Elton John Would Ban Religion

Elton John, the pop singer who recently married his homosexual partner says that he would ban religions because religion teaches hatred toward gays. In addition, he thinks that religions are basically ineffective and that with the world on the verge of WW III, religions should be talking. This is also what he says should have taken place after 9/11.

He added: “The world is near escalating to World War Three and where are the leaders of each religion? Why aren’t they having a conclave? Why aren’t they coming together?

“I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts. Instead of more violence why isn’t there a meeting of religious leaders? Drudge

Perhaps Mr. John should take a look at who committed the terrorism of 9/11 ans why. It was radical members of the religion of Islam and they did it in the name of that religion. The bad guys in the war on terror are all members of the religion of Islam and they are fighting and killing in the name of Islam. So, how exactly, does Elton expect religions to get together and work things out?

Most religions of the world do not teach hatred toward homosexuals. Religions teach that homosexuality is a sin and unnatural. According to most religions it is a sin and in is certainly unnatural but that does not mean there is hatred for homosexuals. It is the lifestyle, not the person, that is the issue. But, I have an idea for Elton. Why doesn’t he go on over and start a dialog with the radical Islamic terrorists who are engaged in the war against anything not Islamic. I imagine he will not last too long because the Muzzies execute homosexuals (after they have their way with them). He could go to the Vatican to speak and her could go to Israel and speak. Those places might not agree with him but he will not be killed for being gay in either of those places.

So now, just what religion is the root of the problems Elton? I also find it interesting that you chastise people for teaching hatred toward homosexuality. You would blow (maybe not the best word to use) a gasket if countries banned homosexuality and yet you would ban religions because they do not agree with your point of view. This is a pattern we see very often. It comes from the ACLU, CAIR and a number of other organizations or special interest groups. They criticize for any perceived discrimination against them and then they advocate discrimination against others. Basically, Elton John teaches hatred toward religion for what he believes is teaching hatred toward homosexuals.

This stupidity is why entertainers should stick to entertaining.

BTW, Elton says people treat him reverently, like the Queen Mother. Interesting choice of words from a flaming homosexual.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

8 Responses to “Elton John Would Ban Religion”

  1. Adam says:

    Banning religion is right up there with banning art. There are always people who try to question the importance of faith and of expression in our lives. These people are morons with no understanding of the history of human civilization. Wherever you go at pretty much any time or place there is some sort of religion and some sort of art. Unfortunatly at all times and places there are also idiots making idiotic statements. Frankly, somebody should shit on their hand and slap Elton John in the face with it for being so damn stupid. But hey, maybe I’m just bitter…

  2. Big Dog says:

    Elton might like that…..

    I do not think we should ban art but I do not think taxpayers should be paying for it. People are free to make anything they want and call it art but that does not mean the taxpayer should pay for it through the NEA.

    Just like religion, the government does not pay for it.

  3. Adam says:

    Yeah, the NEA goes against the seperation of Art and State…

    In my opinion art and faith enrich our lives are enrich our heritage. If there was a NEF that would promote the study and practice of faith yet not become a tool encouraging one faith above another I’d be fine with that. The NEA has numerous programs that promote the study of literature, of theatre arts, and performance arts. These are great things. I not only want to continue to fund the NEA, but to fund it more. Now that I pay 33% of my monthly earnings to taxes, maybe you’ll allow me to suggest it’s perfectly okay for some of that to fund art.

  4. Big Dog says:

    Can you show me in the Constitution where it is OK for that?

    I am a nurse and that profession is defined as an Art so can I get government funding? Our taxes should not be paid so people can do things others find offensive. Is it OK for me to destroy offensive art since taxpayers paid for it?

    Also, there is no separation of Church and State. You can not find that in the Constitution. You will see that Congress is not allowed to establish an official religion and that they are not allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Show me where there is seperation of church and state and where this a wall and all the other things. However, religion is mentioned in the Constitution and you will not find ART mentioned there.

  5. Adam says:

    We’re getting off the topic which is the fact that Elton John is a moron. However, since we’re off the path we might as well explore a little.

    Separation of art and state was tongue in cheek, and in no way meant to get you arguing about church and state.

    Nursing is not the type of art the NEA was created to promote. However, I assume nursing is a science that has received many tax dollars for research. No, it’s not OK for you to destroy offensive art either. That would make you a jerk.

    Where in the constituion is it okay to tax anything? It is my understanding that Congress is given the authority to tax for reasons such as the NEA within the law and we are given the authority to boot out the Congress for such an offense.

    It does mention “useful arts” in the consitution. I guess it depends on what you’d call useful. I’d say cultural enrichment is a pretty useful thing. Maybe you disagree.

    While art pieces likes Piss Christ and the Holy Virgin Mary have smudged the public image of the NEA, there is much more to the organization than funding art select groups of people find offensive. Call it just a negative side affect of an otherwise crucially important public project.

    In the end the fact remains that public support is high for the NEA and for it getting taxpayer funding. You find yourself in the minority, sir. That’s happening to you a lot this week. ;)

  6. Big Dog says:

    Then I have an idea. Instead of extorting money from people who do not want to pay for it, put a check box on taxes and people can add as much as they want to fund it. I wenture to say that you will find less support than you think.

    People are only too willing to support something they think the money does not come out of their pockets. When they have the option to give they decide not to.

    However, 84% of people in this country think it is OK for the Ten Commandments to be on government property and to keep under God in the pledge and 87% think that Flag burning should be against the law. Given your new found affection for majority rules (rather than government protects the minority which I thought was crap anyway) then these items should now be in effect and there should be no argument.

    I like being in the Minority for 2 years. It will let me point out and blame everything on the Majority like has happened for the last 12 years. I will be pointing out he double standards and stupidity of the left over the next 2 years…….I will also call Pelosi Hitler just because that seems to be what I am supposed to do when in the minority…

    Have fun man and don’t drink too much.

  7. Adam says:

    You were always in the minority anyway. It’s just that people who share similar thoughts with you had a majority of the seats in government for a while. Not this time though. I know. Let’s make Elton John UN Ambassador. He’s a bigger idiot that John Bolton. Bush seems to like to appoint incompetent fools to high government positions.

    Your check box tax system would get us in trouble not just with the NEA funding but a lot of fundng. War for instance. They would be just as unlikely to pay taxes towards the NEA as they would the Department of Defense I’d wager. And besides, it would end up looking like this:

    [*] NEA
    [ ] War
    [ ] Earmarks
    [ ] Congress Salary

    I don’t think it would go over well from a budgeting standpoint.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Interesting you do not like Bolton and he is the only UN ambassador who has looked out for us.

    Leave War on there and take the rest. That is the only one Constitutional (depending on what you mean by Congress Salary). They should never get to vote on their own though.

    It is all about the Constitution. I am not in the minority. The country is overwhelmingly Conservative. We just have large pockets of inner city leeches who live off the teat of the government who all vote for their task masters who will bring in the goods.

    PORK should be illegal and you should be allowed to shoot a member of Congress on site if he approves PORK (stop using nice terms for what it really is)