Zombies and Wind and Jesus, Oh! My!

It still boggles my mind to this day that there is a persistent belief in a god(s), especially in a society where education should be a priority. (Should be because not enough people value asking “why?”, and politicians always seem to think budget cuts start in our schools…)

You see, a recent game of “Which would you rather” in the morning somehow got turned into a “Have you seen this crap!” and thus, a coworker recently pointed me to another coworker’s blog, where the heavy-handed “I’m more moral than the world” coupled with the “I’m so humble in Jesus” monologues made me want to gag, vomit, commit suicide, and drop nuke’s on every major religious center in the world—

Scratch that—it made me want to drop nukes on even the minor religious centers.

I do try my best to withhold judgment when people make off-handed comments in my general direction, like “Jesus helped me do this,” or “I know God’s watching over me because of blah blah blah”; seriously, I say nothing most times, just smile and nod like I’m one of the sheep who checked his brain at the door to life and thinks angels are dancing all around me with swords flying to keep Satan and his minions at bay from causing me to commit one type of sin or another…

Sigh…

I try to be a live-and-let-live dude, what with the mass of brain-dead zombies that inhabit even the most liberal locations of where I live. Add to the fact that most of my family, and my partner, have religious and spiritual inclinations, I’m pretty well versed in the mumbo-jumbo, the beliefs, the practices, the voodoo. So, in the name of tolerance, I will sometimes make an observation, delicately-put depending on the audience, or sometimes outright laugh, also depending on the audience…

But overall, I’m highly disappointed in you, human race…

One of the more common arguments I hear from the windbag types is, “Well, you can’t see the wind—how do you know it’s there? All you can see is the effects! So Ha!” (As if such a mind-numbingly silly argument came from the lips of God hisself into their ears… Which is funny, because I’m feeling the effects of all the hot air they’re spewing when making this claim, but there it is…) If you can’t figure out why this is such a weak, silly, and all-around stupid argument, I’ll not bother to educate you. Suffice it to say, if you’ve ever considered this argument to be a firm tenant in your belief system, you have bigger problems than just believing in sky daddies and angel fairies… Suffice it to say that it hints to the notion (okay, okay, outright screams to the notion) that you somehow think wind is magical and supernatural… And I can only hope you realize how silly a position that is…

I can only hope you also realize that, when the apocalypse does come and the zombies do take over, you’ll only have to look at the closest standing religious center to find out where the infection started. (There’s a reason they hafta eat brains—their god(s) took theirs away…)

Fact of the matter is, anytime you are going to believe in something that cannot be seen, measured, tested, or even just plain logical, you may as well just do us all a favor and remove yourself from both the mating pool and the voting masses…

Knowing you exist out there really makes me think the Constitution should be amended to read “We the intelligent people…,” with a special clause regulating the rest of you to speed bump duty… Which, of course, will be unnecessary once my hover-stang is perfected. And when such a time arrives, you’ll be reassigned to coat-rack duty, assuming that global warming has been corrected by that time (and it will be, because the idiots will have been spayed and neutered and busy being coat racks…), and that sometime, somewhere, we the intelligent people will sometimes need to wear a coat due to the chilly “magical” wind…

The Growth of a Human Being...

---

“If we're growing, we're always going to be out of our comfort zone.” --John Maxwell

---

First off, let's please note the irony of an atheist quoting an evangelical pastor.

So noted? Good. Moving on...

Now, let's note Spike. He is the 19+ inch tall cactus you see just there on the right. When I received Spike as a gift about 6 years ago, he was two inches tall with a purple plastic flower glued to his top. He was purchased at a grocery store in that section where they retain all things green but not necessarily of the produce persuasion. I was in the hospital having a tumor removed from my spine (benign, of course), and husband knew of my love for all things plant, but not necessarily produce, related. It was one of those "I fall in love with you all over again" moments.

Spike himself won't naturally bloom until he is somewhere between three and four feet tall, as is the wont of his species of cacti. If I ever want to see Spike dressed to the nines in this fashion, I must make sure Spike gets all the things he needs to be a fully productive member of his species: water (if sparingly), sunlight, proper soil. If I fail, Spike may die. He certainly wouldn't flourish and grow. And he will never, ever bloom if I, as his caretaker, fail in any way to provide for his needs.

Moving on...

A few years ago, there was quite the bru-ha-ha in our family as we were all once again planning our giant family get-together for the summer. And I say "giant" because when you have four siblings, each with their partners and various children and the total number of people in your immediate family exceeds twenty individuals--well, not many can relate to an immediate family of that magnitude (which is why some of the in-laws have adjustment issues when they first join our clan), and it's always quite the production.

But the bru-ha-ha happened because of the youngest sibling: she wanted to take a "moral stand." She was afraid her two children would see me and the husband in the same bedroom and ask questions--questions she wasn't prepared to answer. She was afraid they would somehow be introduced to the "gay lifestyle" too early, that it would seem as if she were "endorsing" our relationship (a very bad thing to do when you're a conservative Christian, as some of you may know), and didn't think she should have to explain to her children why Uncle Jason slept in the same room as Uncle Rich...

Needless to say, they never did come on that family vacation with the rest of us...

Anyway, a recent blog post by a Catholic woman has gone viral (see here) and it reminded me very much of the incident in our own family three years ago. Some excerpts from her blog post:

---

At the pool this summer there were homosexual couples with children and, while I was polite as my own young daughters doted on the baby with two "mommies", I also held my breath in anticipation of awkward questions - questions I'm not ready to answer. My young daughters are all under the age of eight and they are not old enough to understand why a baby would have two women calling themselves "mommies".

...

When there were two men relaxing at the side of the pool unnaturally close to each other, effeminately rubbing elbows and exchanging doe-eyes, I was again anxiously watching my children hoping they wouldn't ask questions. They don't see Daddy do that with anyone but Mommy.

...

Two of my daughters were in the sandbox, one on the slide, the other on the swings, and as I lifted the baby out of his stroller I looked up to see four women laughing at a baby boy as he was swinging in one of those bucket baby swings. That seems harmless enough, but I'm so sensitized to the strangeness in my community that I've developed this ever-present jumpiness whenever I'm in public. Sure enough, two of the women, so happy to see a baby boy laughing, embraced and remained standing there rubbing each other's back in a way that was clearly not just friendly affection.

...

I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter. We are responsible citizens. We live by the rules, we pay our taxes, we take care of our things. I'm supposed to be able to influence what goes on in my community, and as a voter I do exercise that right. But I'm outnumbered. I can't even go to normal places without having to sit silently and tolerate immorality. We all know what would happen if I asked two men or two women to stop displaying, right in front of me and my children, that they live in sodomy.

---

Am I allowed to say how scared I am that this woman is raising seven children?

But I digress. What I really want to talk about is the rampant "sheltering" that goes on in conservative communities. As if "parenting" has come to mean giving your children "selective" information about the world instead of trying to teach them to live and cope within it. To protect them from differing people instead of trying to teach them about the differing people of the world. To raise kids in a bubble so impenetrable, so strong, that when they do hit the real world, when they do find out that there are people out there who don't share the same view that they had growing up--well, they either

• fall back on that same mindset and continue to shelter themselves from the world (thus stunting their own growth even more than their "concerned parents" had...)
• go crazy, not knowing how to cope, and go off the deep end in various ways (i.e., having no knowledge of the dangers of over-drinking, of unprotected sex, or any number of other, easily explained social dangers),
• or they examine their beliefs, realize how they were failed as children by their uber-protective parents, and grow in the new sunlight of knowledge.

Did you notice the recurring fears in Stacy's post? Afraid of the "awkward questions - questions I'm not ready to answer"? "[W]atching my children hoping they wouldn't ask questions"?

One of the (misguided? misunderstood?) recurring themes in the comments is the "if you're liberal, you should tolerate my viewpoint" persuasion. But the thing the right-wing doesn't seem to understand about tolerance is the fact that tolerance does not mean putting up with nonsense, does not mean putting up with ill-thought-out beliefs, does not mean letting them believe whatever the hell they want without challenge, especially if you are putting it out in the public sphere of a blog.

