Hypocrite of the Week (Or Year) Jim Garlow: “Dial Down the Rhetoric, You God-Destroying Tools of Satan!”
Jim Garlow is — as anyone who pays the least bit of attention to maniacal anti-gay crusaders and/or the hate speech that oozes from the depths of their fetid bowels already knows — the pastor of San Diego’s Skyline Wesleyan Church and one of the most visible and vocal religionists who led the war on gays via California’s hateful (and unconstitutional) Proposition 8, and who to this day continues to attack same-sex couples (and all LGBT people, in fact) at every possible opportunity.
Let’s look at some of Garlow’s pronouncements over the years; as disgusting and stomach-turning as this walk down Homophobic Memory Lane will be (especially for more level-headed Christians reading this, who will be forced to realize they need to rein in their own radical-fringe elements, who are really the ones expediting the imminent downfall of Western Christianity), it will make the final point better than we could by wasting our time trying to describe this radical, hysterical homophobe. As any good writing teacher will tell you, “Show, don’t tell.” Not that we won’t have a few choice words for this Leader of Anti-Gays, who is long overdue for a trip to the woodshed in these pages…
“[If] we lose, we go to jail. How soon I don’t know. But the fact is this is the kind of case where political correctness is bearing down. If a pastor refuses to perform a homosexual wedding, if we lose on this, he will be or she will be so incredibly vulnerable at that time. … If you don’t care about this campaign, don’t want to get involved, you can go to jail and start a wonderful prison ministry. But if you want religious freedom, we’re going to have to win this thing.”
— Jim Garlow, July, 2008
on Proposition 8
to (anti-gay) OneNewsNow.com
That’s Big Lie #2. For shame, Jimmy. For shame.
“The fact that there are big numbers doesn’t change the reality that it is still bad for the country. There are enormous numbers of people doing cocaine right now. … Simply because large numbers of people are doing something does not make it right.”
— Jim Garlow, October, 2008
on the 11,000 same-sex couples who had married in California by then
Los Angeles Times, October 7, 2008
So, homosexuality is the same as cocaine use? Okaaaaay…
“When I find myself up past the midnight hour, asking ‘why am I doing this?’ I think of the conversation that took place in Cairo, Egypt, between an Egyptian Christian pastor who has been severely persecuted by Islam and a man named Lou Engle. When Lou was in Cairo, Egypt, this pastor said to him, as a pastor that suffers at the hands of radical Islam, he said, ‘The eyes of the world are on California. We’re watching California and the vote on marriage. Because if you fail there to stop it, if you fail to stop it, what will be unleashed across the world will be a spirit worse than radical Islam.’”
Is is two millennia (2,000 years) or 5,000 years? Either way, he’s wrong.
P.S. “Prehistoric” means “the period before written records.” So, then, what is Genesis?
P.P.S. The “biblical definition of marriage” includes one man and many hundreds of wives and concubines… or doesn’t Jimbo know the Bible as well as we do?
“… While historic, orthodox Christianity has affirmed that marriage consists of one man and one woman for two millennia, the Judeo-Christian heritage has historically defined marriage as one man joined to one woman for 5,000 years. The pre-historic book of Genesis establishes the foundation for the male-female marriage. …
“I encouraged other pastors to support Proposition 8, based on (a) the biblical definition of marriage, and (2) social science sources deemed by me to be credible which cite the inherent societal value of one man-one woman marriage, and (3) the constitutionally guaranteed right to speak and vote one’s personal convictions.
“I, and the people in the church I pastor, have a deep, authentic and profound love for homosexuals. While affirming all persons, we reserve the right not to endorse all behavior. All persons — heterosexual or homosexual — are loved in our church.
“During the Proposition 8 campaign, pastors were threatened and pro-Proposition 8 churches were vandalized across California. I, my pastoral staff and my family received many vitriolic and viscous [sic] emails and phone calls, designed to harass and intimidate.
“The subpoena I received — considering that both the visibility and intensity of the trial has been heightened by being televised — sets a most dangerous precedent, with a (presumably unintended) consequence of attempting to muzzle and silence persons from exercising their First Amendment rights, at best. At worst. testifying at this trial places me, my family and my church at further risks of harm done by anti-Proposition 8 persons.
