Heath Ledger Dead; WBC to Picket Funeral

So, as I’m sure everyone who doesn’t have their head in a bucket knows by now, Heath Ledger is dead at 28. It’s tragic. I’ve been a big fan, although I’ll admit I far prefer his witty comedies, like 10 Things I Hate About You and A Knight’s Tale, to his more weighty fare, like Monster’s Ball and Brokeback Mountain. Either way, he was an amazing actor, and I’m sure he was a wonderful person. He leaves behind a 2-year-old daughter who will never have a chance to know him properly. At this time, the autopsy is inconclusive and we will probably have to wait a couple of weeks for a cause of death.

What has surprised me until now is the speed at which the media has grasped its own member and wanked away like a horny teenager at this story. The details change from one moment to the next as they fumble clumsily about, desperate for climax: he was found naked in bed, he was found face down on top of a bottle of pills, pills were found nearby, it was accidental, he was found in Mary-Kate Olsen’s apartment, he was naked, he was clean from drugs for a year, he was in rehab, he was taking sleeping pills, he was naked, he was depressed, the housekeeper called Mary-Kate’s bodyguard for help, a rolled-up $20 bill was found by the body, he had pneumonia, it was suicide, Mary-Kate Olsen is not involved in any way, he was naked…

It’s horrible. But, as bad as it is, it cannot compare to this missive from our dear Westboro Baptist Church:

‘Brokeback Mountain’ star – Heath Ledger – is dead. WBC will picket his funeral.

“Though shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination.” Lev. 18:22. “For because of these things cometh the wrath of god upon the children of disobedience.” Eph. 5:6.

Yes. WBC will picket this pervert’s funeral, in religious protest and warning. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked.” Gal. 6:7. Heath Ledger thought it was great fun defying God Almighty and his plain word; to wit: God Hates Fags! & Fag Enablers! Ergo, God hates the sordid tacky, bucket of slime seasoned with vomit known as ‘Brokeback Mountain’ – and He hates all persons having anything whatsoever to do with it.

Heath Ledger is now in Hell, and has begun serving his eternal sentence there – beside which, nothing else about Heath Ledger is relevant or consequential.

If the mass media (and I’m counting you gossip bloggers in this) are the adolescent wankers in this story, then Fred Phelps is the cum crusting over on the balled-up tissue.

That’s all I have to say on the matter.


45 Responses to “Heath Ledger Dead; WBC to Picket Funeral”

  1. Why do you give them attention they don’t deserve? Everyone should just ignore those losers.

  2. heath ledger wasn’t a loser, he was one of those who lost in this big world

  3. nearlynormalized Says:

    WBC–is like whale shit–that is at the bottom of the ocean where they belong!!!

  4. Fundie logic: if, according to the WBC, “Heath Ledger is now in Hell” and “nothing else is relevant or consequential”, why would they bother to picket the funeral?

  5. John Angel Says:

    kyknoord, I couldn’t have said that better myself. They’re walking around having been blinded by their beliefs…and they happen to be carrying offensive signs.

  6. Con-Tester Says:

    More fundie logic:

    God hates the sordid tacky, bucket of slime seasoned with vomit known as ‘Brokeback Mountain’ – and He hates all persons having anything whatsoever to do with it.

    “[A]nything whatsoever”, eh? Presumably god him/herself as well as those WBC sycophants who have watched the movie for the sole purpose of condemning it – and who have been tainted as a result – would then also find themselves on their paranoid, murderous, wanton, cantankerous, menopausal, covetous, homophobic, A.D.D.-afflicted celestial tyrant’s shit list. On the other hand, those who don’t watch the movie can’t deliver any informed criticism, so they’d be lying whenever they carp about it, and everyone knows how Phelps’s commander-in-chief feels about lying.

  7. Con-Tester Says:

    moonflake, some of my comments in the “The Galileo Gambit” are not showing. 😦

  8. I swear If they cause any more trouble I will attend with my grandfather’s rifle and a Heath Ledger print t-shirt. When they come at me in anger, I’ll blow them away and call it self defence.