Tolerance IS ONLY ever meant to be the smallest part of patience. And when the patience has been tried, tolerance goes out the window. Tolerate is what you do when your two-year-old tried again to drink from a cup instead of his sippy-cup; or you tolerate the sales person who called during dinner only as long as it takes to get them off the phone; you tolerate a visit from some member of the family you dislike for the sake of a holiday, or some-such other type scenario. Tolerance is not letting you live in fairy-tale land where you get to tell everyone else how to live and making your religious preferences the rules the rest of us have to live by. We tolerate a plethora of beliefs in this country. We do not have to tolerate you trying to tell everyone else how to live, and we certainly do not have to stop holding hands just because of your failure to answer a child's questions, if indeed they even ask any.

It is not the rest of the world's job to protect your children from life. It is not the rest of the world's obligation to shelter your children. When you decided to become a parent, you assumed the role of care-giver, of knowledge-imparter, of teacher/guidance counselor/role model, and a plethora of other hats. It is not a parent's job to shelter children--in fact, that would be the exact opposite of being a parent.

In fact, that would be more the role of jailer; prison guard; totalitarian.

And in those conditions? Nothing ever blooms... Nothing good ever comes of it... Nothing productive ever will.

Unless you think the role of parenting is to stunt the growth, knowledge, and strength of the next generation...

The growth of a human being...

Hmm... Toasted!

It boggles my brain...

Okay, maybe "boggles" is too strong a word. After all, to truly "boggle" the mind, one either needs to be unable to wrap one's mind around it, or, in fact, own a boggle. (Oops! My bad--those were Popples! Tomato, to-mah-to...)

So there's this woman who is dying. Her husband refuses to let her get a blood transfusion. Why? you may ask? Good question!

He's a Jehovah's witness! Or, was a Jehovah's witness. And she never went. But he's pretty damn sure she believed what he believed, even if he no longer believes in the whole enchilada--just the parts of the enchilada that would save his wife's life! From the article:

---

“I love Candy. I told them to do absolutely anything to save her life except give her blood or blood products,” Bruce Huff said.

Bruce Huff was baptized as a Jehovah’s Witness several decades ago, and although he only sometimes attends church now for health reasons and does not consider himself a member, he still shares the beliefs of the church. According to the official website of the church, www.watchtower.org, the belief is based on their interpretation of the Bible, especially Acts 15, which reads to “keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood” and Leviticus 17 which reads to “not partake of the blood of any flesh.”

[...]

Candy Huff never considered herself a Jehovah’s Witness but shared his beliefs, Bruce Huff said. He said they had talked many times about the blood issue and thinks she would not have wanted transfusions.

“I know my wife better than anybody. She always wanted to do what is right,” he said.

---

Why...

Wait... Blood pressure...

Okay. (In through nose, out through mouth, in through nose, out through mouth...) If Bruce hadn't claimed "religious reasons," say, his excuse was "Just because"; or "My toaster would want it that way"; or "God told me so in my hair dryer this morning." You would all (hopefully) simply think "Nutcase!" and do what the hospital did--file a petition to have someone else make her medical decisions. (The hospital won, by the way. Candy is expected to live only because her aunt isn't a blooming idiot...)

But because he has "religious reasons," we are expected to grant his wishes? Hospitals shouldn't give the care needed?

---

As a complete and off-topic aside, I also don't understand why vegetarian substitute meat products are shaped like meat and advertise that they taste almost like meat. If you are against eating a piece of chicken, why would you want a tofu stick shaped like a drumstick???

---

Dear American Religious Peron(s),

Citing "religious reasons" no longer cuts the mustard. I don't care if it has to do with blood transfusions, same-sex marriage, abortion, taxes, tithing, or where you "believe" my soul is going.

Obviously there are so many religions because no one can agree on what means what, who meant what, who wrote what, and on and on. Granted, our constitution of these United States grants you the permission--nay, the right--to believe that fairies knock over your trash cans at night while unicorns shit rainbows after rain storms. Be that as it may, simply stating "It's what I believe God says" or "I believe that's what Jesus would want" simply means you have given up custody of your brain.

Next time you feel the urge to say "Because God says blah blah blah," add the phrase, "through my blow dryer this morning" or "was engraved on my toast this morning" after your sentence--or even before it, if that will help point out the idiocy of your argument all the sooner!

Let's have a practice round:

Original: I don't believe God would want same-sex marriages.
Updated: I don't believe God would want same-sex marriages because he told me so through my hair dryer this morning.

Do you see? Want another example?

Original: God has moved me to tell you that you are going to hell and that you weren't ever really saved.
Updated: Engraved on my toast this morning, God moved me to tell you that you are going to hell and that you weren't ever really saved.

I think you get the picture, right?

So the next time you feel the need to stake out a position on, say, universal health care for all the people of this nation, and why you think it's the wrong path for our nation, do us all a favor: Use your brain to come up with logical, reasonable arguments to support your cause. Not a book written two thousand years ago, and not because it's what your pastor said last Sunday.

You are a thinking human being. Or, at least, you're supposed to be. Please prove it.

Sincerely,
Jason

There's Noah Counting for Taste...

You see, the fable goes something like this:

---

Gen 6:13-22 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather [it] to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

---

We'll just assume that the chapter 7 version of Genesis was God trying to improve genetic variation when he changed his mind and said to bring 7 of most kinds of animals, and then 2 of everything else... Cause you know YWHW, all about the gene pool!

---

Gen 7:2-3 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

---

I imagine Noah went something like: "Wait, what? You just said 2 of every animal and fowl, now you want seven of some and 2 of others? What the hell, YWHW?!"

In case you haven't heard, more of us will be yelling "What the hell?" in the coming days. It seems that a bunch of Christians have decided that it is wiser to spend their money on building a full-scale, life-size biblical ark than it is to help the poor, the widows, the children... You know, your downtrodden souls in need at this time of year.

---

Noah may have taken 400 years to build the ark but investors of a new biblical theme park in northern Kentucky plan to replicate a full-scale model in under 36 months.

The completely wooden ark, which would measure 500 ft. across, 75 ft. wide and 45 ft. high, is slated to be unveiled in spring 2014 as one of the attractions of the proposed $150 million Ark Encounter theme park.

---

You get those sizes down? That's literal interpretation for you. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, an area smaller than a football field supposedly carried 2 to 7 of every creature on earth for much longer than 40 days and nights! Not to mention their food supplies and tools for keeping the place sanitary--as if sanitary were even a glimmer of a thought... Of course, keeping in mind that the lions, tigers, bears, wolves and boa constrictors would eat the sheep, goats, pigs, cats... Hmm...

But, wait! The idiocy continues!:

---

Answers in Genesis, known for the popular Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., is partnering with Ark Encounter to raise the $24.5 million needed to build the life-size ark. People can participate by donating $100 for a peg, $1,000 for a plank, or $5,000 for a beam to construct the ark.

As of Thursday afternoon, the non-profit organization has raised about $114,000 – just one day since it launched the campaign for Noah's Ark.

---

In just ONE DAY they raised $114,000. (And that's not in Roman denarius...) Of course, I'm left wondering why a peg costs $100 when you can buy a dozen of them at Home Depot for only $2.99... But then again, perhaps they haven't been blessed or baptized or whatever the hell it is they do with wooden pegs these days... Of course, thinking that an ark less than half the size of a football field could hold the millions of animal species, from microscopic to Indricotherium, I can see why they'd have trouble with math...

And did we forget about the plants? Almost no vegetation would survive, let alone be actively growing, after 40 days and nights (and please note, 40 days and nights is how long it supposedly rained for--it doesn't say how long it took these waters to recede...)--even if Noah did somehow manage to keep the T-Rex from devouring those seven measly sheep, what the hell were the surviving sheep going to eat? Dead earth?

