Tutu: I Would Never Worship a Homophobic God

Desmond Tutu tells it like it is: In Africa, a step backward on human rights:

“But they are sinners,” I can hear the preachers and politicians say. “They are choosing a life of sin for which they must be punished.” My scientist and medical friends have shared with me a reality that so many gay people have confirmed, I now know it in my heart to be true. No one chooses to be gay. Sexual orientation, like skin color, is another feature of our diversity as a human family. Isn't it amazing that we are all made in God's image, and yet there is so much diversity among his people? Does God love his dark- or his light-skinned children less? The brave more than the timid? And does any of us know the mind of God so well that we can decide for him who is included, and who is excluded, from the circle of his love?

23 Responses to “Tutu: I Would Never Worship a Homophobic God”

  1. Craig Says:

    Any religious followers in Africa advocating isolation, improvishment, imprisionment, torture or death for gays are the homophobes, not the God that they misrepresent.

  2. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks Craig for clearing that up. :-)

    Ditto for Americans seeking to deny their fellow citizens basic rights… http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/16/florida-family-polic.html (some great comments after the article too.)

    Also, and this is off topic, but I’m wondering what shcb might think of this… http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

  3. shcb Says:

    I didn’t watch all of it so if there is a zinger at the end let me know and I’ll watch more, the theme had been set. First, taking money from Private businesses and giving it to the poor wasn’t what Robin Hood was doing, he was taking money from the government because the poor were overtaxed. If this case the government is taking from people and giving to other people, not exactly Robin Hoodish.

    So think this through, a business is running so close to the edge it can’t make it on its own, the government decides this business is so vital it needs to subsidize it, and then it taxes this business more than others? The government is already making up for the shortfall, by increasing expenses in the form of higher taxes it is just increasing that shortfall, so government increases it subsidy and the circle starts all over, at some point the government says “look at how much we are subsidizing this business, we should just nationalize it” and bada bing we have neo socialism.

  4. shcb Says:

    You will get a kick out of this though, the bill I’m working on in the legislature, HB 10-1278 is sponsored by two Democrats, made it through its first committee along straight party line votes 6-5, Democrats winning and will hopefully pass the next committee Friday again probably along party line votes. So the great and powerful Shcb, protector of everything Republican finds himself firmly in league with a bunch of bleeding heart liberal Democrats, cheering them on every step of their glorious path. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

  5. enkidu Says:

    I am sure He meant the whole ‘Old Testament” thing as a bit of a joke.

    However, the essay by Archbishop Tutu is wonderful, heartening and (dare I say it) hopeful. Funny how some bishops association here in the US came out against HCR, while a catholic nuns group has endorsed HCR. And isn’t pope whatsizname embroiled in some scandal that he helped cover up child abuse by a priest? what a world… =\

    btw – CBO scored the HCR package as reducing the deficit by $138 billion over the first 10 years and reduces the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years (I am sure it’ll cost more due to R obstructionism, monkey wrenching/earmarking and other wingnuttery) If we could get single payer or even just a public option (let the dumbsh!t states opt out, good riddance) the numbers would be even better.

  6. shcb Says:

    And yet it is going to cost 1 trillion dollars, hmm, doesn’t really add up does it? Of course all you have to do is tax more than the cost of the plan and the deficit is reduced, no matter how much more expensive the plan is.

  7. Smith Says:

    “And yet it is going to cost 1 trillion dollars, hmm, doesn’t really add up does it?”

    Investing money in anticipation of future returns “doesn’t really add up”? That’s a pretty strong indictment of Capitalism. I guess we should eliminate that whole stock market thing, eh? Are the Dems that are supporting your bill turning you into some kind of fascist, socialist, commie, anarchist, nazi, secret muslim?

  8. shcb Says:

    I don’t think they are turning me into those things but I may contribute to the campaigns of Democrats for the first time in my life :)

    We’re not going to see any savings, this isn’t an investment, unless we drastically reduce services. This whole reducing the deficit ploy is just that. By law the CBO can only use the figures congress gives it. If they give it an increase in taxes that offsets the increase in cost, the CBO has no choice but to say it will reduce the deficit. Has a Democrat with a straight face say this boondoggle will actually save money while providing comparable service?

  9. leftbehind Says:

    This is an interesting piece on Tutu, John, but I have a really hard time figuring your angle on this, or why you’re even bringing it up. Not so long ago, when I attacked Enkidu for misspelling “moron” you were the first to rush to his defense. Around the same time, Knarlyknight advanced a theory, or your blog, that the World Trade Center’s destruction might have been masterminded by a cadre of homosexuals operating out of Bohemian Grove and accused me, again on your blog, of being a pervert to hangs out in airport bathrooms and a child molester when I told him I’m gay. I don’t recall you rising to my defense at the time, or the defense of the gay community, or even making any statement of discomfort at your blog, and, by extention, your name being used to prop up somebody else’s anti-gay sentiments. Not saying you need to police everybody who visits your blog, or get involved with anyone else’s arguments – I’d think it best that you don’t. It’s just that you don’t come across as the sort of guy who lets people use this forum you’ve created to advance ideas that make you uncomfortable without using that same forum to at least challenge those ideas. Still, you let Knarly get away with some pretty serious homophobia on your blog utterly unchallenged, and that’s why I find it hard to believe that homophobia is a big issue with you – which is okay, but I wish you would be honest about that and quit posturing with threads like this.

    “The worst kept secret of our era is many of the elected Repugnant officials are highly repressed closet fags (let’s pick just one of many examples) … the popularity of the Jeff Gannon (a gay prostitute) visits to the White House (many apparently without sign-out times – nice work secret service!) who also favour torture (but only if it is referred to by a euphemism, like “extra-ordinary rendition” or “enhanced interrogation techniques”.) But I digress.

    “The point is that leftbehind apparently had “come out of the closet” on this blog (does that mean he is a closet Republican hypocrite fag?) a long time ago but now we find evidence that he has no problem with coming in public restrooms, and thus probably does not care if children are present too.” – Knarlyknight, August 29, 2007 at 12:57 AM


    “Lefty, to clarify, I do not think you are a hypocritic republican fag. I think you were typing like a hypocritic republican fag before I wrote “hypocritic republican fag…” -Knarlyknight, March 8th, 2008 at 10:03 PM


    That’s two opportunities to make your voice heard regarding homophobia, yet you remained silent. Why even bring the subject up now? Is it that it’s safer to let Desmond Tutu do your talking for you?

  10. jbc Says:

    I don’t read 90% of the comments that regulars post to lies. For example, I’d never read (or at least, I don’t remember ever reading) any of those ones you quoted. So if I didn’t say anything about it, you probably shouldn’t read too much into that.

    That isn’t to say that I would have said something criticizing Knarlyknight if I had read those comments. My attitude is normally that if someone wants to say ridiculous bullshit in the comments here, I’ll let it pass. They’re condemning themselves with their own words, and the site is called lies.com, after all. Once in a while something will strike me as so outrageous that I simply must chime in on it, but that’s rare, and has as much to do with how I’m feeling at the time myself as with the severity of whatever stupid thing I’m responding to.

    You’d be on much safer ground inferring my views on anti-gay bigotry from my selection of items to include, and my comments when doing so, in my own postings on the site. For what it’s worth, I consider anti-LGBT discrimination to be one of the great injustices of our society, and have no problem saying so. If your feelings were hurt by my failure to slap down someone using homophobic slurs in the comments here, I apologize, but I didn’t mean to contribute to the creation of a hostile environment.

    If you want to email me at jbc@lies.com when you read a comment that you think warrants some sort of action, feel free to do so. The chances that I actually will censor such a comment are rare (I’ve only done that a handful of times in the last 14 years for a non-commercial-spam comment), and the chances that I’ll respond myself in a subsequent comment, while not quite as low, are still pretty remote. The best thing, probably, if you think something posted in a comment here cries out for a response, is for you to just post a response yourself. Or, if it bugs you to think that Someone Is Wrong on the Internet, just don’t bother reading the comments.

    That works pretty well for me.

  11. knarlyknight Says:

    Good guidelines JBC.

