ACLU | Christmas | News | Religion | Republican Party | Texas

Mock ACLU Nativity Scene features "Gary and Joseph"


In an attempt to expose the "extremity" of the ACLU, the University of Texas Chapter of The Young Conservatives of Texas has installed an unusual nativity scene on that university's Austin campus to be on display at least through today. A handy explanation is provided on the YCT website:

“We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Chairman Tony McDonald. “The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America.”

So same-sex parents can't have a child, eh? A terrorist shepherd and an angel with the face of Nancy Pelosi also feature prominently.

Said Executive Director Joseph Wyly: "The ACLU and other left-wing extremist groups are working diligently to destroy American’s rights to the free expression of religion. We’ve already seen in Chicago an attempt to censor the nativity by a city government this week. It’s just more evidence that there is a War on Christmas being waged by the far-left in this country."

Now that's the wingnut Christmas spirit. However I don't think "the values of mainstream America" they're trying to promote necessarily agree with those of the Saviour they've chosen to exclude.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. What war on Christmas? I'm gay, married to a man (legal in Canada) and love Christmas.

    Of course mine is the GAY Christmas. Keep Jesus out of it, and layer on the decorations.

    C'mon is there anythign more gay and religious than Barbra Streisand singing "Ave Maria"?

    And just to cut to the answer, I'll tell you now, Clay Aiken singing "Silent Night."

    Posted by: jim | Dec 5, 2006 12:20:11 PM

  2. "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches" Benjamin Franklin

    "All manner of foolishness has come about under the ABSURD doctrine of the divinity of jesus" John Quincy Adams

    "The priests of every age are the enemies of liberty" Thomas jefferson

    "A just government founded on liberty has NO need for the cleregy" James madison (co-authored the constitution)

    The money of the founding fathers said "Science and Industry" in g we trust was put on US money in the late 1890's hundreds of years after the founders. G in the pledge was put in in the 1950's as a bit of anti-communist propaganda.

    A non founding father but never the less GREAT president Abraham Lincoln said "Christinaity is NOT my religion nor the bible my book, its doctrines are too convoluted."

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Dec 5, 2006 12:33:00 PM

  3. PS

    Hi zeke

    I am glad you are doing better

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Dec 5, 2006 12:38:01 PM

  4. As idiotic as the display is, I don't think we need to start knocking Christianity, many gay people are also Christian.

    Posted by: republic | Dec 5, 2006 1:16:49 PM

  5. EXACTLY, Zeke. Towleroad continues to be infected with the Moron Virus. Its symptoms include the appearance such posts as those quoting pillars of the American Taliban such as “The Washington Times,” and, now, World Net Daily. Make that not MY world! As one of the most homohating of Internet sites spreading lies and half-truths about us 36-24-7, they are in many ways worse than the WTimes because they are concentrated, neatly packaged propaganda more user friendly than a newspaper site.

    Were I an attorney, I would not represent NAMBLA nor neo-Nazis nor these “nativity scene” creatures, but the case referenced in the article was, at its core, about the First Amendment and the attempt of plaintiffs to ignore its protections in order to sue the organization in relation to the murder of a child.

    Wierd Net Daily’s “Special Offers” include:

    "How the homosexual agenda affects your family"
    "How homosexuals hoodwinked Supremes"
    "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom," complete with an endorsement by Dr. Laura and a blurb that begins:
    “Americans have come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation – from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers.”

    Posted by: Leland | Dec 5, 2006 1:35:46 PM

  6. Uggghhh...

    It's funny that they make a point of putting the 2 guys as opposed to mary & joseph. Don't these brainwashed fools believe that their god "did" mary and begat jesus?

    Apparently, joseph shouldn't EVER be included in this scene. The "perfect" family... mary, spook & jesus.

