We're Going To Hell Hurray... Hurray We're Going To Hell Today... Today

If you have read this blog long enough you know it's normally the sweet, lovable Count who pisses people off. Well one thread has proven the definite excepion to the rule...


On Thursday August 7th, 2008 Jonathan Holmes wrote a blog entry about Lee Stoneking

We are still getting hate posts. The last two left today...or I saw them today...

Anonymous said...

    wow,,,hell already has your names,,,sad
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have heard Lee Stoneking preach many times. He is not a televangelist. He is a very humble and spiritual man of God. He has given much of his life to the ministry, not for the intent of becoming famous or wealthy, but because of his true desire to spread the gospel and reach others. I would suggest that the next time that you choose to mock and blaspheme a speaker of any sort, you would do better to get your facts straight. That is just shoddy journalism, irresponsible blogging, and slanderous. But chalk one up for freedom of speech. I agree with Mark, contact Mr. Stoneking and allow him the opportunity to respond to your accusations and judgements. I am sure that you won't do that, you would much rather take a cowards way out and publically trash someone who is not given an opportunity to share their side of the story. If in fact, you do, I pray that you can become a little more open minded and recognize that not only is Mr. Stoneking a phenomenal person, but one of the most spiritual men I have had the privilege of hearing speak. I regards to the comments about the congregation, my own pastor was there, and although I cannot speak on behalf of all of those attending, I do know several, and they do not deserve this kind of attack either.

Pilling The Boehner

OK, this piece over at The Smirking Chimp - a site almost as good for rant-a-thons as BAD - all but completely encapsulates my feelings about the GOP latching with leech-like desperation onto the ready availability of contraception as the issue that will topple Colossus Obama, presumably installing President Mormon, Moonbase or possibly even Man-on-Dog instead.

You've probably been following the issue already - the ginned-up outrage on the farthest fringes of the right that legislation establishing ready access to health care (something they already don't much like) would include, horror of all horrors, a requirement that a common, widely-used and publicly-approved-of medication be a mandatory part of any employer's health care package. Specifically, The Pill. And House Cryer-in-Chief Boehner's threat, this week, that Congress will legislatively overturn any such mandate in the name of "religious freedom."

News flash, John of Orange. Here are a few salient points.

First, this isn't a free speech issue. Yes, we know that your camp has done everything in its power to cast it as such, when it came to Bush-era policies allowing, say, pharmacists to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill on grounds that doing so would violate their personal religious convictions. (Here's where I could elaborate on the theme of, "You think pork is unclean, don't work at Der Wienerschnitzel," but that would be a distraction...and I think everyone here gets the point, anyway.) And, yes, we expect you to predictably trot out the "corporations are people" mantra, in this case, to insist that it is a blow to the very foundations of the Union to insist that contraceptive coverage be part of any organization's health plan, because all those incorporate "people" should be allowed the freedom to choose for all their myriads of employees.

But it's not really a speech issue at all, free or not. Nobody but Congress, lobbyists and pundits comb through the minutiae of anybody's health care plan to argue free speech protections. The Average American (Remember us? We employ you.) is much more grateful for having a job with benefits, hoping for a reasonable per-paycheck contribution, and having the ability to look askance at that scary co-pay number...because I can promise you it is better than the cost of sourcing coverage for even a small family on your own. Been there.

It's an insurance policy. Not a manifesto.

And I think the Average American also instinctively understands where the boundary between a corporation's "personhood" rights and his or her own individual rights lies. It's pretty clear that, if only for reasons of the doctor/patient confidentiality tradition, the pharmacy counter does not and should not get vetted by the boardroom first. One's medical condition should only become an employer's issue when it affects one's personal job performance; not in advance, and certainly not in a broad, company-wide sense.

Second, it's not a religious freedom issue because this is NOT - repeat, NOT - a policy that dictates any given religion's articles of faith, or mandates a state religion. Again, it's an insurance policy. Not a scripture. No employer short of holy orders is, I hope, going to say that by agreeing to employment with us you agree to the following rules of behavior, ascribe to the following beliefs, etc. That is, I think, still pretty much illegal.

Furthermore, nothing in this legislation compels any individual employee to hop right on out there and get on the Pill, now, this instant, should doing so violate that employee's individual beliefs. You are offering an option: one which is, as I noted above, widely available for generations, popular with the public, and effective, and safe. It preserves, rather than overturns, the conscience objection. And if you're that scared that your faithful are going to stray from your position (as, I might point out, plenty of Catholic women already do), then your issues are more in your own communications department and less in your employee benefits division.

It's an insurance policy. Not a sermon from the pulpit. Offering is not requiring or even endorsing, any more than having a vegetarian dish or two on the menu forces or urges everyone working OR eating in the restaurant to become vegan.

I could make the counter-argument, in fact, that efforts to oppose contraceptive coverage being a universal element of the health care legislation constitute a denial of equal protection under the law to women, whose health condition is the one most greatly affected by pregnancies, be they planned, accidental and/or unwanted. Yes, we know that Justice "Bite Me" Scalia apparently has no problem with discrimination against women.(Appalling, in and of itself.) And that nobody has reintroduced the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment, for those of you too young to remember how haltingly it limped its way to shameful failure), or legislation like it, in the past couple of decades is a perplexing tragedy.

But one thing you need to remember before you tread down this path, Boehner. Your constituency and those of all your GOP cronies isn't composed of Catholic bishops, Fox News pundits and right-wing ideologues alone. They also include a great many women. At least some of those women have been listening, especially in light of the recent (and ongoing) SGK/PP travesty. And when they step into the voting booth, in the primaries or the general election later this year, let's just consider. Will they march happily in lockstep with you and the other white men of privilege who are trying so hard to dictate to them what they are and are not "entitled" to when it comes to their health, simultaneously talking out of the other side of your mouths about how government needs to "stay out of" individuals' decision-making about their lives? Or will they turn to another candidate who seems to exhibit something like care or empathy for the issues that really matter to them, and genuine individual empowerment?

Stay tuned. Every day it looks more and more to me like the right-wingers have chosen the wrong horse to bet on in this race, by fixating on this issue. It's the modern-day burka of the Western world, and I believe waving it in the wind as Boehner is doing will prove to be the act of sheer foolishness that finally brings down their house of cards decisively.

One of my other favorite blogs, Library Grape, goes on to demonstrate how Boehner is making it both dumb and dumber.

Wading in the Fundie Gene Pool

Gather 'round, boys and girls - while it's still that quiet lull between the War On Christmas and the War On Easter, it's time once again to dabble our toes in the pond of inexplicable nuttery that is the oeuvre at Fundies Say the Darndest Things. February 2012 is off to quite a start! Here are some of the more "special" nuggets.

Allah is not God but a sand monkey’s idol. It is called also the Kaaba, a so-called moonstone meteorite on display at the caboose or grand mosque…PURE IDOLATRY!!!

It can be speculated that these sub human desert rats use similar black stones to wipe themselves, and since they are all ardent sodomites, you can make the connexion as they use the same stone “tool” as tribal totem then idol that they imposed on the Middle East by massive genocides.

SO much to enjoy here. The dehumanizing epithet "sand monkey," confusing the Kaaba not only with Allah but with the "caboose" (??), and speculating that miniature Kaaba souvenirs (Kaabae, maybe? If such exist.) are in regular use as toilet paper. Imagine how offended the writer would be if someone were to suggest to him that all Christians wipe their bottoms with a crucifix, or printouts of the Sistine Chapel ceiling! Truly, a post worth framing so that you too can indulge in some PURE IDOLATRY!

Next, new for you from the department of Crazy Shit We Imagine Those Unlike Us Are Planning:

It’s only a matter of time before atheists like Jessica Ahlquist demand:

1. The state not allow Christian Churches on public roads throughout this country because it creates the illusion that the state endorses religion.
2. Demand Churches remove their crosses and silence their bells so not to offend non-believers
3. Cities like St Louis and San Diego change their names because the word Saint endorses a religion.
4. The military remove all Christian Chaplains so not appear to endorse religion.
5. Public College/high school sport programs remove the ‘Hail Mary’ pass from their playbook.
6. Prayer in public will not be allowed anywhere because it might offend non-believers.
7. Christians wear a giant C on the left side of their chest so they can be easily identified and thus publicly shunned.
8. One will not be able to shop at a business owned by a Christian, in the name of FAIRNESS,because it gives the appearance of favoring a religious business over a secular one.
9. Biblical Christian (Lucifer and Judas are exempt) names will no longer be accepted on birth certificates so it does not create the appearance of the state endorsing religion.
10. Islam is exempt from All of the above rules in the name of diversity and as an expression of multiculturalism!

OK, number 1 is absurd. That's like saying that anything on a public road, from Starbuck's and McDonald's to the local no-tell motel is perceived as being state-endorsed. Nobody thinks that. At least, nobody who thinks does.

Number 2 is actually what the Fundie crowd does. That's part of the reason why it took decades for pagan servicepeople to gain the right for a pentacle to be displayed on their headstones.

Number 3. Really? Gingrichgrad? Santorumville? No, wait, better be just Torumville. Nuts.

Number 4. First of all, the military is not supposed to endorse religion, so it might be advantageous that it not appear to. And I actually think it's a good idea to provide a military chaplaincy for those so inclined. But it had better be Baskin-Robbins in nature. 31 flavors, not just plain vanilla.

Numbers 5, 7 and 9: just silly. Good luck selling #9 in the Southwest, BTW. All those Jesuses and Marias - ¡Ay de que!

Number 6. Would never happen. Anyone can do this now. The thing is, people like me can't be forced to hang around and listen or participate, which is the scenario this poster really wants.

Number 8. Interesting. Any business owned by a Christian is a religious one. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of believers who would be surprised to learn that their gas station, condo development or bowling trophy business has suddenly become a religious enterprise like the Salvation Army or the convent down the road. Rather than just, you know, a job.

But it's in number 10 that we finally come to the crux of this rant. Fear of Islam and its followers. Wake up, Fundie crowd! When we who are not faith-based point to you as extremists, you can be very quick to say "We're not all like that..." and to paint yourselves as moderate and reasonable. But perish the thought that the same standard should apply to any other faith...say, one that is as much based on Abrahamic lore as your own, but has been sadly tarred by the misguided acts of a few dozen fanatics with box cutters and a vicious agenda. Nice job turning the other cheek, there.

But, wait! More convoluted paranoia ahead!

Gay people...when I send my children to public school, I don't expect them to learn about being "black", [sic.] period. I send them to public school to learn there [sic.] place under "White supremacy", and to be grateful to "White people" for allowing them the priveledge [sic.] to learn, read a book, and think.

The agenda behind homosexual instruction, in a "White Supremist" [sic.] operated public school is to effiminate [sic.] the males, and defeminate [sic.] the women to halt "birth production". [sic.]

And unless you have another educational agenda superior to the White Power establishment, (which I would like to hear, or see in writing), please tell me:

"How come straight teachers are teaching kids "how to be homosexual"? [sic.]

Peace be upon you

OK, I have to confess, I don't even get what this one purports to mean! Is the suggestion that public schools are bastions of white supremacist thought? And this somehow results in gay advocacy as well? Because last time I looked at fringe movements, people, white supremacy and pro-gay agendas seemed to me about as far apart as Australia and Austria! Is this person even really a parent? Because I can't imagine any parent sending a child to school to "learn their place." And how does "black" fit in with any of this? But, it's the closing "peace be upon you" that really makes it...

That's all for now! Plenty more at the link if you're spoiling for a good laugh or facepalm...

Year-End Wingnuttery

It's back to the office or the classroom for many of us tomorrow, so in a fond farewell wave to the 2011 holiday season, I thought I'd drop in on our old pals at Fundies Say the Darndest Things and see just what they'd uncovered for us during the week most of us sane people spent relaxing with our families. I wasn't disappointed. Here are some of the choicest bits:

From this source, we discover this gem...

Veganism is a Satanic conspiracy against God's Creation Order. God created adam alone--both Adam and Eve--in His Own Image. He did not create animals in His Image. Thus those whose morality has descended to Veganism and the claim of personhood and legal standing for animals are rebels against Almighty God. They are false prophets calling souls to Hell

Vegans? Really - this guy went there, of all places? I don't seem to recall anything mandating carnivorous eating habits in the Bible they're so fond of thumping. Well, unless it's on God's part. All those Old Testament accounts of burnt offerings and pleasing smells. Yeah, that must be it. You're going to be letter-perfect? Don't think you can pick and choose. Better start booking those goat-burnings at the next church auxiliary luncheon right away! But no blasphemous salads.

We also have this, from the Department of No We Don't Understand Parody...

The Internet was created by the United States of America - a Christian nation [ref. 1, 2, 3] - and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech. This is our Internet, and we should exercise our position as its owners and as the guardians of civilization to stop its misuse.

For this reason, this website was created to try and stop one of the more vile and dangerous misuses of the Internet: using it to mock Our Lord Jesus Christ, His teachings, and His followers. And one site in particular stands out in need of stoppage: Landover Baptist.

Link to Landover Baptist website
WARNING: Should not be viewed by anyone under 21
Landover Baptist claims to be a church. Moreover, they claim to be the only church in America that understands the Bible! In fact, neither is true. Landover Baptist is a fraud. A joke. Their true purpose is not to spread the Gospel of our Lord, but to trick people - especially those who have not received the Word and Salvation or have been programmed by secular culture to distrust Christianity - into believing that Christianity is evil and rejecting it.

For this blasphemous atrocity, the Landover Baptist website must be removed from our Internet.

It never ceases to amaze me how the crowd that is the first to cry abridgment of their rights of self-expression whenever anyone disagrees with them, and the crowd that wants censorship and to mandate what everybody must think or believe, or else, is invariably the same crowd. It makes Orwell's "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" a truly and scarily prescient observation.

But, wait - there's plenty of room for the misogynists to weigh in once more before the year runs to a close (Note: the quotation comes from the comment thread, and you'll love the typos, unaltered for your reading pleasure)...

Its just not true that men and women acheive equally.
Science axhievement still reflects this.
I’m not saying women are intellectual inferior.
Actually Darwin did say this.
I’m saying womens failure is due to motivation.
I see this as a very real identity of them due to their biblical calling to support their husbands first or only.
women don’t have ambition and despite or society pushing them they still fail to keep up anywhere where results are unbiased.
Only in school or other simple enterprises of mere studying do they compete.

This is a Mans world because we were created to do well before God.
We are on the make.

Yes there is a organized and profound agenda to raise women up at the immoral and illegal loss to men.
Affirmative action is for anyone the establishment wants to raise up and knows can’t without it.

First, guy - somewhere, I bet that several women who tried at one time to make you understand that coherence and good spelling would take you far in life are shaking their heads and saying "I told you so," at this precise moment. Second, do I smell some sour grapes here (no doubt in one of those Satanic salads)? Because this reads like the whining of someone who was first trounced in the...I'm guessing nothing beyond high school...academic environment, and then either lost a job to or (gasp!) found himself in the position of working for a mere woman.

And, of course, we are treated to a parting shot (again, in the comment thread, which must be perused beyond the post in question to be believed: these people could all do with visits from Scrooge's trio of ghosts and an IV drip of marginal sanity) in the War on Christmas...

The non-Christmas Xmas tree at the WH is a perfect symbol of democrat-muslim anti-Christian secularism that must be in place to satisfy liberals.

The liberal resentment of Christmas is understandable since liberals are not generally much more than OWS vagrants looking outside in at families with traditional trees, warm clean homes with Bing Crosby playing (laugh – the man could sing), friends, food, Tom&Jerrys, gifts, a sense of childhood and a respect for something larger than oneself.

Everything about Christmas is antithetical to a liberal’s self-centered, life position. They have to destroy it.

The BO tree speaks the attempt to destroy Christmas in a hypocritical way in not acknowledging Christianity – why not just put in a prayer rug where the Holiday-Solstice tree is now?

OK, what exactly is "democrat-muslim anti-Christian secularism"? Anyone? Are we now saying that Muslims are secular? All Democrats are Muslim? Only Christianity is a religion (must be news to Israel)? The whole concept of a plurality of religions? You're doing it wrong at a fundamental level.

And where did the Occupy people come from? If they were vagrants outside-looking-in...they would have already been outside. Clearly, that was not the case. So I think it's safe to assume that they too came from warm, clean homes, families and friends, etc. Only they did so to make a statement about something larger than themselves, not about being self-centered or solipsistic. (What's self-centered about living in a tent on a city street for weeks on end? If that's your idea of self-indulgent behavior, I confess to bafflement.) That it's a statement other than your preferred one makes it no less valid.

Finally, I find it laughable that the talking points lines for this most recent WoC (War on Christmas) are outrage that the First Family spent part of it in Hawaii (Oh, the expense! Oh, the exotic not-Norman-Rockwell quality! Oh...the place the guy was BORN?) and a sense of horror that taxpayers actually foot the bill for the White House tree and decorations. I remember when many of us were routinely being accused of Bush-bashing, it was over trivial little things like...gee, I don't know, starting unnecessary, costly and deeply destructive wars on false pretexts. But I don't recall any of us suggesting that the existence of a tree on the White House lawn was an abomination. The pettiness and vitriol is unbelievable. And it's not even full-on campaign season yet.

And don't get me started on the outrage that there is a STAR on top of the tree. Heavens forfend what nefarious thing that might stand for.

But, be that as it may - it is a New Year and we can all look forward to a fresh new batch of idiocy to entertain us from clowns like these. Watch for it to ratchet up big-time later this Spring, as maybe by then a front-runner for the GOP finally begins to emerge from the Rat Pack.

Thanks for all you do here, Count, and for allowing me a share of the sandbox. Best to you all for 2012!

Supplies for the War On Christmas

It isn't often that I dabble my toes in the sludge at World Net Daily, but a link from Daily Kos to this screed lured me in...

check out WND's online store for your personal "Christmas-defense kit." What you'll find are three choices of bumper stickers:

• "This is America! And I'm going to say it: 'Merry Christmas!'"
• "It is STILL a wonderful life – Merry Christmas!"
• "Merry Christmas! An American Tradition"

They're all magnetized for seasonal use. Buy them separately or all together. Use them this year, next year and for many years to come.

In addition, there's the "Reason for the Season Auto Magnets," also perfect for your refrigerator or office file cabinet or desk. Part of every purchase goes to Christian charities.

It's the perfect way to make your statement this Christmas – that Jesus is the reason for the season. Buy one, buy 25, buy 50!

There's one more component of your Christmas-defense kit: It's the "Operation: Just Say 'Merry Christmas' Bracelet." They make great stocking stuffers, but why wait! Make your feelings about Christmas known to one and all. Wear them to pick up the kids, when you buy groceries and when you go to work. They're guaranteed to ward off the evil spirits of the ACLU grinches.

Read more: Get your Christmas-defense kit

So, here's the thing. First, doesn't it seem confrontational and not at all festive to rely on bumper stickers to convey your holiday message, presumably all about peace on earth and goodwill toward mankind? Are these people trying to get themselves keyed?

Second, I doubt that Jesus' message to his followers would be "buy one, buy 25, buy 50."

And, quite apart from the bankrupt philosophical viewpoint, this exposes decisively WND's most honest motivation in the whole "War on Christmas" hoopla - to score some $$$. It's part and parcel of what makes me laugh half the time I pass a so-called "Christian Supply" store. Who knew you required supplies, or that a prefabbed toolkit was needed?

I hope someday everyone will wake up to the absurdity of this whole thing and the "War on Christmas" can be consigned where it belongs: to the realm of mass delusion/deception. Until then...warm thoughts to you and yours, Gentle Reader, whether it's Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, Yule or Christmas or Saturnalia that you mark at this cocooning, renewing time of the year.

P.S.: Don't you love the phrase "magnetized for seasonal use"? Kind of like "sanitized for your protection"!

Up in the Pulpit...Wait, I Meant "Soapbox"

They're at it again, ladies and gentlemen - your ever-diligent Congress-critters. Creating jobs? Fixing the economy? Nope. Surely you jest!

No, they're busy voting on a resolution to affirm "In God We Trust" as a national motto.

First of all, what about the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, stating that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, do they not understand...apart from, apparently, all of it?

Second...when, exactly, did elected political representatives assume (and presume) this kind of quasi-preacher role? They ought to be busy rendering unto Caesar rather than playing in the clerical sandbox. I don't know about you, but I don't cast my vote in the expectation that the person whose box I dutifully fill in with my Number 2 pencil will have any authority whatsoever to dictate my convictions of faith to me. I find it offensive.

Third...this notion that just because something is non-sectarian - i.e., "God" in the generic as opposed to the Catholic or the Baptist or the Mormon or whoever's version - makes it non-controversial is just, as my long-ago British boss would have said, "Not On." Words have power, and once you enshrine a "God" into government, people will start to ladle on their interpretations and make it into their particular version, something more definite and defined both. The more who weigh in, the more solid that single interpretation becomes. That does nothing in service of the nation's diversity. It's borderline fascist.

And, finally...appropriately enough, just headed out of Samhain into what for me is the New Year...where exactly does this leave those of us not in any kind of traditional mold? The agnostics? The atheists? Individuals like myself, newly brave about being out of the broom closet, at least here on the Series of Tubes? People for whom God is, perhaps, more often than not, Goddess? Or both in tandem, male and female principles alike, equal but not separate?

Are we not equal citizens? Should we be obliged to kowtow to something we do not believe in, just because some sanctimonious politico thinks it's OK to mingle his/her personal faith with the national interest?

And what about the Buddhists and the Hindus and the Muslims and many another marginalized faith? What happened to "I lift my lamp beside the golden door," and the welcoming shores that used to characterize the States?

I really do fret about what is going on, there south of the border. Those joking maps online labeling so much of the country as "Jesusland" are looking more frighteningly real every day. And for the sake of my friends and family still there, I really don't like to see this kind of garbage taking precedence, when there is so much that could be so much more meaningful that desperately needs doing.

The Best Way To Get Comments Is Call Out A Televison Cult Leader...I Mean Evangelist

I was going through the unmoderated comments because somebody who isn't welcomed here was again posting here and I wanted to see if he had tried to post anywhere else. Posts on threads older than a week are all moderated by me. What I found was not posts by this particular parasite but several new comments on a thread not a week old, not two weeks old but 3 years old. 3 years old! Hell I didn't even write the thread. The thread in question was the work of Jonathan and it was entitled

Late-Night Comedy with Lee Stoneking

Jonathan you should be glad to know that three years later people are still mad at you for this post.

John Frame said...

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond to your comments except that perhaps I know this man speaking and your comments are quite irritating, because he is the real deal. He is not a televangelist, and while this is a meeting of "true believers" as you say, it is a yearly conference hosted by this particular church for ministers and their wifes only - they usually run around 3,000-4,000 at this conference. If you were to ever attend one of these services during the "Because of the Times" conferences you would know they are the furthest thing from staged. You may not believe in their experience, but what have any of these people ever done to you to deserve such vitriol? Again, you're free to not believe, but give me a break, he's preaching about bringing help and healing to people and encouraging the assembled ministers that they can be a part of reaching out to hurting people. How is that a bad thing? If they are all frauds, it will be apparent fairly quickly, since they're not telling people to shake a preacher's hand and "sow your $1000 seed" into my ministry and God's going to solve all of your problems. These folks teach and believe that God is real, and involved in the affairs of men personally, and that he manifested himself on earth as Jesus Christ, and that to this very day he still moves supernaturally to save people and to heal disease and sickness. If they don't back it up with a supernatural move of God's power to save and heal people, no one is going to listen to them, so why the need for your sarcasm and hatred? These people are indeed "true believers"...I know because I am one of them, and I have experienced the saving and healing power of God in my life; and you may freely choose to mock and denigrate, that is your right, but I have an experience with God and all you've got is an argument that says it can't be true. Fortunately for me, a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with a mere argument.

October 23, 2008 4:22 PM

Anonymous said...

lee stone king is the rill dill
you should watch wat you say

November 17, 2008 8:56 PM

WifeOfPazuzu666 said...

Meowwwwwwwwwwww! Liiiiiiiiicksssssssssss Evangelist Lee Stoneking!! ,,,,==^;^==,,,,

November 25, 2008 1:52 PM

Anonymous said...

Hey Jonathan maybe your the one thats lacking,If you got out from in front of your computer for awhile and made your way to a holiness pentecostal church you might discover you have been missing the boat!!!!!

December 24, 2008 8:43 PM

Anonymous said...

you better watch what you are saying see you are talking about our one and only jesus christ do not mock him. you need to look back in historie theres alot of people who mocked jesus and there are not here anymore. what has he did to you for you to say such foolish things about his word. all we can do for you is pray THAT its not to late for to ask for forgiveness, you will reap what you sow.Galatians 6;7

March 28, 2009 1:37 AM

Mark Matuszewski said...

Dear Johnathan,

I happen to know Rev. Stoneking as he has been a regular speaker at our church for the last 15+ years. He is one of the most graceful and gracious men alive. He is honest to the core and has spent the better part of his entire life spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. To denegrate this man in your blog is without merit and understanding. He truly is holy and while he does evengelise, he is not some millionaire who lives in a fancy house bought from the spoils of his speaking engagements. I challenge you to contact Rev. Stoneking directly with your views. However, I know you will never do that because if you did the goodness of this man and the truth he espouses would surely win you to His truth. I will pray for you Jonathan because regardless of your misgivings you are still a child of God and He makes no mistakes. Your blogging skills might well be used for His purposes some day. Praise God!

April 18, 2009 1:52 AM

Anonymous said...

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth no the things of the spirit of God: for ther can they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

May 11, 2009 9:38 AM

Anonymous said...

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

May 11, 2009 9:41 AM

Johan said...

I know Lee Stoneking personally. He is such a sincere, humble and good hearted man.

no further comments...

July 12, 2009 7:30 PM

Anonymous said...

October 22,2009
As a Christian I will say this with all the love that I have for this man Jesus The Christ not Jesssssssssusssssss!( Can"t you spell?)Respect his name! you have no Idea what you are up against.
Lee Stoneking is a Godly man and
you don't need to try to become famous from bashing him. If your were any kind of man you would
do your homework before just picking YOUR average Joe minister, but one of the Greatest.
I have been in many of his church
services. GOD IS ALWAYS THERE.
IT IS APPARENT THAT YOU USE YOUR
ENERGY FOR SATAN. WHAT A WASTE.
KNOW JESUS AND THE LOVE HE HAS FOR YOU. YOU"LL BE A HEAD OF THE GAME
REGUARDS.

October 22, 2009 11:34 AM

Anonymous said...

Jonathan,I came across your disussing web page. you have a
problem,with this preacher because
you have been called to preach the
gospel of Jesus and you have rejected the call. you also are from a pentecostal backgroud that
you turned you back on.But it not to late. Jesus still loves you and
you know it. Quit running you know the way that you life should have gone. The situation that
God did not answer for you is not going to be excused by the Lord Jesus
Hope for you is just a pray away.
How great is our God.

October 22, 2009 9:24 PM

Anonymous said...

IS THAT THE BEST YOU CAN DO !! WHY DON'T YOU GO AND CHECK OUT HIS OFFICIAL WEBSITE !! YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE ONE... YOU IGNORANT SOD !!

August 10, 2011 10:12 PM

Anonymous said...

LOL !! HA HA HA !! YEAH HE IS DANGEROUS ALRIGHT... HE'S GOT THE DEVIL ON THE RUN AND EVERY CHRISTIAN LAUGHING AT HIM !! LOL !! HA HA HA !! GREAT NIGHT OF HUMOUR FOR ME THAT'S FOR SURE !! SO LONG SUCKER !!

August 10, 2011 11:54 PM

Anonymous said...

Have you got anymore... I just LOVE his preaching !! LOL !!

August 11, 2011 12:01 AM

Anonymous said...

So are you trying to tell me Christians shouldn't get excited about Jesus !! No !! Just get slaughtered by the lions !!

August 11, 2011 12:02 AM

Anonymous said...

Yeah tell that to a fans watching the soccar !!

August 11, 2011 12:03 AM

Anonymous said...

Looks like Stoneking has more fans than you !! LOL !! This is real funnie !!

August 11, 2011 12:51 AM

Now you know Jonathan when you call out a cult leader you can expect the shit to hit the fan.

23, As We Know, Is An Evil Number

Or, as it was first released in Crazytown, "This Is What Happens To You When Your Apocalypse Pantry Contains That Many Cans Of Pork 'N' Beans."

Seriously. No commentary I might add can possibly suffice. Feast your eyes and ears.

Rapture's Over

How was it for you? Have any cool rapture stories? It got dark and rainy and started to thunder here about Rapture time which was cool but that was it. Any stories? Know anybody that got taken? Has anybody heard from Ralph? Is anybody goin to San Antone or Phoenix Arizona? Anyway feel free to share.

Oh Joy! Rapture!

Yeah it's tomorrow night about 6 PM Pacific time. That's 8 for those of us on the plains. Blog is closed for Rapture. Open only to Mods. We'll open it again on Sunday when the fucking thing is over.

Yet Another Piece Of Ten Commandments Legislation...

...but this one comes with a declaration astonishing in its complete indefensibility.

Seems that for the past ten years, this one legislator in Alabama (where else?) has been repeatedly, but without success, introducing legislation that would allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in schools and other public facilities, at the sole discretion of the administrators of those facilities - school principals, mayors, police chiefs, etc.

Bear in mind that this is the same legislature which has already faced adjudication and, effectively, knockdown of such legislation before...back when former State Supreme Court justice Roy Moore put a 2.5+ ton granite slab with said Commandments engraved thereupon in the rotunda of the State judicial building in 2001.

But, no, Senator Dial thinks it has a good chance of passing this time around. And why? Behold the breathtaking disconnect that is his rationale, as expressed by a member of the legal team of the organization promoting this bill:

But this bill might not be as clear-cut violation of the federal constitution as Lynn and Neal make it out to be, said John Eidsmoe, a member of the Foundation for Moral Law’s legal team. A number of different religions accept the Ten Commandments, he said.

Beyond that, Eidsmoe said, courts have cited it in opinions and laws are based on its guidelines.

“I think you’d have a hard time saying the Ten Commandments are distinctly religious,” Eidsmoe said. “They’re an expression of the basic precepts that just about every society has been built upon.”

Not distinctly religious?

You might argue that successfully for 6-10. Not killing, cheating on your partner, stealing, lying, or hankering for what belongs to your neighbor...all these are certainly good for civilization.

But the first five are all about religion and nothing but, beginning with the first, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." All the rest of 1-5 are couched in the form of marching orders from this very particular, self-described "jealous," God. Because they're - ya know - "commandments." Things that Sky Guy specifically wants you to do or not do.

It reminds me of the time my daughter's Brownie leaders wanted the girls to spend the bulk of their year on a unit called "God And Me" - an adjunct to traditional Scouting provided by some outfit called PRAY Publishing - and tried to sell me on the idea that it wasn't religious indoctrination because it was nondenominational. I held firm and said, no, you are going to offer an alternative activity so my kid isn't railroaded into this program (run by a male pastor of one of the leaders: there's role-modeling for young women's leadership, eh?), or I will go to the regional Girl Scout Council with a complaint that you are violating the core precept of Girl Scouting that there is no religious test or requirement (one of the things that is a differentiating factor from Boy Scouts).

Fortunately, at the end of the year, all the kids said their favorite activity was when I taught them how to make soap in the microwave. Score points for fun over sermonizing!

It's endorsement of religion or it isn't, Senator Dial. Just because you don't name whatever God you're referring to doesn't erase the meaning you hope to push on the public, any more than calling the garbage collector a "sanitation official" makes him something other than your garbage collector.

Tolerance, Thy Name Plainly Ain't FSTDT

I started this particular dissection during the break but only wound it up tonight. It wouldn't be a New Year without a good old-fashioned fundie rant to debunk!

Among the recent droppings at FSTDT is a doozy. Join me in dissecting the strange rantings of one "DesertFox." (Extra points if we think the Fox part might refer to Fox News? But of course!)

The media discredits anything the Right does. So what if they want a CC in place of a Jew? Isn't that their right? Of course it is! And I for one am sick of Christian Conservative being a dirty pair of words.

As one of the commenters at FSTDT observed, anybody can be sick of any turn of phrase. Recent polling revealed that most people in North America are tired to bits of "Whatever!" as a phrase, for example. Plug in any characterization there in his statement about "dirty phrases": Naked Pagan, Latte-Drinker, Regressive Redneck, or even Congressional Representative. The statement's just as meaningful with any substitution you care to make....which is to say that it expresses someone's individual opinion. That's all. Saying you're sick of Christian Conservative being a dirty pair of words does nothing, in and of itself, to confer legitimacy on the positions such a person would take and espouse.

I want them emblazoned on a 100x100' flag and flown from the top of the capitol in every state, every territory, and every other US jurisdiction (such as DC). We need to make it plain that Christianity's principles made this country great -- not Izzie principles, not Jewish principles, not Hindu or Buddha or Taoist or animist or Kung Fu beliefs.

First...a square flag? OK, if that floats your boat. But the rest of this statement points out clearly that this poster doesn't get the Establishment Clause, making it plain that there is no such thing as a "state religion" in the States. That's part of what the Puritans were running away from, remember? So ix-nay on the ag-flying-flay. As to this list of principles (and what does this guy have against the excellent 70s series with David Carradine as Kwai Chang Kaine?), we'll return to it anon.

Then, after 20 years or so, when everybody "gets it," then we can quit worrying about it, take them banners down and go back to being -- a Christian nation that lets others be so long as they're law abiding and not out to wreck our Christian nation. That is the principle that needs to be appended to the Constitution -- that this is a Christian nation based on Christian principles, and no one will be allowed to try to take the nation down by using its own rules against Christianity, in places public or private.

Boy, he's putting a lot of faith in 20 years of flag-flying imprinting anything on anybody's minds. How many of you, dear readers, can accurately describe your own State flag?

And, also...if the principle he is advocating for has been there all along, then why now does it need to be "appended" to the Constitution? Is he not a strict constructionalist? Does he want lawmakers to overturn the Founders' convictions, or judges to legislate from the bench? Slippery slope, pal, slippery slope...

Free speech is free speech, but you don't get to use it to impugn Christ.

Er...actually, yes, if that's how you're inclined, you do. That's what makes it free speech.

All religions are equal, but Christianity is more equal than any other. Judaism is next more equal.

Oh, look - Judaism gets to take the crown if Miss Christianity is unwilling or unable to fulfill her obligations! I wonder which faith gets Miss Congeniality?

After that they're all the same. You don't like it, phuqq you.

Ah, here we go. Faith is not a personal choice of conscience. It's a hierarchy where two Abrahamic traditions get pride of place and everyone else fights over the scraps. Hindus, you're the same as Wiccans. Buddhists, duke it out with the Muslims. You can't apply unless you follow the teachings of someone who was probably brown but is almost always portrayed as white. Take what you get and like it.

Dude, what about "no test of faith" do you not understand? Ever run into the works of this guy named George Orwell? Because I think you're one of the people he was trying hardest to talk to! Four legs good, two legs better....

The overriding point here is that we were great when we didn't question Christianity or push the laws or customs to the very outermost limit.

Ah - sing your hymns, ante up for the collection, and don't make waves. What Norman Rockwell paintings are you hallucinating as you inhale the burning fumes of Harry Potter books? The great myth by which the USA functions is pushing laws and customs to their limit, striking out afresh, the New Eden! If you want conformity, may I recommend Italy?

Then along came the ACLU, doing just that. The only way I can see to forestall such death-by-a-thousand-cuts is to make it unmistakably clear that Christianity and Judaism are the sources of our greatness, and we won't allow pissants to tear us down.

But...wait...I thought Judaism was only "next more equal"? Are you watering down your vision already? Reconsider, DesertFox. This can't be earning you any Rapture Points(TM).

And the truth of the matter, at day's end...is that this is all irrational screeching about the fact that Everybody Everywhere Doesn't Think The Same As Me. There is NOBODY out there stopping DesertFox from pushing his creed as fervently as his personal whim dictates. He can put his 100' x 100' flag of choice on top of his own home, or those of fellow-travelers, as he likes. He wants a nativity scene in his yard over the holidays, or Bible tracts on his porch on Hallowe'en, he's welcome (well, so long as he hasn't agreed to homeowners' agreements prohibiting such, but HE would never do that, since his belief is so staunch, right?).

His real problem is that he doesn't see mirrors everywhere around him. He sees windows. And windows are disturbing because they lead to Other Points Of View. And we can't have that.

Personally, I think Jesus would be appalled by the draconian, control-freak efforts some of his purported followers are putting forward, supposedly inspired by his example.

Here's hoping that we all had a Merry Christmas, Count and Co. And a Cheery Festivus, Luminous Kwanzaa, Happy Hanukkah and Blessed Yule. