Sometimes the evangelical do gooders simply piss me off. Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council had this to say about Condi Rice swearing in a openly gay Mark Dybul to an Ambassador level post global AIDS coordinator.
"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."
Fox in what henhouse? I don't even get it. It is as if Sprigg were suggesting that having a gay man in charge of AIDS policy would in some way be a bad thing - simple because he is gay. I really don't get it. Spriggs makes no sense. Sprggs goes on to criticize Condi Rice for being nice to Dybul and his partner. Is being nice a crime? Or, is Spriggs just pissed because Rice's actions in some way legitimatize human treatment of gays and lesbians? Either way, Spriggs position is asinine. Why would you treat somebody any other way than nice, unless.... you are filled with hate.
The last paragraph is the most damaging.
Dybul, who was confirmed by the Senate two months ago but was just sworn in due to scheduling conflicts with Secretary Rice and Mrs. Bush, is the nation's third openly homosexual ambassador. The other two no longer hold their positions. According to news reports, in all three cases the men's homosexual partners held the Bible on which the oath of office was sworn.
Why is this important? Are evangelicals the only people allowed to hold the bible? is the bible a no gays allowed holy text? The hypocrisy inherent in this quote is off the scale. These people are so out of touch as to be ridiculous. And... they might not be "Christians" at all.
Mark Dybul - Good luck in your new job, with people like Sprigg on your ass, you are going to need all the luck you can get - and help from the league of atheist bloggers!
1 comment:
putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse
Dude. Didn't you know homosexuals *like* to get AIDS? I mean with this guy in charge of policy all those homosexuals will be able to change the policy so that they can make getting AIDS easier.
Or something.
I'll bet he's a Foley and terribly terribly ashamed of his "urges"
Post a Comment