Bigoted Filth on Facebook

WARNING: I seriously let rip in this one, so if you object to bad language it might be best to do a Google image search for kittens instead.

Still reading? Don't say I didn't warn you. I shall begin ...

Okay, tonight I had a run in with a fundie Christian on Facebook. Again. What made tonight so special was that this Christian resorted to telling me to 'grow up', to act my age and to learn some manners. He then said I was a terrorist who wants to kill children.

Yup. Seriously.

So what caused this complete mental breakdown of an otherwise perfectly irrational piece of objectionable filth who once wrote a 'book' disproving evolution that was so inept he'd copied chunks from Wikipedia and the references included a link to his own PC's hard-drive?

Patience. I'll tell you, dear reader!

His homophobia. That's it. He took exception to being called out on his homophobia.

Another member asked his opinion of homosexuality and this guy gave it, but then took exception to being asked to justify his position. He opined that it was “unnatural”, it was a sin etc. HIV was brought up, being explained as the result of sinful, immoral practise such as gay sex, lust, promiscuity and drug use. Now one cannot argue that these acts themselves can spread the disease, how is it immoral or sinful when the other party, certainly in the first two cases, is consensual?

When it was explained that gay sex is not dangerous, or as dangerous, when a condom is used this lunatic replied that condoms are unnatural as they are 'man made'.

How exactly is lust a sin, too? Is lust between husband and wife a sin, or only when it's two consenting adults who haven't 'taken it up the aisle' so to speak? A marriage sans lust would be a pretty dull thing anyway. Maybe that's why this cretin is so poisonous, he's not getting any lol.

This raised the issue of sin as a punishment. HIV can be passed on to babies if the parent is a carrier, yet if it's a sin why would god visit upon an innocent an invariably terminal disease? Isn't that like blaming somebody else, who wasn't even born, for another's actions and therefore completely immoral? He's previously made the same claim of things like muscular dystrophy being the result of sin, and blamed man, not god, for it inflicting innocent people. I'll go into this issue in another blog update, should be fun to rip apart.

He claims he's not homophobic. Of course, he would. Yet how can one tell others that their homosexuality is unnatural, sinful, lustful and so forth unless one is homophobic? It's like the old "I'm not racist but ... " argument. Yes, you are, you're just too messed up in the brainbox to recognize it!

Anyway, the 'debate' degenerated into him taking exception to my calling him out on his bigotry and intolerance, and yes I have been abusive towards him – but trust me, given his history of posts and what he's been saying tonight I was mild! This imbecile then said he didn't mind if I was gay, which is another tactic I've seen before – accuse the defender of being what they defend. I'm not. I explained that I'm anti-racism, too, but I'm not black. I just happen to abhor bigotry.

I then explained that had he been posting racist remarks I would have been treating him exactly the same way, as the piece of filth he is. The comparison stands as people can seemingly no more choose their sexuality than they can their skin colour. This moron then went into meltdown big time.

He said I'd accused him of being racist. I hadn't. As explained above, I drew a comparison. Nothing more. He repeated the accusation, telling me I needed to grow up and act my age. So I asked him to quote where I had said it, knowing he couldn't.

He again accused me of the same thing, calling him racist, then accused me of acting like a child, telling me I needed to learn some manners and grow up, act like a man. Even before he flounced off to bed in a fit of self-righteous indignation he was unable to quote where I had called him racist!

He then threw in this;

“Considering I speak for the majority of the British public, you are basically a terrorist with your hate speech” and “I'm the man standing up for the kids you and your terrorists want to kill”

So the majority of the British public are A) Christians, and B) homophobes? Somehow I think he's wrong on that. If he's right then I'm clearly mixing with the wrong people, because I've seen no evidence of it.

To call me a terrorist is laughable, if not slightly libellous and offensive. This country has had severe terrorist problems for decades. They have been the IRA and Al Qaeda, not atheists. I know of not one atheist group who would advocate killing anybody much less children. I donate to children's charities, just as I do to several others, when finances allow. Yes I'm pro-choice, but I'm also a pragmatist whom doesn't like the thought of abortion but realised you can't realistically hope to stop them, so better they're regulated and safe.

Accusing me of hate speech? Is somebody who campaigns against racism guilty of hate speech? What about slavery? Are Amnesty International, who campaign for human rights, guilty of hate speech?

It seems to me very much that one is guilty of hate speech when it conflicts with others who would themselves claim the right to judge, persecute, condemn and otherwise denigrate people. It's a clearly transparent tactic they use when they come face to face with somebody who sees through their hatred so play the victim card, “Oh, stop persecuting me, I have a god given right to persecute!” No, you don't. Not any more, this isn't the Middle Ages! When all is said and done, what real difference is there between abject scum like the Westboro Baptist Church and a Facebook fundie who posts homophobic comments? As far as I can see it's the placards and the courage of their convictions to go out and face those they persecute, rather than sit behind a monitor and do it at a safe distance. We're only talking degrees of the same bigotry, it's still the same prejudice drawn from the same poisoned well.

I'll just briefly respond to the closing remarks he made.

He told me I should 'grow up'. Well, I'm 41 and haven't had an imaginary friend since I was a child, don't even recall having one then actually! So, yes, I'm grown up.

He told me I should 'act my age'. Again, no imaginary friends and I manage to cope with the fairly large level of responsibility in my life with a fair amount of competence.

He told me I should 'learn some manners'. Anybody who has met me in real life would attest I have very good manners. I'm very shy, very polite and very friendly. I'm just not tolerant of bigotry and when I see it spouted I will comment. I don't consider that bad manners.

On t'other hand, he does have an imaginary friend and he does tell other people they're sinful, lustful, immoral and unworthy of god. But then that's psychological projection for you!

I've avoided naming this ugly, pernicious, arrogant, ignorant, bigoted sack of festering piss and shit not because I'm worried he'd take umbrage, he deserves all the insults that come his way, but because it sadly doesn't apply just to this one fuckwad – I see similar opinions from so many Christians on Facebook. Their big book of bronze age bullshit says something is wrong so they feel they have a right to defend that position even if it means being incredibly intolerant and unsympathetic to others.

Oddly I don't see them condoning slavery, which is officially sanctioned by god, or damning people with tattoos, which is prohibited by god (Leviticus19:28) – right around the same bit they draw their homophobic bigotry from.

This is another reason I have come to despise religion. It's poison, pure and simple. My entire life I was ambivalent towards religion, until I joined Facebook and read how, as an atheist and evolution supporter, I am evil, satanic, sinful, immoral and destined for hell if I don't repent. It's ironic that this is what has driven my conversion to strong anti-theism, so clearly their recruitment drive could use some work!

Tonight I was pushed that little bit further into my anti-theism. At this rate I shall soon make Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins look like Pope candidates compared.