    Or I at least hope someone does it for me, I don’t really want to waste my ammunition…. Heath was a good man, he didn’t deserve this crap.. not after the accident. What a bunch of filthy imbreds… It makes me feel physicaly sick.

  9. I honestly love it when the Westboro church does a dipshit deed like this.

    I truly think that the homophobic quotient of the world goes down a notch just because virtually nobody sees what they are doing as a good thing.

  10. Paul Putter Says:

    This once again raises the question: “Does religion cause stupidity or is it the other way around?”

  11. Wow. Another sad media explosion.

    I like your writing style, btw.

  12. I like it too. And thanks for bringing some sense and decency to this far too public matter. BTW, do you think he might really have been naked?

    Ledger was a juggernaut of the James Dean Class. We would have heard a lot more from him, and are lucky to have been treated to his rather prolific body of work. I’m still astonished that an Aussie actor and an Asian director together could have captured pitch-perfect range hands in what turned out, to my surprise, to be one of the most humane and subtle films I’ve seen in decades, “Brokeback”. If those twisted sadistic excuses for Baptists have a real, rather than a feigned, problem with such an obviously gifted artist and his not so obvious art, then they can go to Hell.

    I suppose there’s a reason why Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth, a friend of whores who is not known to have shown any interest in sexual politics, reserved His choicest street language for self-righteous and judgmental hypocrites. One reason might be that it was just such people who, with murderous hypocrisy, had Him tortured to death.

  13. Originally Roberto Ibale but now relates to anyone doing the actions of:
    – walking around in a nightclub with a Video Camera (powered off and no batteries attached)
    – pretending to be a Film/TV crew to attract the ladies and procure fame
    – only interviewing females
    – making sure the camera is on shoulder as you walk in/out of the club and dance floor.
    -Doing menial magic tricks to impress drunk girls who will have no memory of his small penix later on in the night.
    Hey Roberto Ibale, stop being a fagula with the camera to impress girls and help me stock these auto parts.

  14. Nah, Heath isn’t going to hell — WBC is!!! 😀

  15. The Batman trailer has just come on at the cinema I’m working at. A bit weird, so soon after his death. Poor geezer…

  16. residentRSole Says:

    I don’t get it: The Pope deceives millions worldwide and he gets to go to heaven. But if you pack another dude’s fudge you’re going to Hell ? Strange how the religious types are silent on pedophilia. Does the Bible even say anything about it ? The remedial action for adultery, fucking blood relations & animals and gay sex is good stoning. But I’m sure that I haven’t read anything about abusing children. Mohammad consummated his marriage to his wife Ayesha when she was nine years old but “that’s how things were in those days so it’s okay”.

  17. residentRSole:

    I promise you that you’ll be very interested in what the Hebrew Scriptures have to say about sexual relations, and in what the Greek Scriptures do not say. Check them out!

  18. residentRsole: i doubt you’re going to find any verses in the bible about child abuse. We’re talking about a book that pretty much advocates feeding your children to wild animals if they talk back to you. The only position about child abuse in the bible is encouragement 😉

  19. You “doubt”, moonflake? You doubt? On what basis could one so obviously ignorant of the contents of the Biblical canons form an opinion one way or another? On the basis of hearsay? Why don’t you just do the spooky scary thing and read the damn book, before you opine about its contents? Then, opine away!

    You’d enjoy Martin Luther, too. (No, I’m not a Lutheran; not that it matters what I believe or don’t.) First, he was a most devastating and at the same time fruitful radical. Second, he had your rather astringent sense of humor. He once said, for example, that plaintive children are demonic changelings who should be put to the sword. Yes, he was kidding. (It was he who introduced the notion of equal literacy for girls, for example.) His extreme sarcasm was one of his weapons. He toppled whole social institutions with it.