I hope they build it--I really do! Nothing better could convince anyone with at least one working brain synapse of the idiocy of believing in literal bible inerrancy than seeing this tiny boat filled with--at the very minimum--two to seven of every member of the "Family" of animals located within. (Note that I'm being generous here and allowing them to move up 2 whole scientific categories instead of trying to fit in every "Genus" or "Species" of animal... They still wouldn't all fit, FYI...) There are more issues with this "literal global flood" than there are with almost anything else located within the bibles' pages...

Of course, I realize with a belief in an omnipotent god, you can have seven hundred miracles happen to explain away this one miracle--or, "blind faith," I do believe any self-respecting fundamentalist would call it... There's a reason you guys believe in a literal ark and flood, because you lack critical reasoning skills, and nothing I say could convince you otherwise...

That being said, however, when you pack up the family and head to the life-size ark (and I do hope you realize, "ark" means BOX) in Kentucky, and you sit there and realize you could simply spit across the entire width of the ark... Remember, it's your dumb-ass belief...

For logical, well-thought out arguments which pretty much prove the story is bunk, here are a couple of websites to get your started:

• Problems with the Global Flood by TalkOrigins
• Noah's Ark by the Skeptics Dictionary

Reading the Bible is Like doing Crystal Meth...

Let's say you are in a convenience store. Someone comes in waving a gun and is going to rob the place. He's aiming the gun at the head of a teenager who just happened to pick up this shift after school. She can't open the register, so the gunman decides he's going to kill someone cause he's pissed. He cocks the gun, and aims it at the person standing right next to you. Do you:

1. push the person out the way to safety?
2. yell "No!" and get yourself shot by accident?
3. look on in horror as the person gets shot?
4. turn to that person and say, "Hey, I'll save you from that bullet, but only if you acknowledge me as your lord and savior"?

Three of those are perfectly normal responses and/or scenarios...

The fourth option is something only the Christian god does.

---

So they say he came and died for all your sins. All of them. Except--disclaimer!!--you're still going to hell because you didn't say, "Hey, thanks, dude!"

What?!?! God needs to hear you say, "Thanks, I believe," before he rescues you from hell? Ask any conservative--hell, most Christians for that matter--and they'll say, "Yes, unless you confess and believe that Christ died for your sins, you will go to hell." Period. End of story. You may be thinking, How is this a loving god? <--a perfectly rational thought, I assure you...

If I could shove that person out of the way to save them from the bullet, I wouldn't care of they were grateful or not. Sure, I'd be peeved if they didn't seem grateful at the moment, but I wouldn't then regret saving them from death. I mean, come on, she was going to get shot, for god's sake. Now don't get me started on a god that even allows us to invent guns or have the ability to kill another. He screwed us up, that's his issue. But to say that we're getting eternal punishment for

• an inherited "sin" nature that we had no control over? and
• god's ego?

I don't think so. I posed this to another person once, a conservative Christian. I said, "I wouldn't not save a person just because they weren't going to admit I saved them." And he replied, "But they're still going to die eventually. With God as your savior, you get eternal life." To which I replied, "Um, hello? You are going to die. You are going to croak, like everyone else, and be viewed in a casket, and then have six feet of dirt piled on you just like everyone else. YOU STILL DIE." And he said, "But I will go to heaven. You won't. The old lady won't. Your brother won't." Maybe it's a mind set... Maybe reading the bible is like doing crystal meth... Who knows? And yes, I was answered with just a hint of smugness and an apparent missing of the point that he was still going to die... and thought he was then going to have eternal life...

I'm sorry, my idea of a loving god, if one were to exist, wouldn't need his ego stroked to save his own creation from hell. Or any other kind of bad thing, for that matter. Would any of you parents not help your child if they didn't "give you props"? Acknowledge your helping hand? I think any good parent, regardless of their child's amount of gratefulness, would still want to lay down their life for their kid. I know I would die in a heartbeat if I knew it would save any of my siblings, their kids, my friends, my parent's, even my stupid grandmother. I wouldn't first turn to them and say, "Hey, I'll die for you, but first you must promise to build a temple in my name, and subvert indigenous people to worship my memory. You have to live every day living and doing things that I would have done. But only then will I die for you. Oh, and I must cross your mind every day, once a week minimum!"

No, I'd step in front of the bus / gun / avalanche / car/ rifle / virus / what-have-you. No questions, no restrictions, no "sign on the dotted line."

If your god needs that ego stroke so badly, he doesn't need it from me. I'd rather curse him from hell.

French: The Language of Love, the Language of the Devil!

Just when you think we've gotten past the stupid shit from the eighties... You know, things like, "Play the record backward and you'll hear 'I love Satan and Satan loves me!'" or "Madonna is the new anti-Christ!" (Did you know you can listen to "Like A Prayer" on the local soft-rock station now? Perhaps it lost its Satanic power when Madonna became a Kabalist...) you read something so stupid and so ridiculous, you have to wonder if it's all just in the communion water. I mean really, get these excerpts!:

---

One of Lady Gaga’s songs on YouTube has drawn 223,934,322 hits (as of Thursday, 06-10-10). [...] Lady Gaga is just another lost soul that has sold herself to Satan for a short time of power and success. The name of this popular song is “Bad Romance” and it is clear that she is singing of the devil. The lyrics begin with her singing in strange ramblings. I believe the devil means the strange words as a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and the tongue of fire we see in Acts on the Day of Pentecost.
[...]
I believe that she is singing in the tongues of fallen angels. Some of the lyrics of this song are sung in French, other lines do not translate. If she is singing in a version of tongues, then every spirit of Satan understands her and incredible powers of evil are communicated. That is the reason for her huge success. We had better learn the truth of Satan’s powers as we approach the end.
[...]
Recently, a dear soul called me with a question that describes how far from God the church world has fallen. The minister of this person’s church was claiming to have had sex with the Holy Ghost. Of course, this was a demon masquerading as the Holy Spirit. This is believed by many to be exactly what happened in Noah’s Day.

---

Really? I mean, seriously, REALLY?! People believe this shit! Lady Gaga sings to Satan, ministers are having sex with demons pretending to be the Holy Spirit, and French is only a partial glance into the secret language of the fallen angels. (Apparently Pig Latin had been taken by the talking snakes, so Satan and gang started with French and added things "that don't translate" from there...)

Although I'm wondering--if the minister had married the demon first, would it have then been okay to have sex with it? And, since god made angels (and, as every good fundamentalist bible-believing, literal interpretation reading Christian knows, demons are nothing more then angels who no longer live in lala land with god...), and angels have been made genderless--how exactly did this pastor have sex with this demon who was into role-play? Do angels and demons have orifices for such use, and if so, why? And was it a boy-part-bearing angel, or a girl-part-bearing angel, or something in between? What were the parts made of, Play-Doh? It couldn't have been dust, man was made from dust... Ah, Bible, don't fail me now! Answer me!!!! WHY DID GOD GIVE MEN HAVE NIPPLES IF MEN DON'T BREAST FEED?!?!

But I digress... God obviously originally planned to have men do the breast-feeding before he made Eve and decided she would be better at it, and Play-Doh is a tool of the devil to draw young minds in early...

This "pastor" (who has obviously donated his brain to the afterlife long before his body has gotten there as he apparently doesn't need and/or use it...) is "Pastor" Joseph Chambers, of (surprise, surprise!) the bible belt, and apparently has a congregation! (Proof that people are willing to listen to just about anything or anybody if it means they don't have to think! Perhaps part of becoming a church member also means donating their brains to the afterlife before the body as well?) Even scarier, these zombies donate enough money and time to the "pastor" that he's able to have a web site, acquire guest speakers--hell, they even have a school!

And this is the crap being taught to those children... Sad, really...

I wonder if the video of the pastor/angel (Oops! Sorry, I meant pastor/"demon"!) sex-capade is on YouTube?

How Gay Would That Be?