    Posted by: mikey | Dec 5, 2006 1:38:32 PM

  7. Zeke,

    You obviously don't believe that is a legitmate source. There were other sources but I just listed one. I don't understand where you get off saying I'm conservative. If having a distain for men who have sex with boys is conservative, I suppose I am then. I just don't see how an organization can support something that is wrong. Even if the source is conservative, and that same source has a bias by saying that homosexuals are bad/evil and child predators as well, there is still truth in the fact they NAMBLA should not be supported or defended by anyone because they have no rights because they are breaking the law. Zeke, also you go on about my viewpoint but never state yours. What do you think about the nativity scene? Do they have a right to put it up? What are your thoughts on the ACLU? What are your thoughts on the ACLU defending NAMBLA members? It is hard to debate you when I'm not aware of your viewpoints.

    Posted by: Matt | Dec 5, 2006 1:42:08 PM

  8. Jimmy, thanks for the quotes. I am (quite) shocked that I didn't know those were said by our founding fathers, guess I'm ignorant after all lol. I wish I knew of them ahead of time as they would have come in handy during a debate about religious persecution, the foundations of the United States and the stance traditional conservatives take in supporting christianity/catholicism as a founding factor. Very interesting isn't it...

    Posted by: Cory | Dec 5, 2006 1:58:07 PM

  9. It seems like Matt is getting ganged up on here. I'm with him on the fact that they have a right to put this display up. It's free speech. That doesn't sound too conservative to me. A conservative as we have seen in the Bush administration has tried to quash free speech. If this was a gay nativity scene done by gay students and the evangelicals wanted it down we would all be up in arms. As far as the World Net Daily, Matt probably didn't choose the best source, but I have heard about it on CNN and agree that it is very odd that the ACLU is helping out of group of NAMBLA members. I think the ACLU is kind of like HRC with gay men. You either like them or you don't. I love this blog and the discussions that take place but let's keep the discussions civil gentlemen.

    Posted by: David | Dec 5, 2006 2:01:32 PM

  10. The ACLU is not defending NAMBLA--they are expressing NAMBLA's right to express their ideas and opinions. I don't like many of the groups and people the ACLU defends but I believe they are doing great work. In America we have freedom of expression and that means we have to allow people to say things we don't like. They have done great work for the GLBT communities as well as many others in all areas of the sprectrum and I will continue to support them.

    Posted by: Daniel | Dec 5, 2006 2:06:11 PM

  11. Repeat after me:

    "Private property: display this as you will [however fascist and dishonest and retarded it might be].

    "Public property [which would include the Univesity of Texas if it receives any 'public' money]: get the fuck out of here!"

    Class dismissed.

    Posted by: Leland | Dec 5, 2006 2:30:14 PM

  12. Um, the "American Taliban"? When was the last time women in this country were forced to wear burqa's? NEVER. Please stop using this phrase. First, it's wrong. Second, if you think the media is conservative or liberal, you're wrong. The media is about one thing, and one thing only, their own power. Pure and simple. They'll take on whatever cause they wish, as long as it furthers their own power. And third, it's SO three years ago!

    And yes, the ACLU defends NAMBLA. They are a LEGAL organization. Therefore, they defend. They defend a heinous and disgusting organization that only is a blemish on gay society. Much like Phelps is a blemish on evangelical society. Or Rev. Moon is on Korean society.

    Posted by: Kamasutra Jones | Dec 5, 2006 3:08:11 PM

  13. Cory :-) The founders though supporters of slavery and killers of indians (Franklin founded the 1st ant-slavery group in america) were some very bright and articulate guys. As children of the enlightenment they saw first hand the devestation caused by the grab for political power by the church in europe. For their time period, pre theory of evolution and big bang, they were Deists which is the closest thing that particular time period had to agnostics and atheists.

