly... Im sure somewhere some lefty activist would say that we not only were queer but were incestuous queers...

Apparently these people are incapable of separating the concepts of Philos and Agape from Eros... :rolleyes: How sad... One wonders what its like to have such a limited comprehension of life...

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Just for the record, Professor Adams' article is NOT primarily about homosexuals/homosexuality -- I would whole-heartedly encourage people to read the article.

[Lazarus]

I know that guy... He's the one who's had the running battle with the Feminazis...

I love that guy... BTW, that's a figure of speak denoting admiration...

For those who are only capable of defining love as sexual intimacy... :rolleyes:

[Faithful_Servant]

We already have a lesson in the OT about homosexual tolerance. It has been said that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship. I don't know if I would quite say that, but when they decided to become blood brothers, Jonathan took off his robe, stripping down butt naked in front of David. It does not say that David reciprocated. I take it that Jonathan was gay, but David was not, and this is where the tolerance comes in. Neither does it say that David pushed Jonathan away and called him a nasty name.
If you had even one clue waht it is you are talking about....

When Jonathan offered David his COAT, he was entering into a convenant relationship with David. He was actually offering David all of the authority he had as the son and heir of the king. Nothing homosexual about it, just the most sacred of relationships being established. One that is lost on modern society, but well understood by the people of that day.

[SmellyFed]

We already have a lesson in the OT about homosexual tolerance. It has been said that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship. I don't know if I would quite say that, but when they decided to become blood brothers, Jonathan took off his robe, stripping down butt naked in front of David. It does not say that David reciprocated. I take it that Jonathan was gay, but David was not, and this is where the tolerance comes in. Neither does it say that David pushed Jonathan away and called him a nasty name.

Totally contrived BS.

[Native American]

We already have a lesson in the OT about homosexual tolerance. It has been said that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship. I don't know if I would quite say that, but when they decided to become blood brothers, Jonathan took off his robe, stripping down butt naked in front of David. It does not say that David reciprocated. I take it that Jonathan was gay, but David was not, and this is where the tolerance comes in. Neither does it say that David pushed Jonathan away and called him a nasty name.

What utter nonsense. The Homosexual Propagandists keeps sounding more and more ignorant, the more we hear from them.

[DoctorDoom]

Who ARE these people who are so obsessed with making everyone homosexual...The motivation is to use the Bible (English version) to justify their behavior in an attempt to undermine Christian objections to it. The spin jobs done on the various verses that clearly condemn homosexual behavior are wonderfully creative, albeit utterly indefensible.

John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

If you're a militant homo, that verse is a proof text that Jesus and John were queers. Of course they ignore that "loved" in the Greek is this word:

25. agapao, ag-ap-ah'-o; perh. from agan (much) [or comp. H5689]; to love (in a social or moral sense):--(be-) love (-ed). Comp. G5368.

They also ignore social customs in that part of the world that continue even today. Truth is very flexible to liberals.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

HomeschoolrsRUs:
And I'd say you didn't read the article.

:smirky: Or the Bible.

[DoctorDoom]

He Reads Fairy TalesE.g., Heather Has Two Mommies, Daddy's Roommate, and Gloria Goes To Gay Pride.

Here's a charming page.

Beyond Heather Has Two Mommies: Picture Books w/ Gay Parents (http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/AB4DEFQB799P/102-3641920-3097764?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

There are 25 listings of queer propaganda books for little children (picture books for older kids?). But they don't recruit. :rolleyes:

[aaron11]

Excellent article, force them to show their out-n-out hypocrisy.


*MN Homebrewer, idiot...

[DeclinetoState]

We already have a lesson in the OT about homosexual tolerance. It has been said that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship. I don't know if I would quite say that, but when they decided to become blood brothers, Jonathan took off his robe, stripping down butt naked in front of David. It does not say that David reciprocated. I take it that Jonathan was gay, but David was not, and this is where the tolerance comes in. Neither does it say that David pushed Jonathan away and called him a nasty name.

You've been drinkin' your homebrew, haven't you?

[MN_homebrewer]

E.g., Heather Has Two Mommies, Daddy's Roommate, and Gloria Goes To Gay Pride.

Here's a charming page.

Beyond Heather Has Two Mommies: Picture Books w/ Gay Parents (http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/AB4DEFQB799P/102-3641920-3097764?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

There are 25 listings of queer propaganda books for little children (picture books for older kids?). But they don't recruit. :rolleyes:
I've never read those books, but I have heard many a time that children raised by homosexual couples are very cool kids, definitely better than those raised by white trash parents who should not be allowed to breed. Most of those children are also heterosexual too, so there must not be too much "militant gay propaganda". Reminding me of propaganda, that's why I don't listen to James Dobson or FAUX News.

[SmellyFed]

I've never read those books, but I have heard many a time that children raised by homosexual couples are very cool kids, definitely better than those raised by white trash parents who should not be allowed to breed. Most of those children are also heterosexual too, so there must not be too much "militant gay propaganda". Reminding me of propaganda, that's why I don't listen to James Dobson or FAUX News.

Would some admin kindly BAN this turd from the toilet? It keeps floating to the top instead of properly flushing.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I've never read those books, but I have heard many a time that children raised by homosexual couples are very cool kids, definitely better than those raised by white trash parents who should not be allowed to breed. Most of those children are also heterosexual too, so there must not be too much "militant gay propaganda". Reminding me of propaganda, that's why I don't listen to James Dobson or FAUX News.

