Audio from Michelle Shocked.

[S.A.M]

Do you remember Bob Dylan's Christian period? 1979? You got to serve somebody? Yeah, that period! It was just after his reborn Jewish peroid.
Wll Michelle Shocked is fallowing in his foot steps. Here is the audio of the performance that got her in trouble. She is having either a nervous breakdown or this is a publicity stunt. 2 songs from Dylan she might want to listen to: Everybody must get stoned And: It's all over now baby blue.

http://soundcloud.com/therealtofuandwhiskey/michelle-shocked-2nd-yoshis

[S.A.M]

1. Here is more news!

http://www.spin.com/articles/michelle-shocked-gay-rant-apology-interview

[Gravitycollapse]

3. Is she comparing herself to Jesus?

[LAGC]

4. I think she's sick in the head.

That's the only thing that is making sense right now.

She needs psychiatric help.

[bbernardini]

2. I've found this blog to be quite comprehensive regarding this whole issue...

http://littleaustralia.blogspot.com/

The guy transcribed the audio. The woman's post-rant apologies are pretty much all lies.

[Aerows]

5. Yep

She's backtracking now because all of her shows got cancelled. What did she expect when she mouthed off like that? No amount of spin is going to change what she said. Personally, I think she has just plain flipped her lid and gone off the deep end. No sane person would say such things and then turn right around and try to deny that they said them when the audio is all over the place.

She needs psychological help.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

6. I'm a bit confused by all of this.

I listened to the audio and read a transcript. It seemed to me that when she used the trigger phrases to which everyone is reacting, she used them in quotation marks. She seemed to be stating and protesting the views of the religious reactionaries, but (if true) this didn't come across as intended. The rant was a bit rambling, not carefully structured, and she kept switching viewpoints and alternately speaking her own apparent views and then those she was protesting, always from the first person. The result is at best somewhat incoherent, but I didn't get the impression that she was deranged or that she was supporting the views which everyone is now protesting.

I could be wrong about that, however. The whole matter is confusing, and I can understand how and why people are upset. If she was stating these ideas as her own, we should be upset about it. But I think we need to listen carefully to the source material, to be sure we are responding appropriately. She and her now alienated audience may actually be standing against the same foes.