    But nothing of the kind is to be found in the sacred Jewish or Christian texts. I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. Especially about child abuse. Any rabbi could clear this up for you, and all of them I’ve ever met would enjoy your wit also. Cultural historians (I am one, alas, and it doesn’t pay beans) know very well how central the Abrahamic tradition has been to bringing about our modern, gentle Western views of children; central, because the Canon is shot through with quasi-historical accounts of people more radical even than Luther, respecting the right attitude toward children. One of those people, an extraordinarily ascerbic and radical country rabbi from Nazareth, may or may not have been divine. (That’s up to you, of course.)


  20. Anyway I’m just sorry that young Mr. Ledger is dead. One could have nothing but respect for his obvious gifts, especially for his astonishing range and depth of acting ability. One could have nothing but respect, that is, unless one were a frothing Westborene demoniac.

  21. hughvic: Sactioned punishments for children who mock or curse their parents include being put to death by unspecified means (Ex 21:17), stoning to death by mobs (Deut 21:18-21), and having their eyes plucked out by birds (Prov 30:17). God calls for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to prove his faith and Abraham willingly takes up the knife (Gen 22:2-10), Lot hands his virgin daughters over to rapists and tells them to have their way with the girls to save some angels (2 Peter 2:7-8, 19:8), and best of all, when some children called Elisha names, Elisha curses them in the name of the LORD, and God promptly sends out two bears who proceeded to maul forty-two of them (2 Kings 2:23-24).

    I’m sure you can argue that morals and the official religious position have moved on from then, but you simply cannot argue that nowhere in the Bible do God and his followers behave in an abusive fashion towards children. I’m fairly sure you cannot possibly consider being mauled by bears a fitting punishment for calling an old man names. Handing your innocent daughters over to rapists? If that’s not abusive to children, i don’t know what is.

  22. moonflake, I’ve tried to respond to this but my pop-up blocker at my homework. Too bad. It was rather forthright stuff and I think you’d have liked it, but I have to go to bed now, and so will respond anon. Meanwhile, please hold off on interpreting the pericopes you reference as prescriptions, as there’s a Hell of a lot more going on with these scriptures, and the story has many happy endings. Hint: girls win.

  23. Oh, and I’ve taken action to have the Westborobats stopped henceforth. It’s out of my hands, and in far better ones. My posse’s bigger than their posse. Too late for Ledger’s loved ones, though.

  24. residentRSole Says:

    moonflake : And then there’s the all-time classic “spare the rod and spoil the child”. I never understand why it is illegal to slap a fully grown woman but perfectly fine to spank a little girl. It’s still physical assault and possibly sexual assault as spanking a little girl’s bare bottom must surely qualify as such. Even worse, the little girl has to endure this during her formative years.

    There is no justification for assaulting children in order to teach them morals and other nonsense. Still I like to kick the shit out of those children who roasted a small dog alive over a fire, giggling while it screamed in pain (according to the policeman that caught them).

  25. moonflake, I like your licks. I’m just starting my day, however, and have to go to work before I can reply briefly to your earlier citations. Wanted to mention for now that the feminist ethicist Nel Noddings addresses the relationship between animal cruelty and cruelty to humans, most especially children, the gender-specific phenomenon of boys’ cruelty (in some but not all cultures) to animals being a special and telling subject of study in this regard. Prof. Noddings, by the way, locates the history of Christian sadism and misogyny particularly with the early Church Fathers and their tortured Scriptural readings.

  26. hughvic before this becomes a lengthy discussion, i need to be clear on something – I fully agree with you that everything in the bible should be read within its historical and cultural context. However we are speaking here of the Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible i.e. those who believe it to be the inerrant and absolute word of the LORD. It is not possible for you to deny that there are people who take passages from the Bible to support child abuse – please visit any of a number of evangelical Pro-Spanking websites that use passages in Proverbs and Hebrews to support their stance on child discipline. Whatever you may have to say to me, here, about the interpretations of these passages, know that you are preaching to the choir. It is the WBC and organizations like Focus on the Family you should be explaining these things to.