    Anyway; on the ACLU and Nambla thing. The ACLU defended nambla's right to think and speak about what they do....NOT the act. in america it is the act that is illegal and the ACLU would rightfly be one of the first to support prosecuting such. the act is thought and free speach in america though supports Namb;a members saying and thinking what they do (though in my own opinion they need to visit a psychologist and get that issue worked on)

    If you are going to attack the ACLU for the Nambla thing then at least get the basics right before spouting off nonsense. If then after becoming educated to the fact that the ACLU defended free speach and NOT the act still condemn the ACLU then you must condemn all free thought and free speach........move to russia and become a comissar thought police. The thought though abhorent to me personaly is not a crime.....The act is...2 totaly different things all together

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Dec 5, 2006 3:19:58 PM

  14. I'm a student here at UT (and actually just got interviewed for the local news about the display) and I can tell you that the YCT have a pretty established reputation here on campus and the solid majority of people won't give them the time of day. In the past they've had a "Throw the immigrant beanbag through the gaping hole in the Texas border" game, and an affirmative action bakesale in which the prices of the cookies were set according to race (to expose the "racism" of affirmative action). I was pleased to see that the ACLU is already out there in front of the display handing out printed responses and looking much more organized than the t-shirted band of disheveled fat white guys manning the YCT table.

    My favorite part of the display is that Gary and Joseph (and everyone else included) are white - clearly the ACLU would be more concerned with historical accuracy of race than trying to wage war on Christmas via child porn-extravaganza!

    Posted by: Andy | Dec 5, 2006 3:21:15 PM

  15. Kudos to the University of Texas conservatives who finally put a nativity scene based on real people rather than a fairy tale.

    Posted by: Richard | Dec 5, 2006 3:43:17 PM

  16. There are just some monenst when freedon of speech and Expression are just plain WRONG. Especially when IDIOTS like those are given it. I know its granted to all in the Constitution but man theres just no sense of decorum anymore.

    Posted by: Wolf | Dec 5, 2006 4:40:31 PM

  17. Matt raises an interesting point...regardless of the source...when he talks about ACLU defending NAMBLA. Incidentally, the ACLU website, itself addresses it's defense of NAMBLA. The point that he raises is the fact that the ACLU is nothing if not controversial and offends both sides (liberal and wrong). I am disgusted by their defense of Nazis and gun-owners as well as of NAMBLA.

    I don't think it's fair to assume Matt's a conservative because he made an unfortunate choice in which link to include in his post. ACLU is the issue Matt was addressing not a media outlet.

    Posted by: JT | Dec 5, 2006 4:49:31 PM

  18. Is today National Cretins Day? Kiss my grits, Kamasutra.

    Posted by: Leland | Dec 5, 2006 4:55:25 PM

  19. Wolf, if Freedom of Speech only applied to things everyone can agree on there would be no need to protect it. People have been saying exactly what you said for years in order to silence gays. I don't like what NAMBLA stands for--I don't like what the Nazis stand for--I don't like what Damon Wayans stands for (there was an article in the LA Times this morning) but they need to have the right to say what they want to.

    Posted by: Daniel | Dec 5, 2006 4:59:17 PM

  20. "Wayans...cracked offensive jokes about gays in church." Gee, there's a BIG surprise. How many believe he only used the word "gay" [if at all]? Raise your hand.
    Slime comes in all colors.

    Posted by: Leland | Dec 5, 2006 5:39:04 PM

  21. Mike, two of the few things that send me into a spin are having my words twisted and being accused of saying things I didn’t say. Unfortunately you hit two of my birds with one stone in your comment to me. Forgive my petulance if English isn’t your first language or if you have problems with reading comprehension, but one way or another you seem to have comprehended something that I didn't write.

    First you said, “I don't understand where you get off saying I'm conservative.” Um, I never said YOU were conservative Mike. Read my post again. (JT, my friend, you might want to read it again as well) Suggestion: Don’t assume that because two things are in the same sentence they are necessarily coupled. But, since you brought it up, I don’t know too many non-conservative people or non religious fundamentalists who read or link to WorldNetDaily. Not sayin, just sayin.