“I did not write the Prop 8 legislation. I am not a legal party to this case. …”
— Jim Garlow, January 11, 2010
chickening out of testifying at
Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial
Declaration of James L. Garlow in
Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena
via Mike Tidmus
“Worse than radical Islam”? Funny, but we haven’t noticed any gays flying planes into buildings lately… or ever.
“Authentic, untampered, non-PC altered social science confirms that a child needs and deserves both a mother and a father taking care of it. In fact, the strongest consistent indicator that a young boy will succeed in life, that he will not get in trouble with the law, is having a father present. The strong consistent indicator that a young man will have a run-in with the law is an absentee father. The statistics are identically troubling when one considers a daughter. Unhealthy early sexual activity is related to the absence of a dad in the lives of young girls. …”
Really? We thought it was early religious indoctrination that made young girls (and unwitting, unwilling Catholic altar boys) break bad. At least, in our experience… and we had loving, attentive, perfectly masculine (even macho) role-model daddies.
“Two-mom homes and two-dad homes lack either a mother or a father 100% of the time. Allow me to ask you a question. If there is a home with two dads or a home with two moms, which one is unimportant? Is the mom unimportant? Or is the dad unimportant? Tell me, which one is so unimportant that children simply do not need that parent? And if two moms are good, then wouldn’t three moms be better? If two dads are good, then wouldn’t three, or four, or five dads be an improvement?”
Oh, goodness, no, because two opposite-genital parents are always the best… like all of these opposite-genital parents.
“And that takes us to the legal realities. If one makes the legal case that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, you have to allow anybody to get married to anybody they want—
Like — gasp! — blacks to whites?!
—then what happens when three people want to get married? Or if five people get married, three men, two women?”
Beats us. Ask the Mormons (if you can find one willing to come clean about Joseph Smith’s 34 or so wives, or Brigham Young’s estimated 55 wives).
“…Remember it was only in 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality. Three decades later, the practice of homosexuality was not merely accepted, it had moved to ‘marriage’ status.”
So, you’re saying homosexuality should be reclassified as a mental illness. You know that’s what you’re saying, Jimbo. We’d like to be generous and say you might have a case if the APA ever recognized religious insanity, which is a hella lot more dangerous to children and other living things than this made-up correlation between “homosexual practice” and mental illness (or demon possession — whatever it is you’re calling in at the moment), but that’s never going to happen, because homosexuality is not a mental illness (unlike religious insanity). Last we heard, no lesbian mama ever drowned her babies in the bathtub because Satan told her to, or made murder seem merciful after torturing a child — or setting a grandma on fire — she believed was infested with demons, or was the Antichrist himself. No, Jimmy — it takes religion to make a person that crazy and evil.
“In 1995, the American Psychiatric Association declassified pedophilia as an emotional disorder. NAMBLA assertively demands that sexual ‘love’ between a child and an adult be affirmed.”
So now you’re equating homosexuality with pedophilia, by implying that all gays (lesbians, too?) are members of that freak-show NAMBLA, whose members should all be locked up for life? And you’re trying to discredit the APA by associating it with NAMBLA, too? False witness, baby, false witness.
“Some university professors advocate that we should lower the age of consent. If pedophilia follows the same trajectory as homosexuality, sometime around 2025, it would be legal for children and adults to have sex and to have adult/child ‘marriage.’ Marriage between a seven year old boy and a 57 year old man might actually become legal in this nation some day, if the present pattern is followed. …”
Ah, you are equating homosexuality with pedophilia. And parroting the rantings of that blithering fool, Hak-Shing William Tam, laughingstock of the Proposition 8 trial.
By the way, you get an “F” for using the ol’ unsupported and unsupportable weasel words, “some people say…” Some “university professors advocate…”? Which ones? Name ‘em.
“But now the judge has done away with any notion of gender specificity. And in the phrase ‘a union of equals,’ he has actually done away with the numeric indicator of ‘two.’ When he writes, ‘marriage is simply the union of equals,’ then why can’t it include three? Why not four? As you can imagine, polygamy groups are excited. Judge Vaughn Walker, by his self serving ruling, has devastated and destroyed a fundamental foundational definition of American society, which is that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
— Jim Garlow, August 6, 2010
“Response to the August 4, 2010 Prop 8 Overturn”
(removed from Skyline church site; archived)
Oh, Jimmy, you’re ever-so-conveniently (deliberately, we suspect) neglecting to mention that the text of Proposition 8 itself, and as it is entered in the California Constitution, has never specified “the numeric indicator of ‘two’”:
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Exactly where does it specify one man and one woman? Surely, Jimmy, following your “logic,” Proposition 8 kicks open the door to polygamous marriages. Nowhere does it preclude marriage between a man and a woman, and another woman, and another woman (why, no wonder the Mormons were so in favor of Prop 8!), or a woman and six men… as long as there are no same-sex couplings involved.
One more thing: Judge Walker’s ruling was hardly “self-serving”; no matter how you and your sadly-misguided (and misguiding) ilk scream about Judge Walker being gay, he never took advantage of the five-month window in which he could have married his longtime partner, nor has he attempted to wed since. ‘Splain how his ruling was “self-serving,” Jimmy. We’d love to hear more of your twisted ill-logic.
“The next court case could conceivably say that if three people wanted to marry or four people or five people or if someone wanted to marry their dog or their horse, they have a right to that because no longer do we have a right to ‘discriminate’ based on equal protection.”
— Jim Garlow, August, 2010
via Right Wing Watch
Spreading Santorum “man-on-dog” lies, Jimmy? You should be deeply ashamed of yourself. And you should learn a thing or two about the ability to enter into a legally-binding contract (which is all marriage is) — which neither animals nor children can do.
“If in reality the homosexual portion of the population is only 3-5%, then it seems to me they have linked up in a profound way with many others who are not homosexual. And I’m not referring to the homosexual who may be the nice one who lives next door; I’m talking about people who are committed to a radical homosexual agenda, they have been able to link up with a number of other groups and the result is that it’s almost like an Antichrist spirit, almost a capacity to silence the Gospel from being proclaimed.”
— Jim Garlow, September, 2010
via Mike Tidmus
So, what are you saying, Jimmy? The ‘mos have brainwashed otherwise sensible people? Or are you falling back on the old “homos can’t reproduce, so they have to recruit” crap? Right out of the Anita Bryant playbook, that is, combined with your (and Pat Robertson‘s) ol’ “Homos = Satan” meme. Either way, come up with something new, will you?
“When these pastors would complete their sermons, they would take off their black robes — they preached in vestments at those times – and underneath that would be the attire of military. They would pick up a musket and ask: ‘Who’s going to go fight with me?’ And so the revolutionary armies during that time came from pastors leading the churches. It’s known as the Blacked-Robed Regiment. And we need a black-robed regiment today. We need pastors who are willing to stand up. And we need persons who are in the pews to stand up with them — a black-robed regiment of laypersons — who’s going to take a like stand.”
— Jim Garlow, November, 2010“calling on the nation’s Christians to rise up against homosexuals and other equality-minded people”
So, you want to “pick up a musket” and kill us, Jimbo? Or are you just sending a dog whistle to your minions? Believe us, they don’t need your help — they’re happy to murder gays all on their own.
“So if I were Satan, if I were the Devil, I’d want to destroy the imagery of male and female coming together with light and joy, covenantal marriage on Earth, so people would not grasp what it might be like at the End Time, what it will be like when Jesus and the church come together.”
— Jim Garlow, November, 2010
No, Jimbo — if you were Satan (and we’re not so sure you aren’t), you’d do your level best to pit your legion of minions against a bunch of harmless people who just want to be left alone (and who would be more than happy to leave you alone, if you’d just let them be). Oh, wait, you’re doing that already, aren’t you?
“People do not realize that if homosexual marriage and the validation of homosexual relations goes through with the way this administration desires, there will be an enormous loss of personal freedom, a staggering loss of religious liberty, and tremendous loss of parental rights. Parents will not be allowed to teach their children what they once taught in terms of biblical truth. … We have an enormous storm coming at us in homosexual marriage, unlike anything we’ve ever faced. Abortion was not this way — as horrible as abortion is — but this is the first social issue that, if we lose on, the Gospel is crushed under foot.”
— Jim Garlow, March, 2011
on “Family Talk with Dr. James Dobson”
Audio, Good As You
That’s such a steaming load, it isn’t even worth addressing.
“Isn’t it interesting that the African-Americans that were brought here against their will, coerceively, in bondage and chains in a horrific experience called slavery… they end up being, in state by state, in many cases, what has saved us from the bondage and enslavement that would come upon us if gay marraige actually passed in a state, California being a prime example where the African-Americans saved us from the bondage we would’ve faced.”
— Jim Garlow, March, 2011
on “Family Talk with Dr. James Dobson”
Audio, Good As You
We know where you got that, Jimmy — and why you’re pushing it.
“Our President gave a speech a few days ago in which he said, ‘the tragedy of 9/11 was that it robbed so many children of having a mommy or a daddy. Well, you know something Mr. President, your failure to defend marriage and to redefine marriage means that everybody who is under that redefined marriage will lack either a mommy or a daddy and that is morally wrong.”
— Jim Garlow, June, 2011
comparing same-sex couple adoption to children losing their parents in the September 11th attacks
Back to the ol’ “gays are worse than radical Islamists” crap. Can’t you ever come up with anything new, Jimmy? And are you completely incapable of passing up any opportunity to hijack and derail a legitimate statement in order to take another stab at those horrible, awful gays? Hmm… No. No, we don’t think you’re capable at all. You’re just compelled to turn everything into another attack, no matter how off-topic — and off-the-mark — you are.
“Destroying the definition of marriage is not merely ‘left.’ It is wrong. It is sin. Stealing funds from future generations and spending it so that they will be closer to slavery than freedom is not merely ‘left.’ It is wrong. It is sin. Although Mr. Gingrich is not running for ‘Theologian-in-Chief’ but ‘Commander-in-Chief,’ he grasps these issues. He understands the moral component.”
— Jim Garlow, December, 2011
endorsing Newt Gingrich
“Where we’re seeing it the most is we have two locomotives on the same track going at each other with full speed and one of them is going to be left standing when this day is over, it’s either going to be the radical homosexual agenda or it’s going to be religious liberty. They cannot both coexist in the same nation at the same time. Then you add in the dimension the destruction of the definition of marriage itself. I was in the auditorium at the Saddleback Civil Forum when candidate Obama said marriage is one man, one woman, people clapped and cheered, we didn’t believe him then, our concerns proved to be exactly right, and now President Obama is destroying, decimating 5,000 years’ worth of history.”
— Jim Garlow, January, 2012
Audio, Secular News Weekly
Never mind the twaddle about President Obama (who is still very much opposed to marriage equality); what’s this “5,000 years’ worth of history” malarkey? Does Mr. Garlow need the same biblical history lesson we gave to one Carrie Rostollan of Auburn, Michigan, who ignorantly insisted that for “centuries, since the creation of the world, marriage has been understood to be a husband-wife institution. It is not merely about coupling or about love, for if marriage does not mean one man with one wife, why not one man and 30 wives?” (Scroll to the comments; our reply is the fourth down.)
How shameful for a Christian pastor to forget so much of the Old Testament, save for that tired old (and more than questionable) passage in Leviticus used bludgeon gay and lesbian Americans with monotonous regularity.
And that line, “They cannot both coexist in the same nation at the same time”… Why aren’t you endorsing Rick Santorum, Jimmy? You should be best buddies with Dennis Terry, your fellow Pastor-In-Hate, who prefaced an introduction for Icky Ricky the other day with a screed commanding non-Christians to get out of the country.
“Satan is obsessed in destroying marriage, the coming together, fitting together of the two complimentary halves of humanity — male and female, since they are on earth, a mirror, an image, of what is to be fulfilled at the end of this age.
“And that is why we are in the battle we are in. It is not ultimately about earthly marriage, about our religious freedoms, our 501(c)3′s, or even about the practice of homosexuality as such. It is about the desire of Satan to decimate the picture of God’s ultimate design for the Cosmos — the Grand Wedding of His Son to the Prepared Bride.”
— Jim Garlow
“The Biblical Foundations of the Marriage Debate” (undated)
We don’t think it’s Satan who’s “obsessed.”
Well, that’s enough to make our point — although there is plenty more where that came from (i.e., out of Jim-Boy’s perpetually-puckered backside). Which brings us to this astounding (even for Jim Garlow) exercise in blinding hypocrisy.
Yesterday (March 29, 2012, for y’all in other time zones), Jim Garlow again appeared on the hate-group talk show, “Focus on the Family with Jim Daly,” where, as usual, he ranted on about the “the radical homosexual agenda” — oh, sorry, make that the “radical gay homosexual agenda”…
“Everybody on both sides of this issue full well knows the implications, that these are two locomotives coming at each other and those two locomotives cannot exist on the same track on the same time, and one is the radical homosexual agenda and the other one is religious liberty. They cannot be in the same country at the same time.”
There’s that not-so-veiled “Get out of my Christian country” line again.
“People at the upper levels on both sides full well know that, they are fully, clearly aware that religious liberties, the capacity to worship God as we do, will be shut down if the radical gay homosexual agenda actually succeeds. …
“If I were Satan, this is key, if I were Satan, I would want to destroy the image of God on the planet. How do you do that? You’ve got to destroy the institution of marriage. If I were Satan I would want to destroy marriage on earth with divorce, I would want to destroy it with redefinition.”
Nothing new for Garlow. But then he says this:
“I would appeal with all my heart for the rhetoric to be dialed down and not to substitute ‘You’re a hatemonger’ when really what you’re saying is, ‘I disagree with you.’ We mean it when we say we truly love you, we truly love you and we know our hearts better than you do, we truly love you, if we didn’t we’d be manifesting things in a very, very different way. I would appeal to you, if you happen to be one who feels vociferous about this issue and you’re a leader of the homosexual community, if you can, if you see it within yourself, dial down the rhetoric.”
(Insert sound of bongo drums while cartoon character attempts to regain full consciousness and normal shape of skull after being smacked over the head with a cast-iron frying pan.)
Listen to the audio: Garlow Says Satan is behind ‘The Radical Gay Homosexual Agenda,’ then Demands Gays ‘Dial Down the Rhetoric’,” Right Wing Watch, March 29, 2012
Now, let’s look at this crackpottery again, piece by piece:
“I would appeal with all my heart for the rhetoric to be dialed down and not to substitute ‘You’re a hatemonger’ when really what you’re saying is, ‘I disagree with you.’”
Gee, Jim, how about not substituting the idea that loving, same-sex marriages are a tool of Satan to destroy God, religion, you, your marriage, and everything else near and dear to Lee Greenwood and Chuck Norris (not to mention baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet), “when really what you’re saying is: ‘I disagree with you’”?
“We mean it when we say we truly love you, we truly love you and we know our hearts better than you do, we truly love you.”
Hahahahahaha! Oh, wait, we shouldn’t be laughing. Battered wives (and recovering Catholic kids still trying to rub the scars off their knuckles) have heard that line, ad nauseam, from their abusers: “I beat you because I love you!”
“If we didn’t we’d be manifesting things in a very, very different way.”
Hmm… Sounds to us like a not-so-veiled threat (especially after that scary “Blacked-Robed Regiment,” “pick up a musket” business); i.e.: “Accept this verbal battering, or accept the alternative of a physical battering — or mayhaps murder by stoning in the streets, or crushing you under boulders, which is what we’d really like to do, but (sigh!) we haven’t been able to turn the United States into the Christian equivalent of Taliban’s theocratic death-grip on Afghanistan… yet.”
“I would appeal to you, if you happen to be one who feels vociferous about this issue and you’re a leader of the homosexual community, if you can, if you see it within yourself, dial down the rhetoric. “
And we would appeal to you, Jim-Boy — no, wait. Strike that. There is no appealing to you, Jim. None. Nada. Niente. All we can do is speak to you in your own language, which is no doubt fruitless, ye blind guide and swearer by the gold of the temple, especially as the most pertinent, applicable verses come from the New Testament, which you have chosen to ignore…
Suggested Bible readings for Mr. Garlow:
Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
— Matthew 23:16-18
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
— Romans 13:9-10
Related posts (automatically generated):
- Cedric Miller: Evangelical Hypocrite of the Year
- In the Running for Hypocrite of the Year: Tom Daniels, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church of Rio Linda, California, Anti-Gay Donor & Accused Child Molester
- Hypocrite of the Week: Toothless Mississippi Guy on Food Stamps (With the Dogs Lying Around in the Garbage)
- Sanctity of Marriage / Moral Arbiter Hypocrite of the Week: Tobias Lyons
- Flaming Hypocrite of the Week: Accused Peeping Tom Jonathan Matheny