Tony Perkins of the "Family Research Council" claimed in a mass email on Thursday, 1/28, that "[Obama] is turning the military into a homosexual playground," among other things. Something tells me he's watched Saving Ryan's Privates too many times (only, of course, so he can let others know how bad gay porn is for American families...). Never minding that we always have been and always will be proud members of the military (as we are, in Tony's words, "militant homosexuals"...), serving with honor and distinction to the highest ranks of the military all the while keeping our personal lives separate and secret, Tony also wants everyone to "sign our new petition and remind Capitol Hill that the military isn't a laboratory for political correctness." As if the military were a democracy... Ha! What's truly hilarious is all the arguments Tony and his ilk are whipping out to "support" their position are the exact same arguments that were used to try to prevent blacks from serving alongside whites in the military. My friend Russ has an excellent post about this here. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Discrimination against homosexuals isn't the same as what African Americans went through (and in many instances still experience), but there are too many similarities to not draw a comparison.

---

---

In a semi-related incident, the "American Family Association" has come up with an even more brilliant idea to handle "the homosexuality problem." As they are apparently unaware that this isn't a theocracy (a mistake a lot of fundamentalists make), on the radio the other day one of their people advocated imprisoning us all and putting us through "reparative therapy"! (EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T WORK!) As Russ once again posted about, American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer stated on the air:

---

If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through an effective reparative therapy program. Secondly, I'm afraid you're simply wrong about the Bible's perspective on the law and homosexuality. Paul lists quite explicitly in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 the actions and behaviors that are the proper concern of the law:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine...

The bottom line here is that, biblically, those "who practice homosexuality" should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery. You express a belief in the Scriptures, and I trust your confidence in Scripture is not selective. If you believe all Scripture is inspired, then you are compelled to accept that legal sanctions may appropriately be applied to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

---

So not only do you want to round up all the men who have sex with men and lock them up together (rope no longer needed for soap!), but even more unbelievable is this man actually thinks secular laws should be based on the bible! Now, let me think, let me think... Who was it that also advocated rounding people up, jailing them, and, when possible, brain washing them? Oh, that's right: The Nazi's! Again, not exactly the same, but enough similarities to draw a pretty accurate comparison... After all, both the AFA and the FRC support Israel and all Jews, just as long as they aren't gay Jews, secular Jews, or unwilling to fight for the Holy Land Jews...

And, in regards to "Paul's list" in which "homosexuality" is included? As Russ pointed out, and as I've mentioned various times here on this blog and in other forums, the word homosexual didn't even exist back when Paul was writing his letters, and most of today's English translations are very crude paraphrases of the original Greek and Hebrew... See here for my own wonderful expose on Paul's letter to the Romans... (Sorry, Bryan Fischer, but bad paraphrasing of an ancient language can by no means be construed as "quite explicit"...)

---

---

As a former soldier in the United States Army (and current homosexual), and knowing many homosexuals who are still in the military, as well as many former military members, I find it shocking that a former Marine (of all people!) DOESN'T realize he had served among many fine and upstanding gay and lesbian soldiers! (Of course, given the climate created under DADT [that's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for you acronym-challenged folks] and how out-spoken Tony is about his intolerance and fear of all things gay, one can only assume they were smart enough not to let him on the fact...)

Perhaps Tony's biggest fear (other than the fact that a homosexual might have seen his pee-pee in the communal showers during basic training) is the fact that if gay marriage does become recognized throughout the country, Jesus will pop down from heaven and ask for Tony's hand in marriage... Just to prove that he does, indeed, love Jesus that much. How gay would that be?

My Fellow Americans...

I don't even know where to begin... My dander is up for two completely unrelated topics:

1. Corporate Free Speech???, and
2. Hak-Shing William Tam of San Francisco

Between the Supreme Court and an "expert witness" on gay marriage...

One does wonder where one finds the time...

---

---

1. Corporate Free Speech?: When was the last time you hugged a corporation? When was the last time you saw a corporation burn a flag? When was the last time you were standing next to a corporation in line waiting to cast a vote? Never.

Ever since Theodore Roosevelt was president, there was a reason campaign finance laws restricting corporations donations and activities have been curtailed in American politics: because corporations were running the government instead of the other way around. From big oil (even back then) to the railroads, from the factory floors to the boardrooms, corporations were waving checks in front of politicians and saying, "Vote our way, or else..." Or else could have meant "We'll fund your opponent"; "We'll withhold our endorsement"; "We'll pay for radio ads and television ads that say you did this or that"; or, even worse yet, "We'll hand you a check for such and such an amount if you simply sign here..."

Here's the thing about businesses in America (you know, those entities which are so frail and poor and restricted by the free market, taxes, anti-trust laws and the like): They are in the business of making money. NOT, it should be noted, such a bad thing, until you consider that Money is the only thing corporations are about! The only reason they sell things is because we want the things they are selling--but is a society built simply on the exchange of goods? Do you think women gained the right to vote by buying only Wonder Brand Wonder Bread? In fact, if a corporation were to engage in anything "non-profitable," that part (or the whole!) of the corporation dies! If it can't be made into a good, packaged, or sold as a service--it doesn't serve the interests of the company, ergo it doesn't matter. Corporations exist at and by our discretion, by our willingness to purchase their goods or to work for them producing their goods. Corporations do not exist for the worker, the individual, the American citizen; they exist for money. WE the PEOPLE are the ones who fight for rights, enforce laws, vote for our leaders and not because we are trying to "maximize our profits" or "secure our bottom line," but because we want a better life, to pursue happiness, to feed our children, play in the park, hang out on the boardwalk, garden at our leisure, or, in the case of some individuals, work all the time.

And the Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, just sold your vote. "Oh, the ads will be more honest now," I heard one commentator say on the radio. "No need to hide behind half-truths and such." Baloney! If you believe that, I have an electro-magnetic force field holding a microwave in orbit around Jupiter I'd like to sell you. (It's teal!--the microwave, not the force field...) Chief Justice John Roberts is quoted as saying, "The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union." Excuse me? The First Amendment, your high and revered douche bag, is in the BILL OF RIGHTS, which is expressly for INDIVIDUALS! Another bright bulb in this mess is Gregory Casey, president and CEO of the Business and Industry Political Action Committee, who is quoted as saying, "The Supreme Court's ruling frees American business from the yoke of second-class citizenship. ... The reason American business is active in politics in the first place is to influence public policies that impact the prosperity of its employees and shareholders." Excuse me? "Second class citizenship" for a CORPORATION? When was the last time Reebok or McDonald's applied for a green card? When did Pfizer pledge allegiance to the flag? Who ever saw Greco or General Electric or WalMart apply for a drivers license? CORPORATIONS ARE NOT CITIZENS, they are ENTITIES led by SPOKESPERSONS in the BUSINESS OF MAKING MONEY. End of discussion! But then the dude said "influence public policies that impact the prosperity of its employees and shareholders." He should have left out "employees" but kept "shareholders," because that's really what it's about: When a company is in financial trouble, what happens? Employees get laid off, wages go down, pensions are scrapped, perks scrubbed, and why? So profits stay up and shareholders continue to make money! That's it! Nothing more, nothing less! There's a REASON there are laws protecting individual and workers' rights, and it's not because it's profitable! Child labor laws are due to society, non-discrimination laws are in effect because of society, corporations are only allowed to run and exist if they follow the rules of the society, NOT the other way around! But that's exactly where we're back to. As political analyst Michael Sandel says of corporations, they cannot "sacrifice individual interests for the sake of the common good, and the ability to deliberate well about common purposes and ends." And why? Because they exist only to make Money. Nothing more, nothing less.

I've never been so upset by a decision from the Supreme Court before, but they have really dropped the ball on this one, much like when they became involved in Bush V. Gore--FLATLY unconstitutional, despite the spin job of the 5 majority justices.

---

---

2. Hak-Shing William Tam of San Francisco. In case some of you may not have noticed, there is a federal court battle playing out about Proposition 8, the voter initiative in California that rescinded the rights of same-sex couples to wed. Whatever your opinion on that might be (as it is rather moot, whether you like it or not), a friend sent me an email in regards to one of the persons who was behind the entire voter proposition to begin with: Mr. Hak-Shing William Tam. My brain was boggled by not only the fact that his trial appearance was put up with, but that his kind of ignorance still exists. From the article:

---

Tam testified that he spent a lot of time working on the campaign and communicated with its leaders but modestly added he did not consider himself a major player. He said became an official proponent because of his concern that legalizing same-sex marriage would encourage young people to pursue gay partners.

"I think it is very important that children won't grow up to fantasize or think about should I marry Jane or John when I grow up, because this is very important for Asian families."

Under questioning by Boies, Tam also said he agreed with a statement on the Web site for the Chinese-American Christian group that said if same-sex marriage was treated as a civil right, "so would pedophilia, polygamy and incest."

"And that is what you were telling people in encouraging them to vote for Proposition 8?" Boies asked.

"Yes," Tam answered.

Tam said he drew that conclusion after reading an Internet article that claimed incest and polygamy were legal in the Netherlands, a country where same-sex marriages became legal in 2001.

Boies: "You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy?"

Tam: "Yeah, look at the date, Polygamy happened afterward."

"Who told you that? Where did you get that idea," Boies asked incredulously.

"It's the Internet," he said. "Another person in the organization found it and he showed me it ... I looked at the document and I thought it was true."

---

Well, if he found it on the Internet, it must be true, no? No matter where you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, is such a blatant "I can't think for myself" type ignoramus really someone you want on your side? Saying "I read it on the Internet so it must be true" is almost as bad as saying "I read it in the Bible so it must be true!" Have you people no critical thinking skills?? Does it cross no one's mind that they should stop and think, "Hmm, what web site is this? Are they a credible source? What facts do they have to back them up, and where did they obtain, and how did they obtain, these so-called facts?" (By the way, that teal microwave is still for sale, Mr. Tam. If you've read it here, it's on the Internet, and that's what I claim is important for Asian families! Teal microwaves in outer space!)

So, what have we learned? Oh, yes, corporations are endowed with inalienable rights according to the Supreme Court, and Mr. Tam can't think beyond his Internet connection, which, if you ask me, never fully connected...

Welcome to your country, my fellow American. You'll be pleased to know your leaders have been bought by General Mills, and you can't get married because some yahoo in California thinks it isn't good for Asians.

Heterosexuals Don't Expect to be Tolerated....

As I've said earlier:

---

...tolerance is only ever meant to be the smallest part of patience. And when the patience has been tried, tolerance goes out the window. Tolerate is what you do when your two-year-old tried again to drink from a cup instead of his sippy-cup, or you tolerate the sales person who called during dinner only as long as it takes to get them off the phone. You tolerate a visit from some member of the family you dislike for the sake of a holiday, or some-such other type scenario.

---

While our capitol city council recently voted (and approved) a bill to allow same-sex marriage (much to the Catholic church's chagrin...), it seems that the church is also trying to influence politics in Uganda. (For those of you who are geographically challenged, that's in Africa...)

You see, they're trying to put a law on the books (PDF here) that, among other things, will:

---

Section 2 of the Bill is titled, "The offence of homosexuality". It reads as follows: Clause "(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if --- (a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption; (b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate the sexual organ of a person of the same sex; (c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality."

Clause "(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life".

Where does the death penalty enter this twisted world of sexual paranoia? Let me quote the applicable section and sub-section. Section 3 of the Bill is titled, "Aggravated homosexuality". It reads in part: "A person commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality where the offender is a person living with HIV". "A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death". And just in case there's any conjecture, we have this finale: "Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status".

---

I'm wondering how many "straight" politicians it takes to sit around the table to envision every conceivable type of "same sex" activity to make a law against it? I wonder if it was an "awkward" conversation as they drafted this "law" against their fellow human beings?

Even above and beyond the realm of 1984 is the fact that:



So now, not only are you guilty just by being gay; not only can you be put to death for having "gay" sex; you will be fined and go to jail if you don't report gay activity! (Strangely, on this last point, I'm reminded of the DADT policy... Wonder why, wonder why...)

A split is coming, fellow humans, and we watch it grow wider and wider every year, not only here in the United States, but the world over. We wonder why there can't be "bipartisanship"? The church is no longer content to be sidelined. As it did back in medieval times, it wants to rule again. It meddles in politics (while screaming about an individual right to worship freely and say any damn bloody thing that comes to mind no matter how idiotic...), lobbies to pass laws based on badly translated, sadly misinterpreted ancient texts, and it pits human against human to serve the "greater good" of "godly living." "Let's not simply punish them for the acts, let's also punish the other ones who don't tell!"

Let's face it--attempts at tolerance are out the door unless they think their freedoms are being somehow "infringed" because they can't have a mandatory recital of the Lord's prayer each morning in school. In fact, in North Carolina, a "Christian" would like an Asheville City Councilman removed simply because he's an atheist (because, in the fundamentalist mindset, you are free to believe whatever you want as long as it involves a bible, a god, a son crucified, and a steeple within a half-mile radius...)

---

"My father was a Baptist minister. I'm a Christian man. I have problems with people who don't believe in God," said Edgerton, a former local NAACP president and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black southerners.

The head of a conservative weekly newspaper says city officials shirked their duty to uphold the state's laws by swearing in Bothwell. David Morgan, editor of the Asheville Tribune, said he's tired of seeing his state Constitution "trashed."

---

The grand tradition of making Jesus proud by ignoring laws and reason and common sense. Never mind that the U.S. Constitution states that "no religious test" shall be used for any office holder anywhere within our boundaries (which, of course, nullifies the religious test called for in North Carolina's state constitution): Edgerton has a problem all right, not the least of which is his ignorance and idiocy. He's probably cheering on Uganda's "fight" to protect "normal" people.

Is this what "conservative" Christianity has come to? Fascism? Making people "tattle" on one another, basing civic laws on beliefs that, most often, can't even be agreed on by the plethora of denominations within the church itself?!

Let's see: what other "offenses" can be traced back as an "attack" on Christianity and the "traditional family"? Eating out? Teenagers working part-time jobs? Women in the workplace? Television? Skipping church on Sunday? I know! Let's make it all illegal, and punish anyone who knows of people "engaging" in these activities, as well as the criminals themselves!

Dictating dogma through the government... What will the church think of next? Something else, I'm sure, that I don't expect to tolerate...

The Devil is in the Details...

A Sunday school lesson refresher course: Satan is god's enemy; God kicked him and all his buddies out of heaven because, and I quote from that greatest of mythological treasures here:

---

Rev 12:7-9 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

---

Please note the italicized text: war broke out in heaven. Heaven? War? Surely the two are antonyms!? Why, according to the bible, heaven is supposedly kittens and puppies and rainbows 24/7! War in heaven? That's kind of like finding out Mrs Brady was an alcoholic!

If the bible says this, what else does it have to say about heaven?

---

Mat 6:20-21 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (No stealing in heaven--it starts wars and breaks your heart, much like your seventh-grade girl friend...)

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Marriage isn't sacred and we're all asexual... I think that counts as tearing asunder, don't you?)

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Heaven has an expiration date, much like cottage cheese...)

Luke 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. (Heaven has steroids, next to the party mix of uppers and downers...)

John 12:28 Then came there a voice from heaven, [saying], I have both glorified [it], and will glorify [it] again. (Heaven has a Public Address system...)

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. (Heaven has public housing--talk about your socialism! Of course, if Jesus is preparing it, do you think they'll all be decorated post-exile style?)

Rev 21:21 And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city [was] pure gold, as it were transparent glass. (Heaven is see-through; good thing we also all become gender-neutral, or peeping-tom-ism would be rampant!!)

Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (Heaven is not a gated community, and you need to buy the sun glasses in the gift shop before entering, but also:)

Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Heaven's gates never close but no one can get in or out... Must be an invisible fence to keep the "bad people" out--or is that to keep the Christians in? Hmm...)

---

So, let's recap:

1. God makes angels, Lufy-fer is the most beautiful, there's a war, losers have to leave...
2. God then makes man, man also disobeys much like the angels before him (so much for perfection begetting perfection), then God has to "sacrifice" (i.e., kill) his kid to redeem them. I guess he figures enough of his creation has been an utter failure and he wants to recoup some of the loss this time through a "redemption process." (Hope he kept his receipts!)
3. God assures us through "revelation" that this sort of thing (like wars and stealing and disobeying) will not ever happen again in Heaven, and he hopes that by making us "sexless" like the angels, he can keep the peace... (also unlike your seventh-grade girl friend)
4. Oh, and he hired a very fashionable decorator (Jesus; nepotism is alive and strong in Heaven) to build the new heaven (and your mansion!) with lots of shiny stones and glass.
5. Once he decides we've "suffered enough," he'll send the kid back to collect the dead and the living that gave him kudo's and who are all possessed by his holy spirit (multiple personalities much?), give them all sex-removal operations (no co-pay, Heaven has a socialistic universal health care system), and let them live in this new playground as long as they promise to give up free will. (Lobotomists are also covered in Heaven's health plan.)

What could possible go wrong with a plan like that?

The devil is definitely in the details...

The Capitol and the Catholics...

The Catholic church of Washington, D.C., has issued the city an ultimatum:

---

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law...

---

Because feeding and sheltering the homeless isn't nearly as important as gay couples getting married, right? Making sure orphaned children are adopted by loving parents isn't nearly as important as making sure lesbians don't tie the knot! It says it right there in the Bible!:

---

Deu 15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

---

Er... wait... Wrong verse... But you know it as well as I do, dear Christian! The gays can not, MUST NOT be allowed to get married! Jesus commanded it! Remember when he said:

---

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

---

Um... not there, but I'm sure he said something about it! He must have! I mean, homosexuality was rampant back in his day--the Romans and the Greeks! He was surrounded by those perverted homos!

And then Paul--you know, the guy most Christians worship?--HE was very adamant that the poor weren't nearly as important as the gays! He went into great detail saying about how the law of the land was the utmost of importance when it came to Christian/Government relations, like when we wrote:

---

1 Cor 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

---

Oh... Well, I'm sure he said something about it...

And Jesus' brother, James? If one man was to know what Jesus and god thought of all this gay wedding nonsense, it was he! He wrote:

---

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, [and] to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

---

Well, regardless of what the bible actually says, you as Christians MUST remember that your religious freedoms which are not affected by the gay marriage bills in the United States are MORE IMPORTANT than helping out your fellow man. Your religious freedoms are MORE IMPORTANT than being a stand-up guy for your Jesus. What you believe, what your opinion is on civil matters is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else! Even though the D.C. bill explicitly states that "religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings," what the Catholics really fear from this bill (and if you were to ask Jesus, rightly so!) is that "they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples."

God. Forbid. If Jesus were in a grave (and because the Bible says he rose, he isn't!), he'd roll over! Twice!

What is this world coming to, when the equal treatment of human beings trumps religious belief and opinion? I'm sure when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock to escape the religious persecution in England only to start religiously persecuting everyone else that also came here, they never envisioned this! Why, the nerve of our nation's capitol! The unmitigated gall!

Well, not to worry--just like when god threw Massachusetts into the ocean, Vermont was swallowed by a gaping sink hole, and in Iowa everyone was turned into a pillar of salt, Washington, D.C., will have its day of judgment to... I'm sure of it!

Just as soon as god becomes real and takes an interest in the overwhelming persecution of the United States Christian... (even if Christian beliefs and actions stemming from those aren't affected by the law, and even if homeless persons will go hungry and die...)

Amen.

One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish...S/He Fish?

This is a story of a fish. Not a particularly beautiful fish, not too red, not too blue, not too large, not too small... It's not the one that supposedly swallowed Jonah (that fish was much too large), nor was it the fishes Jesus supposedly fed 5,000 people with (those fish were much too small), and neither is it the type of fish a researcher would dream up with the sole intent and purpose of driving a literal creationist mad...

That's purely icing... (and juuuuuuuust riiiiight...)

I remember a time in the not-too-distant past--no, no, not about the Jesus Shark--when my father took umbrage that not all creatures were reproducing after their own kind! What with the wholphins, the ligers, and the Primula kewensis (that would be a new type of primrose for you non-Latin-speaking gardeners out there...)

But then there's this fish, the oddly named California Sheephead (and it may just be me, but when I look at it, the name "Dolly" doesn't exactly spring to mind...) The remarkable thing about the California Sheephead, however, isn't so much its size, or its color, or its ability to eat mollusks... It's the willful ignorance and sheer exuberance of this fish to defy set-forth biblical law! Hello, "male and female he created them"? Does the California Sheephead not have a bible!?

You see, California Sheephead are all born female. Each and every one. All female (but before the feminists get carried away, you should finish reading...). So there they are, a whole flock of scaly vagina's, loving life, swimming free, eating mollusks, until... Well, depending on factors such as size, age, and how many other California Sheephead are lurking in the general vicinity... Well, it seems they then grow a penis, much to their own consternation... (The feminists of the group may now cry with anger and frustration...) Every single California Sheephead eventually ends up a male--usually four-fifths of their life is spent wondering where this new organ came from and why they feel the need to stab the younger ones with it who haven't grown one--yet. In fact, they usually end up spontaneously growing this penis at about seven or eight years of age, then spend the rest of their almost fifty years on this earth lugging it around making a new batch of females with the other females who have yet to undergo gender reassignment surgery...

I suppose this means Chaz Bono wishes he had been born a California Sheephead. But then again, maybe not...

Believe it or not, there a quite a large number of fishes who have this female-to-male sex switching going on (and not in the 1970s kind of way--hello swingers, wherever you are!), but California Sheepheads are unique in that they are the only ones who always start out female and always end up males! (And you thought the orgies you attended were confusing!)

And of course, I never did care overly much for s/he-food...

Now, while there may be something that needs to be said about the whole "Hmm? I wonder what I would do if one morning I woke up the opposite sex!?" (all straight men reading this suddenly started rubbing their chests knowing they would spend all day playing with their new boobs...) I know I personally am breathing a sigh of relief that I know I'll still have what I have when I wake up tomorrow morning...

As long as I stay away from Lorena Bobbit...

---

---

Sources:

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• The Santa Barbara Independent
• Wikipedia

WWJS?: Or Who Would Jesus Shoot?

You know, I just don't get it.

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not one of those anti-gun, anti-2nd-amendment, more-gun-control types who think everyone just needs more laws to keep people from murdering one another: Far from it! What I don't understand, though, is how these people who are fervent, verging-on-psychotic, right-wing nut-job Jesus followers are also the same types who would brandish sixteen pistols, seventeen shot guns, seven rifles and a war chest of ammo...

Or is it just me? Does anyone else see... well, something not quite right about this image?

Let's look at the facts: There is not a command that says "Never go to war," although the OT god was so much about war, you would of thought his commission on giving the so-called "holy land" to Israel was close to 90% (God, Jesus, and Ghost Realty, Inc.)! But when it comes to the new testament? You read things like "turn the other cheek"; "love your enemies"; "whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me." When Jesus was getting arrested to be put on trial (and eventually nailed up like an oil painting) and Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest, did Jesus cheer him on? Grab his sword and say, "I can take it from here, Petey"? He admonished his disciples and (supposedly) healed the priest: In Matthew he is reported to have said "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword..."; in Mark he is recorded to have said "No more of this!"

When the Pharisees got everyone in an uproar and they tried stoning him, did he start throwing rocks back? Grab a sword and go all jihad on their asses? No, he "passed through them" (became Casper, if you will) and walked away... When I read "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord," one wonders how many of these southern baptists and what-not think, as the bible is to be taken quite literally, that guns don't count--it's the sword they need to be concerned with... (Perhaps that might explain a lack of enthusiasm for the art of fencing here in the states?)

Of course, many a Christian likes to pull the old 10 Commandments out at this point: "The Bible says 'Thou shalt not MURDER,', not 'Thou shalt not kill!' so there!" (I have to be amazed that this is still the only bit of actual Hebrew most of these right-wingers have learned...) And it's true: it is "Thou shalt not murder" if one translates it correctly. But what is murder?

There are no disclaimers about self-defense not being murder. There are no asterisks (*) nearby calling attention to a footnote that reads "Except when protecting your land, crops, wife, child(ren), goats, sheep, cows, and American-made pick-up truck." If every person--let me repeat, every person--is made in god's image, and every human has an eternal soul, and you kill that human despite the NT examples set forth by your man-god...

What makes your life more important than the robber or murderer? Sure, you can justify it til the cows come home (or at least reasonably close to home), but can you find me the disclaimer? The one that reads "if your life is in imminent danger, you are no longer committing murder, you are simply killing"?

If one looks at the entirety of the new testament, the portion of the bible we are supposedly living under, show me where violence on the part of a follower of Jesus is condoned or otherwise not frowned upon...?

And remember context: The "sword" in the new testament? Always is a metaphor--it is never once referred to as an actual physical weapon to be used by a follower of Jesus...

But that's probably only because shot guns hadn't been invented yet... And Rome must have had sword-control laws in place... So now we have to ask, who would Jesus have shot? Anyone? Anyone?

The Immorality of Creationism...

I know, I know, dear reader. You think me a slacker--a lazy, good-for-nothing blog-abandoning sloth. The truth is I've been so busy in the physical world my digital world has suffered, and I do apologize for that.

But as I sat down tonight--my first night of leisure in what seems an eternity--I read something so entirely disturbing I had to rip myself away from the leisurely pursuit of reading other blogs to post about it. Mind you, you may think it not a big deal and actually kind of a bore, but as it's my blog, I think my concerns take a bit more precedence than yours. ;)

---

I think it important to "know thine enemy," as it were, and after spending about two hours reading those blogs I generally enjoy and agree with (when it comes to blogs of opinion and not just daily life), I like to take some time to see what all the fundies are up in arms about. What's getting their goat lately, what's eating their cheese, what's taking the "fun" out of "fundamentalism," so to speak.

I stopped at one web site I hardly ever check on anymore, mostly because I find it's authors so totally warped and wrapped up in the dogma as to make the Pharisees of Jesus' time look like kittens who hugged too much.

Their latest "comment-getter" can be surmised as such: Teaching evolution causes people to kill people. Creationism and Genesis are the only things that can save us from ourselves. Which, to say the least, is about as dogmatic and simple-minded as it gets. I said as much (putting it as nicely as I could), but then I felt the need to come back here and say my own piece. I'm sure the author's will follow back here (and perhaps be a bit dismayed to find I'm a bit harder on them over here than I was over there) but such is life. After all, if I can't please everyone, I may as well blog about it, yes?

What really got my goat (if we are so inclined to beat a metaphor like the proverbial horse in need of an undertaker) was the following statement from the article to which they were "discussing":

---

The president of Creation Worldview Ministries says decades of teaching "evolution only" in public schools and universities is partly responsible for crimes such as the mass shooting earlier this week in Virginia.

Dr. Grady McMurtry [...] says, public schools and universities have taught the theory of evolution as fact, with no opposing viewpoints — and the result, he contends, is a lack of respect for human life.

Therefore, he asserts, people should not be surprised when mass shootings occur, such as the one on the Blacksburg university campus on Monday.

---

As you can tell, this article (and most likely this blog post by them) is a bit dated, but nonetheless speaks to the dangerous mindset of fundamentalism.

It's still a bunch of hogwash. Let me explain:

As I touched on in a few earlier posts (here, here, and here, just to name a few), teaching creationism as if it were a science, let alone pretending it's some semblance of a good argument, is one of the most immoral things fundamentalists have tried to do for years. Not that trying to claim humility and humbleness while claiming you are special enough to be worth the death of a god wasn't a bad enough irony-laden position, but now to actually try to spin your fairy tale as "science that will prevent murders"? It's like they are in a one-man race toward the bottom of what it means to be stupid while appearing to be smart--and failing miserably.

To begin with, evolution is not about us being "glorified animals." It is a theory (much like gravity and flight, which I'm sure will be the next bone of contention among fundamentalist circles) which explains, quite succinctly, adequately, and truthfully, about the diversity of life upon this, the third rock from the sun. It does not speak to humanities supposed "greatness," it does not dwell on our "superiority," and is not a driving philosophy to fill the empty hours when people who wish for something just a bit more than life itself say such boorish things as "Why am I here?" and "What is my purpose in life?" As if we all have the time to give you meaning and purpose. Get a life.

Second, if anything serves to drive down meaning and purpose (again, as if living life itself weren't wonderful enough), creationism teaches nothing more than that god was bored one day, just he and his other two supposed personalities in their timeless existence, and he decided to create mud that he could play with and bring to life. And not content just to play with that life, he pretended to kill one of his personalities for the sake of "buying back" the "souls" of his Ken and Barbie dolls so that he wouldn't have to place them in the trash compactor. Splendid. I feel full of fuzzy warms already. "You mean he loves me sooooo muuuuuuch that he'll burn me forever if I don't grovel at his feet and stroke his ego? Sign me up!" If that doesn't teach you that god thinks life is disposable, nothing will. He killed his kid (or, if you prefer, he allowed his son to commit suicide [how do the Catholics explain THAT one!]) for crying out loud! And we're supposed to think he holds our lives as sacred? Seriously?

Third: To teach that evolution is nothing more than a "guess" does a serious disservice to the science community, which has proven the usefulness of evolutionary sciences in the fields of biology and medicine to provide life-saving medications and treatments. Not only has evolutionary theory kept us thriving for the last hundred years (the turning point being the polio vaccine, in my opinion), it has actually allowed humanity to be a much greater moral species--it has allowed us, using our brains and our senses, to find new ways to help one another, to save one another, to make one another's lives better! Not just to survive, but to thrive! Where people use to just sit and pray and light candles, they can now be proactive and get medicine and therapy built on the very evolutionary sciences that fundamentalists are scoffing at! Where people use to blame god's wrath or anger, we can now prevent certain conditions, heal wounds, and even bring back from death those very same people that, just even fifty years ago, would have been proclaimed as having been "called home to heaven." And people thank god? Thank a scientist! Thank a doctor, a pharmacologist, a university professor, an inquisitive mind! Thank Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and a host of others disregarded, ridiculed, and sometimes banned and killed by the church for "witchcraft" and "blaspheme." These are the people, the pioneers, of today's life-saving medicines. (And if you think these forefathers to modern scientists are unrelated to this discussion, you are worse off than I even considered!)

When it comes right down to it, however, this is really a moot point, as science never has, and possibly never will, speak to the existence of imaginary beings outside of our realms of inquiry. Believe it or not, the purpose of science is not to "attack" Christianity any more than it's purpose is to prove that jelly is, in fact, butter. The purpose of science is to ask questions, provide answers, and then keep hammering and hammering and hammering at those answers. This is the very truth of the scientific method. To continually seek new data, see how it fits into what is previously known, and change what was thought to be known based on what is now known. Science is not static (much to the chagrin of many a fundie), as they are constantly revising and updating and finding new information. Every year, in fact, there are huge arguments within the scientific community as notions are challenged, ideas are placed on the table, new data is verified, tested, and re-examined by anyone who is anyone. It is because of this method, this very morally justifiable method, that most people are even around to argue the silliness of creationism as there are today. If not for the scientific method, 90 percent of us wouldn't be here today, including myself, because we all would have sat around, staring at each other, thinking god was angry and not being able to do anything about it except more staring and praying.

Believe what you wish--science ultimately doesn't care, mostly because what you believe has little to do with anything outside of your own head. But don't you dare claim that what you believe is justifiable as an alternative to facts. Because it isn't.

Ultimately, creationism (most fundamentalist positions, actually) is very self-serving and ultimately self-defeating. The more they try to "prove" creationism by cutting out everything that doesn't fit, and then claiming that left over 1 percent is "evidence," will eventually lead to (hopefully) the eye-opening reality check for the fairy tale that it is. What's truly sad is so many hold dogma and doctrine in much higher regard than their own world and lives, and so many of them (fundies) will continue to scream, stomp their feet, and demand that they, and only they, can have the answer because of an old Hebrew text told by word of mouth for thousands of years before finally being put on paper, during captivity by the Babylonian Empire, to be read for thousands more.