    Then you said, “Zeke, also you go on about my viewpoint but never state yours.” Could you please point out where I “went on” about your viewpoint? Could you at least point out where I even mentioned your viewpoint? Once again, COMPREHENSION, COMPREHENSION, COMPREHENSION! I never questioned or even mentioned your viewpoint. From what I wrote I could have very well agreed with your viewpoint. I only questioned your using a link to WorldNetDaily to back up your viewpoint. Had you used one of your “other sources” to back up your point it’s quite likely that I wouldn’t have said a word.

    Be honest, did you even know what WorldNetDaily was when you linked to them?

    To answer your questions:

    What do you think about the nativity scene?

    Answer: I DON’T think about it! It’s silly, juvenile, homophobic and sacrilegious but as a semi-intelligent, gay, Christian, card carrying member of the ACLU it doesn’t bother me one damn bit. I personally believe that the more that the ignorant, intolerant and homophobic are allowed to present their point of view, no matter how pitifully or uncreatively they may do it, the more intelligent people will realize how stupid they are. And THAT by the way is PRECISELY the view of the ACLU.

    THAT is also why they, and I, support Fred Phelps’ right to make a total ass of himself, even though I find his message and his tactics repulsive. I believe there may be some constitutionally sound way to limit his proximity to actual funerals but I don’t know what they might be. Uncertainty does not terrify me the way it does absolutists.

    By the way, I also totally support the right of biker “patriots” and anyone else who disagrees with Phelps, his message and his tactics to counter demonstrate. I believe the answer to the “problem” of free speech is MORE free speech.

    There is no question in my mind that Fred Phelps has done more to promote gay rights and gay tolerance than all the Pride Parades and Circuit Parties and HRC banquets combined. I say give the man MORE television/radio airtime and a BIGGER megaphone!

    Do they have a right to put it up?

    Answer: I think so. See above. In fact if I lived in Austin I would encourage EVERYONE to go see it and I would pay to put up flood lights so that this display of stupidity could be viewed 24 hours a day. The more people who see it the more people become familiar with the bonehead opinions of the group that sponsored it and the more people will get to see just how uncreative and unimaginative homophobes can be.

    What are your thoughts on the ACLU?

    Answer: Love them, though I absolutely despise some of the people and messages that they defend. I’m intelligent enough to realize that the first Amendment was not written to defend POPULAR speech; it was specifically written to defend unpopular and even offensive speech.

    I spent 12 years in the military. I went in thinking that I was there to defend the flag of the United States but somewhere along the line, as I “liberalled” up, I came to realize that I was there to defend MUCH more than a piece of cloth. I was there to support and defend ALL that the flag stood for, which, as much as I hated it, included the right to political expressions like burning that very same flag. Does that make me a flag burner? Hell no! Does that mean I support flag burning? Hell no! Do I believe a person should have the right to burn the flag? Hell yes! I also believe that others should have the right to protest those who burn the flag. That’s because I believe that intelligent people will be able to make up their own minds whereas stupid people are dangerous regardless of whether we “protect” the flag or not.

    What are your thoughts on the ACLU defending NAMBLA members?

    Answer: That is a dangerously vague question that I am not stupid enough to fall for it Mike. First of all I, unlike our president and apparently you, believe that our Constitution mandates that EVERY American citizen is entitled to a defense, regardless of the accusations or charges against him and regardless of his guilt or innocence. I also believe that NAMBLA members deserve a legal defense when they are sued over business deals that go bad, divorces or against false accusations/charges that are totally unrelated to their sexual desires or their illegal sexual behavior. So once again, the answer to the question would be yes.

    Do I agree with the message or goals of NAMBLA? I really know very little about them but from what I think I know the answer would be HELL NO! Do I believe that the possession and distribution of pictures and films of nude, under-aged kids is an issue of free speech? HELL NO!; because it is a violation of the children’s (who are not consenting adults) rights to privacy. If that was what the ACLU was arguing then I would strongly disagree with them on that position. However, I certainly don’t take WND’s word for it that they were arguing that position sense they are notorious for linking everything they don’t like (especially gays) to NAMBLA.

    For the record, the ACLU was NOT defending the two men who raped and killed the boy. They were defending NAMBLA in a civil case where the organization was being held responsible for the crime because the killers were visitors to the site which did not advocate abduction and murder. That would be like suing WorldNetDaily for the bombing of abortion clinics because the bomber was a registered member or fan of the site.

    Does any of this make sense to you Mike?

    Let me state again, before the flaming starts; I DO NOT SUPPORT NAMBLA IN ANY WAY AND I DO NOT DEFEND ANYTHING THAT THEY DO OR STAND FOR. I believe people who are sexually aroused by children are sick and should seek help (god I sound like Foley). I also believe that those who act on these feelings should be removed from society.

    That has nothing to do with the discussion above. I can be against pedophiles and support their constitutional right to a legal defense at the same time. That goes against human nature and that’s exactly why it went into the Constitution.

    Everyone thinks the Constitution and the ACLU are brilliant when they are being personally protected by them but they’re ready to shred, bypass or amend the Constitution and burn ACLU attorneys at the stake when they are working for others, especially others that they dislike, hate or disagree with. The thing to keep in mind is EVERYONE is someone else’s OTHER. If you were to ask Rush Limbaugh about what he thought about the ACLU defending drug addicts three years ago, I guarantee his answer would be very different from his answer today. THAT’s why the Constitution is held sacred and why those, like ACLU attorneys who defend it, and/or enforce it, should be thanked and supported.

    I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction Mike. Feel free to debate away.

    Yes Patrick, I know, EDIT!

    In my defense; this time I only responded to specific questions asked of me. Granted, the Phelps spiel and the flag detour were sidebar rants but for the most part I stuck to Mike’s script.

    Posted by: Zeke | Dec 5, 2006 7:22:20 PM

  22. And one more thing,

    I absolutely hate people like Daniel who slip in to eloquently and concisely say in three sentences what I'm struggling to say with three pages!

    Especially when they post it while I'm typing my little fingers to the bone.

    Damn you Daniel! (shaking fist furiously at screen!) :)

    Posted by: Zeke | Dec 5, 2006 7:36:59 PM

  23. Thank you Zeke--I will forgive you for damning me. :)

    Posted by: Daniel | Dec 5, 2006 7:46:18 PM

  24. Sorry, Zeke, young feller, but I read and re-read your post before saying what I said. You used BUT in a sentence linking the two clauses. Your sentence said that you are normally tolerant of conservatives BUT you can't believe there are gay people who read whatever-the-hell-that-website-is.

    Posted by: JT | Dec 5, 2006 7:47:44 PM

  25. The ACLU does not defend individuals per se. The ACLU defends the Constitution and an individual's right to express his or her opinion. The Constitution and attendant Bill of Rights were written to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The rights enumerated are for all but protect the rights of the minority. That is why the Constitution enables offensive speech. As Zeke stated, the response to offensive speech should always be MORE SPEECH. Give the idiots a soapbox (or the technologically modern equivalent) upon which they can damn themselves with their expressions of stupidity and hatred. As for child porn, that is NOT Constitutionally protected speech. Ownership or possession (including viewing online) is a criminal offense. Acting on the desires that arise from such criminal speech is likewise criminal behaviour. The distinction is very clear in constitutional jurisprudence. Practical rule of thumb: one's First Amendment rights end where they impinge upon the safety or physical well-being of another. This is particularly the case with children where the State stands "in loco parentis," that is as guardian for children's welfare.

    Posted by: rudy | Dec 5, 2006 8:30:58 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment


« «Maryland's Highest Court Hears Gay Marriage Case« «