As the one who initiated the thread, I would kindly ask that you stop taking it off topic. Read the article, it's NOT about homosexuals/homosexuality proper. If you are going to comment on a particular thread, it is common courtesy to at least be knowledgeable on what the thread is about.

You want to keep bringing up the homo topic, please relocate to The Homosexual Debate located in FlameWars. Thank you.

[MN_homebrewer]

Would some admin kindly BAN this turd from the toilet? It keeps floating to the top instead of properly flushing.
Are you calling your own forum a toilet?:thumb:

[SmellyFed]

Are you calling your own forum a toilet?:thumb:

It isn't my forum but thanks for your concern.... When you do flush though, try not to leave a crap-ring on the way out.

[MN_homebrewer]

http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=9590

...but the FSTDT toilet is better:eureka:

[SmellyFed]

http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=9590

...but the FSTDT toilet is better:eureka:

Yeah, like thats a shocker... troll is as troll does. It's a damned shame that I only have one listing over there...

[Rhino]

FLUSH!!!!!! :bye:

[omegatrump]

I've never read those books, but I have heard many a time that children raised by homosexual couples are very cool kids, definitely better than those raised by white trash parents who should not be allowed to breed. Most of those children are also heterosexual too, so there must not be too much "militant gay propaganda". Reminding me of propaganda, that's why I don't listen to James Dobson or FAUX News.

Homebrew, your as lost as a goat in a cactus desert, the only thing that you have to look forward to is to be the meal of a marauding band of dogs. (figuratively speaking of course)

Your rebellion against decency and righteousness will ultimately lead you to a sad demise. You need to repent.

[Rhino]

Too late. He was flushed.

[SmellyFed]

FLUSH!!!!!! :bye:

Thanks Rhino, you're a plunger after my own heart.

[bannerman]

The Queer Muhammad: an experiment in tolerance by Mike S. Adams - Feb 13, 2006 (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2006/02/13/186126.html)

Dear (NEA Chairman) Dana Gioia:
I write to you today, not with a request, but with a demand. I’ve been sitting back patiently while the NEA has been promoting anti-Christian “art” for a number of years. In fact, one could say that I have been supporting it, too, given that my tax dollars have been spent on this garbage. And maybe I’ve been supporting it in another way by refusing to write you to express my frustration. That is, until now.

In the spirit of the “separation of church and state,” my demand is that you commission a painting – fully funded with tax dollars – that has one intention and one intention only: To offend Muslims everywhere.

This new painting will help the NEA avoid any accusations of state sponsorship of religion by insulting some religion other than Christianity. In the past, you’ve supported the “Piss Christ” and the “Elephant Dung Mary.” Now, I’m asking you to fund the “Queer Muhammad.”

For this painting, I want the artist to put the Prophet Muhammad in a pink bathrobe. I also want him holding a little toy poodle. Finally, I would like you to feature him reading a copy of “Playgirl” magazine. If you want to get daring, you can also feature him French-kissing Salmon Rushdie. Or better yet, feature him French-kissing Jacques Chirac.

This is SO funny ... a REAL must read!


http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/4534/pm20065ja.jpg

soon we shall see a pandemic of spontaneous COMBUSTION in the "middle east" as the mohammadummies become aware of PISS MOHAMMAD

[Rhino]

Thanks Rhino, you're a plunger after my own heart.I cannot tell a lie. Homes did it.

[Lazarus]

I cannot tell a lie. Homes did it.My kinda gal, she is... ;)

Oh dear... Homo-brewer has turned a sickly shade of orange... Too bad... Dat's ok... I see he is still lurking...

Make lots of notes Brewer, so you can run back to your radical liberal board and spread your tales of how backward and barbaric we are here...

Have a nice day, Troll...

[Rhino]

He would have been fine had he not so obviously been trying to stir things up (trolling). Seems unnecessary really, when you consider that most libs think we're backward and barbaric anyway, even when we're being civil to them. I guess they're predisposed to think of us that way. In any case, I don't see why he thought it necessary to 'incite' things just to get the fodder he wanted for that other site.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: He's right, Fed. Be more careful with your analogies.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Mohammadummies?" I like it already.

[DoctorDoom]

FSTDT cretins are too ignorant and immature to create, so they must copy the writings of others and make juvenile comments on them. Sister Hms did FC a large favor by booting the idiot's sorry arse out the door. No doubt the fool will brag about how we couldn't withstand the blazing wisdom of his brilliant posts and banned him to silence him.

Barely-postpubescent zit poppers like him live in a fantasy world where they are the heroes and heroines of the Web (the BB equivalents of Mary Sue and Gary Stu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue_fanfiction)), oblivious to the fact that adults shake their heads and wonder what will happen when morons of that sort go out into the world.

What a pathetic lot.

[bannerman]

"Mohammadummies?" I like it already.


an Inspiration from Comedian Red Fox.perhaps best known for his role as Fred Sanford on the Sanford and Son television series

bunch dayum mohammadummies

[Riverboat]

I cannot tell a lie. Homes did it.In deference to her, I am changing my avatar back to the American Master.