To summarize: To deny and prevent the use of the evolutionary sciences will harm humanity as a whole, not only knowledge-wise, but in the very scary realm of disease, pestilence, and death--a very immoral position which places humanity in jeopardy from future problems and issues relating to virus's, bacterium, and genetically destructive mutations. Therefore, if we reduce the ability of sciences to cure, prevent, or treat human causes of suffering over "theologically important" views, an immoral and deadly position has been staked. Ergo, to support evolutionary facts and discoveries, and opposing false sciences based on theological criteria, is the right and moral thing to do.

To quote a pretty well-known Latin proverb, "Unless what we do is useful, glory is vain." Indeed, creationism holds nothing useful, not even to Christians. It will only continue to erode the very "rock solid" foundation they claim to stand on. And while many modern Christians have indeed realized that science is not a threat to their belief (and in fact, many have revised their interpretations of scripture so that they are in fact quite complimentary), whenever something is viewed as "unchanging," it will always get left behind.

And until fundamentalists realize that evolutionary sciences aren't a life philosophy, and are in fact actual truths and laws, the sooner they can give up wasting time fighting it and spend more time loving their neighbors and worshiping their god(s). Anything more would be glory for glories sake, and vanity of the highest order. Anything less would be immoral.

Just Being Mean...

Not content to simply make gay marriage illegal, now right-wing extremist "Christians" would like to retroactively nullify those marriages that were performed before the church used lies and fear-mongering to pass an "amendment" to make it illegal for gays to marry!

From the article:

---

“The biggest question mark right now is the question of what happens to the marriages that were valid when they were performed, but now the constitution says they are not recognized,” said Yes on 8 attorney Andrew Pugno.

---

Apparently, not being familiar with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, why should I expect they would be familiar with Article I, Section 9, which states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

For the record, that means you can't make a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed, or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed, prior to the enactment of that law.

But then again, fundamentalist "Christians" haven't been wanting to listen to the Constitution for quite some time--why should they start now?

---

Elder Farron Davis: As president of the Pocatello stake it is my unhappy duty and obligation to convene this church court on behalf of the Elder Aaron Davis for the grave and grievous sin, of homosexuality. In the light of your abnormal and abominable state and your refusal to see you have been duped into a hogwash alternative lifestyle...I wish my shame was enough for both of us. Not to mention the shame you brought to this church...our family...our ancestors...
Aaron: Wait a minute, our ancestors? Dad, your grandfather had half a dozen wives, and the same goes for every single person in this room. I'd say we were the original definition of 'alternative lifestyle.'
Elder Farron Davis: Are you calling us hypocrites?
Aaron: No, we've gone way beyond hypocrisy, Dad, now we're just being mean.

---

Not to mention King David, Solomon, Jacob, and many, many other bible figures...

But now I'm telling them their business...

And they're just being plain mean...

Ahh, Democracy, the New Mob Rule... | Updated...

Pardon me for belaboring the point. After all, all I'm doing is bitch-bitch-bitch, while you all are trying to get on with your Voter Tested, Christian Approved™ lives...

But I'm wondering--now that religious right-wing radicals have decided to prevent "fake" weddings and "fraudulent" marriages between the gays, I'm wondering when they'll come for the atheists--after all, they get married all the time without god being involved. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews--all heathens and pagans according to fundamental Christianity, and thus, since their marriages are not "of god," they must all be fake marriages, yeah? Will they next try to get that on the ballot: "Should any person who wishes to enter into a contract of marriage be required to prove their membership into a Church approved by a Council created by the Transatlantic Baptists-Protestant Alliance? Yes or No?"

Prisoners have the right to get married, whether incarcerated or not. Murderers, child rapists, money launderers, petty thieves...

You do know that there are also interfaith marriages? Jews marrying Catholics. Hindus marrying Lutherans. Jehovah's Witnesses getting hitched to Mormons. Apparently all shams! Do they not know the Bible says "Thou shall not be unevenly yoked"?

I suppose the key difference being they usually each bring one penis and one vagina during the "genital role-call" requirements (the little known verse following "unevenly yoked" says "especially with two penises or vaginas..."). All marriages must now start with this, you know: "Will the alleged bride and alleged groom please lift skirts and drop trousers? After all, we wouldn't want the Church invading our Hunka-Hunka Burning Love Wedding Chapel and Tackle Shop for performing sham marriages. Elvis, please check the junk, if you would be so kind..."

I mean, if my life and my choice of spouse must be put up for a vote, I demand the right to vote for or against everyone else's marriages--I mean, doesn't this mean that no one should get to choose their spouse? I move for a Constitutional Amendment to have only arranged marriages. And a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw divorce. I move for a Constitutional Amendment for all persons unapproved for marriage be posted on a public web page so that all true, pre-approved for marriage persons can know which neighborhoods to avoid. A Constitutional Amendment to prevent atheists, gays, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, and all other "questionable" or out-right wrong persons from living within four miles of a church that is stamped "Straight Tested and God Approved™."

Sound silly? So does declaring individual rights are up for a "democratic" vote.

Remember that the next time you wish to make a personal decision: "What would 52% of the population do? Would they approve?"

Get enough signatures, and we can put it to a vote. Fuck individual freedom--let mob rule reign forever... Under the guise of democracy, of course.

---

The above bumper sticker, and many other great T-shirts, hats, and other nifty items can be found at Cafe Press. Shop now before their inventory is put up for a vote...

---

UPDATE:

---

The Mormon Church is now calling for "civility" as protesters called them out for their bigotry:

---

"The church calls on those involved in the debate over same sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other," the church said in a statement. "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information."

---

Yes, we weren't vilified, were we? In the weeks leading up to the vote, when the Mormon Church raised $20 million of the overall $75 million in an effort to prevent marriages which have no impact on them, I'm sure they were completely civil, right? They didn't say things like

1. "Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage." (a lie...)
2. "Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public." (a lie...)
3. "Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits." (a lie...)
4. "Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines." (a lie...)
5. "It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost." (Biggest lie yet...) (Source.)

The Mormon Church was the biggest supporter of Prop 8, and the largest infraction of church into politics in United States history. And now that they are done lying and won their Prop 8 passage, now they want to be "civil"? Now they want "respect"? They don't want "erroneous information" spread about them? About THEM?!

So much for "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Anything goes when "traditional marriage" is on the line, but as soon as the battle is over?

---

[...] Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group being Proposition 8 called the commercial a "blatant show of religious bigotry" because the protesters feel comfortable attacking a group that makes up a small percentage of the population.

"They think they can get away with it," he said, adding that other religious denominations are condemning the commercial. The Mormon church denounced the ad.

---

To paraphrase, "Hey, we're allowed to beat up on small percentages of the population, but YOU GAYS are NOT!"

Perhaps they'll put that up for a vote in four more years...

The so-called "Family Research Council" (which does neither research nor is for real families) issued the following in a mass email:

---

At LDS headquarters in Utah, leaders called for a ceasefire with gay activists and "goodwill" on both sides. Unfortunately, that message has yet to stick with the "No on 8" crowd, which has lashed out with unprecedented aggression against the faith community.

---

Gee, I wonder why that could be? What would lil ol homosexuals like me have against "the faith community"? Let's give that one some thought... And for the record, it isn't against "the faith community," it's against the religious bigots community--get a clue, Tony Perkins. But Tony continues:

---

FRC is proud of the example that the interfaith community has set on marriage. If the Prop 8 outcome is any indication, homosexuals could stand to learn a thing or two from the church on civility.

---

If lying about how you are the victims in this fight, selling out your beliefs for "the greater good," and spending millions of dollars against gay marriage that could have fed thousands of hungry families and housed hundreds of homeless persons, than yes, I suppose we could all learn a thing from you--

Pay attention everyone--you have just learned how to be an asshole for god, courtesy of the Family Research Council and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All in the name of civility, of course. No really--they voted on it.