  27. Bless you, moonflake! And you’re absolutely right that the Bible continues to be seen by some as warrant for child abuse. Unfortunately it will be that way for quite awhile, because the historical scars are profoundly deep and long and will accordingly take considerably more time to heal. (I used to teach a course in the history of childhood; so, sadder but wiser.) I’ll simply say that to me and to those in my school of interpretation, the Girardian School, the Bible’s theme is precisely violence, with violence toward children as it literal and metaphorical, essential story line, culminating in the brutal sacrifice of the Creator’s only child, who himself was killed for making a vicious attack upon the ultimate hypocrisy: sacrificial religion itself, with sons and daughters as its preferred victims. In this light, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures represent a cummulative, progressive revelation of God’s overturning, in history not yet finished, of the man-made religion of e.g. Moloch to the religion that He gives, which knows no social institution. (cf. the story line of Acts: from the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem to the home church in Rome.)

    As you know, Rabbi Yeshua was scandalous for several reasons, one of which was his preference for women and children. He is described several times, by various authors, as breaking with paternalistic Jewish practice by bringing from outside the circle of gathered listeners a child to stand with him. One forms the image of the rustic teacher standing there, holding forth with his hands on the shoulders of a young girl standing in front of him. Simply because he was more similar to that girl than to any of the sinners, of high station and low, onlooking.

  28. Oh, and I don’t believe that corporal punishment is abuse per se. In American Law, the “abuse”, in “child abuse”, simply means “harm”. Harm is in turn defined as demonstrable psychological or physical damage. It’s possible to spank a child in the full throes of self-destructive defiance, say, without harming the child while keeping the wee one from the precipice. You’re right to ride herd on these practices, though. In the most clinical psychological sense, IN THE UNITED STATES THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN IS COMMITTED NOT BY ADULTS BUT BY ADULTS ACTING AS CHILDREN. American child-rearing is deeply diseased and widely destructive still. Consider the nation’s most powerful labor union, one which eats children for breakfast and belches pay raises.

  29. Rai can I participate with u. I would luv to blow all those WBC motherfuckers head off, and then see them go down 2 hell. Your my hero!

  30. hey you religious faglords go and bumchum and fudge pack your quran and bible classes somewhere else

  31. And how do you feel about Jews, Herr Jah?

    That’s OK. Lot’s of the best Nazis were self-loathing homosexuals. I’m sure there’s a help group somewhere fairly near you.

  32. Paul Putter Says:

    Well, looks like the WBC didn’t pitch after all. Maybe Australia was a bit further than they thought it was…

  33. I call shenannagans on Ms. Moonflake for an ad hoc change of story:

    First she wrote:

    “i doubt you’re going to find any verses in the bible about child abuse. We’re talking about a book that pretty much advocates feeding your children to wild animals if they talk back to you. The only position about child abuse in the bible is encouragement ”

    Then , after Mr. Hughvic demonstrated an amazing knowledge of the subject she wrote:

    “However we are speaking here of the Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible i.e. those who believe it to be the inerrant and absolute word of the LORD. It is not possible for you to deny that there are people who take passages from the Bible to support child abuse”

    She has moved from an attack on the text itself, to an attack of other’s views of said text, while pretending that nothing has changed. I am sorry Ms. Moonflake, but I have to call you on this.

  34. A. Wyatt Mann Says:

    WBC kicks ass. Fuck Heath Ledger that filthy kike.

  35. A. Wyatt Mann, You should try to be less obvious when trolling.

  36. The trick, Deacon, is that the Fundamentalist interpretation of the bible is the literal one. It may include a lot of selective ignorance about contradictions or statements that they don’t agree with, but they, in theory, consider it the literal word of god.

    So while the more sedate christians can look at bible versus advocating… I don’t know… never shaving your legs (hopefully made up), and ignore it, it doesn’t stop that verse from existing – and in theory being a stricture you must follow.

    And wow, do I write miserable compound sentences.

  37. I’ve never met a professed Christian, sedate or otherwise, who spelled that name in lower case. It, and also “the Bible”, are simply proper nouns. As such, they call for unreflective capitalization just as “Deacon” and “Andy” and “Fundamentalist” do. To go out of one’s way to customize the English Language—a social project in process—according to one’s idiosyncracies is precisely anti-social. It’s also sophomoric, and a dead give away.