    At the risk of feeding the troll further, I will say that in my defence, I believe that, if anyone cares to review the full context of the discussion from which those quotes were taken, it will be fully apparent that I was lampooning Lefty for his defence of a gay republican soliciting sex in a public washroom. The critical point is “soliciting sex in a public washroom”. The term “gay republican” was the topic we were all discussing (former senator Larry Craig); sex in public is not appropriate especially where kids may be around. Last response to the troll.

  12. enkidu Says:

    well knarly I have indeed used the term before, but I hope it was clear that when I used the term in a satirical way it clearly wasn’t intended to offend (or at least I hope it doesn’t offend)

    I know I’ll be accused of being Not Very Serious, or a bigot, or a sh!t or a f!cker or have a few more death threats hurled by dear ol avuncular wwnj, but I really do listen to and value decent input from reasonable conservatives. For example, Bill Frist was on the Bill Maher show (I think Bill is ok funny, not Stewart/Colbert funny, but his New Rules are often chuckle-worthy). Well ol wwnj here would expect me to blindly believe Bill M cuz he’s a dang lefty socialist commie pinko fag. But here in Reality, I find myself shaking my head at Maher’s antiscience antivaccination bullshit. Frist is right (as in correct) Maher is wrong: vaccinations have saved many many more lives than they have ever negatively impacted.

    On the other hand, I used this thing call The Google to search lies.com for the use of, shall we say, certain words? I suggest you just skim through this comment thread to see the basic difference between Rs (teabaggers?) and Ds (or other normal folk). A real blast from the past!



    Finally, I wonder if any of our good right wing brothers and sisters are offended that teabagger protestors in DC are yelling n!gger! at black reps and barney frank has had f!ggot screamed at him? I can hear the crickets warming up.

    yes knarls, racism and homophobia is very much alive and well in the good ol USofA!

  13. NorthernLite Says:

    Those protestors yelling racial slurs at black reps. has been all over the news up here and really disturbs me.

    It’s so obvious what it’s all about for this crowd… they just can’t accept that an intelligent black man is their president.

    Well congrats to the black man. He just managed to do something that’s been talked about for 50 years.

  14. enkidu Says:


    “All the more reason Ulysses Grant needs to stay on the $50 bill.”

  15. enkidu Says:


    link wouldn’t work

  16. leftbehind Says:

    JBC – Thank you for your response. It was the correct one, even if it was a couple years late in coming, and I’ll hold you to it.

    I still love the way Knarly gets called out for homophobic language, then tries to blame it on someone else by accusing me of defending “sex in public”,” which I never did, everyone here knows I didn’t, and he can’t prove I did (at least not with direct quotes referenced by date the way I outed his homophobia earlier in this thread.) It’s especially tasty how he throws “the children” in there to make like some sort of morality sergeant, protecting THE CHILDREN from that horrible Leftbehind. After all, isn’t any boneheaded thing anybody wants to say or do totally justified when in defense of THE CHILDREN? Just ask Pat Robertson. Or Anita Bryant. Does anyone here remember Anita Bryant back in the seventies with those “Keep Our Children Safe for Homosexuality” sign?

    Enky – I appreciate your apology, but you’ve never truly offended me with any remarks you’ve made here, as I’ve always realized you were joking, or at least hoped for your sake that you were. I’ve never held you to the same yardstick as the others here since, unlike them and more like myself, you don’t pretend to be a serious participant on this forum and shouldn’t be judged using the same standards.

    And yes, who ever shouted racial epithets at the black reps are racist idiots and should be, at least, ferreted out and called on their bullshit the way JBC and I have called Knarly out here for his homophobia. Had Knarly called me a n*gger, he would be no better than when he called me a f*g, and that extends to any protestor, pundit or anyone else on any side of any issue. That’s obvious, and I haven’t heard anyone suggest otherwise.

  17. shcb Says:

    Which brings up a question, one I probably know the answer to just as Potter Stewart did when he said he couldn’t define pornography but he knew it when he saw it. When is it appropriate to dislike (I’m not going to go so far as say hate) someone because of who they are? I have an acquaintance once that openly disliked (in his case hated) Mexicans because he grew up in a Mexican neighborhood here in Denver and was beat up on a regular basis just because he was white. He knew he shouldn’t hold a grudge but darn it he just couldn’t help himself. I think socialism is very destructive and liberals are certainly first cousins to socialists if not brothers. I don’t necessarily dislike individual liberals but I do dislike them more than I would if they were not liberal.

    Of course there is the obvious race is something you are born with, sexual orientation the same except for the fringe between hetero and homosexual orientation. Just an idle question.

  18. NorthernLite Says:

    I have many conservative friends that I love just as much as my other friends. We just happen to disagree on politics so we tend not to really talk about it much. That’s why I visit places like this :)

    I would never hate or dislike someone just because we have different political views. The last thing on our minds when we’re out riding our quads or fishing or catching a Blue Jays game is what kind of political membership card the other guy has in his wallet. There are jerks on all sides, in all races and backgrounds.

    But I have to admit, Ann Coulter really gets under my skin lol. And I know that’s exactly what she’s trying to do but I still can’t help it!

  19. enkidu Says:

    When is it ok to dislike (I’m not going to go so far as say hate) someone because of who they are? I have an acquaintance once that openly disliked (in his case hated) wwnjs because he grew up in a wwnj neighborhood here in Dumfukistan and was beat up on a regular basis just because he was liberal. He knew he shouldn’t hold a grudge but darn it he just couldn’t help himself. I think republicanism, and ‘conservatism’ is very destructive and wwnjs are certainly first cousins to nazis ;-) if not brothers. I don’t necessarily dislike individual wwnjs but I do dislike them more than I would if they were not completely f!cking crazy.

    – – – –

    please, just substitute the word of your choice for “liberal” or in my example “wwnj” (try “jew” or “n!gger” or whathaveyou)

    There are conservatives with a decent heart and an open mind. Sadly they are fewer and farther between these days. The vast majority of the anger and hate seems to be on one side of the political divide. How many Dem offices had their windows smashed in when HCR passed earlier this week? The violence is escalating and if reasonable people don’t start calling this crap out of bounds it will get worse and worse. Losing an election isn’t tyranny wwnjs: take a deep breath and go back to watching WWF and NASCAR. Obama is not a nazi/commie/socialist/demon for trying to get you healthcare and lower the costs for everyone.

  20. shcb Says:


    Yeah, I was just kind of thinking aloud there, what you’re talking about is tolerance because you want to enjoy the event more that get into a discussion that would ruin the moment, like not bringing up a mutual ex girlfriend. Let’s ratchet it up a notch, say the radical Islamists, I think it is appropriate to hate them, but how far do you extend that hatred, to the people that actively help them, to the people that openly support them but don’t actively help them, to the people that silently support them, to all Moslems?

    Same could be said of the idiots at the Tea Party or the idiots that throw blood on the woman wearing a fur coat. How far up the liberal or conservative ladder do you go.

    Thanks for bringing up NASCAR Enky, did you see the Bristol race NL? There is another short track race this weekend, Martinsville, last chance for a short track for a while.

  21. NorthernLite Says:

    Yes, there are idiots on all sides and sometimes its hard not to paint them all with the same brush.

    I didn’t see the race, I was on the road travelling on Sunday. But I did hear a few old boys at my dads place debating the changes they recently made to the Bristol track. Apparently they made it less interesting (according to one of the guys) by making the banks wider or something? I should be home this Sunday, it’s supposed to get cold and crappy out again around here. Been really nice lately.

    And yes, I would say that I “hate” radical Islamists just as much as I “hate” radical Christians. But I wouldn’t extend that beyond the people who blow things up or incite others to do so. I think most Muslims and Christians are good-hearted peaceful people.

  22. shcb Says:

    They made the banking progressive like the track in Canada will be, meaning the angle of the turn is maybe 18 degrees at the bottom and 30 at the top if you looked at a cross section of the track, this make more grooves for the cars, making it easier to pass. The old guys liked it when the guy in front stayed there I guess, I think that kind of racing sucks. It ends up the only way you can make up say 10 positions is to gamble on pit row, take two tires when everyone else takes 4, that kind of thing, which is interesting I guess, but I like it when a guy with a faster car can pass the other guys.

  23. shcb Says:

    The track at Atlanta is a mile and a half, I had the cheapest seats in the place and could see most of the track fine, I think your mile track will be just about perfect, big enough they will get up to some speed, but small enough to see everything, toss in progressive banking and trioval shape and you will have a cool track.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.