horrifying or sublime?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Liesje said:
The one thing that's different about this is his "God hates a Fag" line. No one promoting any sort of ministry, no matter how offensive and ridiculous, would say "God hates a..."

WBC_protest.jpg


:(

:banghead::crack: is right.
 
"Oscar Wilde, my hero, was a reformed homosexual. He went to prison for his sins. Once he was alone with his thouhgts, in jail, he saw the errors of his ways and repented. He died as a Christian. While I'm not advocating jailing all Homosexuals, I do think it would benefit them greatly. It would be for their own good. When a person is forced to think they will generally be able to see their problems and solve them by themselves."

I don't know whether to :laugh: or :sad:.
 
DaveC said:


WBC_protest.jpg


:(

:banghead::crack: is right.

But that's not a "ministry", it looks like some kind of march (or something Photoshoped).



It all very well could be a joke (I hope), but I've seen ads of a similar nature in conservative Christian magazines and other publications. It's really sick. There really are groups that think it's their God-given mission to "reform" homosexuals.
 
No, those are members of Fred Phelps' tribe of mutant inbred bigots aka the Westboro "Baptist" Church. But yeah, they don't have anything resembling a "ministry"--on the contrary, they live in a walled compound and limit their "outreach" activities to picketing soldiers' funerals ("The hell with your flag, the hell with your fag army, your fag courts, your fag-run government" etc.) and the like. I'm sure they were in part an inspiration for the lyrics, though.
 
Liesje said:


But that's not a "ministry", it looks like some kind of march (or something Photoshoped).



google Fred Phelps. he's well known for his "God Hates Fags" marches.

he's very fringe, but he does exist.

and i see several of them at any random DC anti-War rally. they think that America was attacked, and that society is crumbling, because of things like homosexuality and abortion. that we've fallen so far from the Bible that 9-11 was God's punishment.

and in that, they have a shocking amount in common with the Taliban.

and such right wing poster boys as Dinesh D'Souza.
 
Dan Savage weighs in:

[q]Donnie Davies: A New Theory
Posted by DAN SAVAGE on January 24 at 21:36 PM


There are two operative theories about Donnie “God Hates a Fag” Davies:

1. It’s a hoax! “God Hates a Fag,” “there’s no back door” to heaven, the pink shirt, the ‘stache. Ha ha. It’s an elaborate, hilarious joke, a deadly send-up of the religious right, the ex-gay movement, anti-gay ranters. Davies doesn’t meant it, doesn’t believe a word he’s saying. Or singing. What a kidder!

2. It’s not a hoax! Donnie is completely sincere—sincerely nuts, but completely sincere. He’s not an evangelical, but a fundamentalist, dripping with compassion and concern. And hate. Hate, hate, hate. But Davies doesn’t realize how hilariously idiotic he is. Still a hater. What an asshole!

I’d like to propose a third possible theory…

Donnie Davies is a kidder and an asshole.

Are you with me? It’s a hoax but Davies—or the man playing him—mean every last word. Davies is trying to be funny—heaven’s “back door,” thanking Andrew Sullivan for “getting behind [him],” kneeling next to the guy at the control board—but he means it when sings “God hates a fag.” He may not be ex-gay (those desperate dudes don’t have a sense of humor about their predicament), but a straight religious bigot with a sense of humor. We’re watching this video—all of us secular urban hipsters—because it’s hilarious. Which means that Donnie, through the use of humor, is reaching people that he might not otherwise. And his message is this: Laugh your asses off, sinners, but the bible says a man should not lay with a man.

So here’s where I’m at as of tonight: This is not a hoax. Donnie Davis is engaged in a deadly serious effort—a seriously successful effort—to spread the fundy message about homosexuality (it’s a choice, god hates it) through the intentional use of humor.

And we’re all complicit! Yikes![/q]
 
Irvine511 said:
Dan Savage weighs in:

Are you with me? It’s a hoax but Davies—or the man playing him—mean every last word. Davies is trying to be funny—heaven’s “back door,” thanking Andrew Sullivan for “getting behind [him],” kneeling next to the guy at the control board—but he means it when sings “God hates a fag.” He may not be ex-gay (those desperate dudes don’t have a sense of humor about their predicament), but a straight religious bigot with a sense of humor.
Someone needs to watch Borat again, IMHO.

Seriously, I'm puzzled as to how anyone could look at the hamfisted garble of religion portrayed by his websites--featuring a "congregant" praying with a rosary at an ostensibly evangelical church, no Bible verses in sight, the nonsense about his "Anabaptist preacher" father who "bless his soul, moved us over to New Orleans...there he established a small church and we had a pretty good old time" (right, that's exactly how Mennonites talk, and they're usually soooo into that Moral Majority and "our Republican Party" stuff)--and think this guy could be a "religious bigot." If you're going to argue that he really is a "bigot with a sense of humor," then it makes a lot more sense to argue that he's the nonreligious variety of homophobe, which would explain the inability to fake a credible denominational slant. Not that I think that makes much sense, either....
 
Last edited:
definitely fake, definitely a joke. Too many giveaways. He doesn't play any of the instruments.

CHOPS? Come on. Fake, fake fake.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
So this was about "gay" songs or bands? I'm confused
Yes, it's the same website(s). See the links I posted on the second page.
indra said:
The guy in this link sure looks like the culprit. :)

click here
Probably. Although he's declined to offer any public response to that accusation so far, which does make sense...if he still intends to proceed with "rolling out the CHOPS program," or for that matter avoiding the full wrath of the many people who were more infuriated than amused by the whole thing, it would be in his best interests to capitalize on what little perceived ambiguity is left.

My questions about the whole thing...

1) What was/were his intended audience(s), and what (if any) message did he intend to convey?
2) Did he fully succeed in reaching that audience and conveying that message (again, if any)? If not, why?
 
Last edited:
yolland said:
My questions about the whole thing...

1) What was/were his intended audience(s), and what (if any) message did he intend to convey?
2) Did he fully succeed in reaching that audience and conveying that message (again, if any)? If not, why?

I was talking to my Steve about this whole thing as few days ago. He looks at it as an artist, and the piece as performance art of some sort. He pointed out that no matter what the artist's intentions, the audience will shape the art into something else and the artist at times can lose control of the art. (I'm paraphrasing him here.)

yolland, your comment I've quoted brought Steve's comments to mind again.
 
Back
Top Bottom