    Traditional Christian doctrine, or orthodoxy, rejects literalism as a grave misunderstanding of the breadth and stylistic depth of the Jewish and Christian canons. A literal reading of the Song of Solomon? Of John’s Revelations? Ludicrous. Every movement of Judaism eschews literalism. The Roman Catholic Church, and all the mainline Protestant churches save the Southern Baptist Convention, are I believe open to any exegetical framework except a rigid literalism. That does not mean that they positively adopt all frameworks, but rather that they remain open to and even encourage scholarly research and experiment with alternative interpretive optics. Their rejection of literalism as hermeneutic, however, does not mean, as Andy M. implies, that they ignore plainly literal texts, or wrench them out of a literal context. I do not believe that any Catholic, or Methodist or Presbyterian, exegete would say that Rabbi Yeshua’s admonition to “give to all who beg from you”, for example, means other than that followers of the Nazarene should give to all who beg from them.

    “Fundamentalism” is embryonic in its historicity, even by comparison with the relatively short chronology of the Christian faith tradition. In the United States it sounds many trumpets—and certainly it has brought many people to profess Jesus Christ as Savior—but despite its prominence in the media it is an “it” that perhaps only a scientific scholar of religion could define, and in any event Fundamentalism is a diminutive, new kid on the block.

    I say this as an anthropologist, not as a partisan theist (though I am that also). Literalism is the exception, not the norm. Christianity is, after all, a Jewish apostasy, and Jews are not and never have been the People of a Book that is to be understood only literally. Literalism is a recent degradation of the Judeo-Christian Abrahamic traditions, and literalism is not Fundamentalism any more than Fundamentalism is literalism.

    And Andy, I think your compound sentences are quite adept and fluid. Dunno about the Deacon, but as far as I’m concerned you’re welcome to write in Standard Western Union should you prefer. STOP.


  38. I’m an atheist, never said otherwise. As the capitalisation of god and all that are a religious affection, I don’t do them. Sorry if it seems insulting, but it would silly for me to do them automatically. Actually, if Christian is a proper noun and then capitalised, should I go back and slap a big ‘A’ on atheist? Or rather should it be Atheism (or Christianity) and atheist (christian). It’s a thought.

    Anyway, while christian fundies, such as the one’s this article is about, don’t necessarily have to be for literalism, it turns out most seem to be that way (again, selectively where it helps their argument).

    Much as the same way that traditional Islamic virtues are not very visible in the fundamentalists that are increasingly grabbing the limelight, the loud “look at me” Christianity that is being exposed most frequently is the crazy type.

    Which, I suppose, why the crazy-aggressive Dawkinsesque Atheism is getting in the media.

  39. Well now Andy M., we seem to have shimmied into something interesting. I’d said that the business with upper & lower case was telling, and so it is. I daresay you are not an atheist per se, but rather are anti-Christian. (Which is certainly not uncommon.) Is the capitalization of “Dawkinesque” a biological affectation? Of “Islamic”, a Muslim one? Try these spellings: hindu, jews, mohammed, buddhist. Kinda makes you feel uncomfortable, no? That’s because you’re merely anti-Christian—no doubt for very good reasons—and thus feel the need to single out for special treatment the very name of the sect you dislike.

    The point is that your predisposition to antic dissing rather disqualifies you from disquisition upon the disposal of Christian dispensationalists. Just societies do not seat the aggrieved on the jury.

    Care to share with us your grievance?

  40. cultural anthropology aside, I believe the layman’s understanding of what constitutes a ‘religious fundamentalist’ is that it is a religious person who goes to the extent of believing that the holy texts of that religion are fundamental and literal. Whether this is correct or not within your understanding of the term (which i’m sure is far more nuanced than ours), for the purposes of rebutting Deacon’s point, this is plenty enough understanding. Andy was, after all, simply explaining to Deacon how it is that in a lay conversation that starts off talking about the Fundamentalist WBC and moves on to talking about the Bible, it is not unfair to assume we are talking of a fundamentalist, and therefore literal, interpretation of the bible.

    Also, I would be careful of jumping to conclusions: some people may not capitalise ‘God’ and ‘Christianity’ because they are, like me, lazy and inconsistent typists 🙂

  41. Hi, moonflake. I try to be careful not to jump to conclusions unless I’m certain that I can make the leap and land on a particular conclusion, such as Andy M.’s—excuse me, andy m.’s—explanation that use of the upper case in spelling the proper nouns “Christian” and “God” is mere “religious affect[at]ion.” I should have thought it mere politeness.

    Moreover, just as andy is Handy with his compound sentences, so are you rather painstaking and consistent with your typing of proper nouns, especially when you write on Pagan subjects.

    The larger point, from my end, is that people so categorically tendentious don’t invite confidence that they could categorize such a caustic organization as Westboro Baptist Church in any but a petty and self-serving manner.

    And so here we have it. The Westborenes are representative of “religious fundamentalists”, and as such believe that their sacred texts “are literal”. We mustn’t show what a skewed and idiosyncratic categorization this is, because we are to have no recourse to cultural anthropology or the scientific study and comparison of religious phenomena.


  42. Actually, I was just being an consistent to prove a point. I’m not anti-christianity (well, I am), but more in an anti-religion way. That I focus more on christianity is down to the fact that it’s a post about a christian cult, and – frankly – my christian background. If I have a more acute dislike to christian fundies than other kinds, it’s mostly due to exposure (ask me about HIS people, today).

    And just because things look strange when typed, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong. Hell, I bet women voting felt a little strange; and the old school Afrikaners must keep doing double takes when they deal with a black African of a higher social class than them.

    As to a method to the capitalisation madness – it’s actually a new concept for me, so I’ll get back to you on how I’ll lay it out. Up there was capitals for the religion as a whole, but not for the individuals. Since then I’ve started thinking of them as philosophies, and ‘capitalism’ doesn’t explode my inner editor (though I try to suspend him when no working).

    Dawkinsesque is, yes, just giving him a capital for being a person. Don’t you know, atheists like people.

  43. And I happen to like atheists, Andy—or at least atheists who work to achieve greater latitude for expression of their views. I agree with you that articulateness can shine through inarticulateness, and that many of those who grew up in foetid South African townships are very good examples of that important distinction. A Native American I once knew, a Chief of the Hopi Indians, was a case in point. His reservation schooling in a government “Indian School” was a “dead ringer” for what once passed for education in Soweto.

    Now that you have established that your especially “more dislike” of “christian fundies” is owing to your experience of them, I get to take this opportunity to sympathize with you. My mental image of a Xian Fundamentalist is of a street preacher holding overhead a pulpit Bible that is “all Greek” to him. The sisters who inherited the Westboro Baptist Church, however, are representative of nothing. They both are insane, inheritors of an unfortunate congenital defect.

    Incidentally, Christ, with an upper case “C”, was—and is—a Person also. As Andy is Andrew, so is Christ Yeshua of Nazareth, an itinerant rabbi of the late Second Temple Period. “Christ” is an honorific nickname.

  44. Pardon me, I’d meant to reference eloquence, not “articulateness”, shining through inarticulateness.

  45. ANYONE WHO BUYS HP BE PREPARED FOR NO SERVICE OR SUPPORT. ONCE THE LAPTOP DIES (DUE TO DESIGN FLAWS such as fried video chips (RYAN GRAPHICS CARD REPAIR THAT THEY DON”T HONOR ANYMORE on the ZD7000), power outlet arcing (due to shitty power plugin) and lcd displays coming apart from heat (hahaha how bad can you get?) HP case managers who lick each others bungholes while trying to find every excuse in the book to not honor their warranty will tell you “SORRY TOO BAD” your warranty is up and a gnarly HP CASE MANAGER GAYLORD in california will say..”dude we can’t help you..ok where is my latte..”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: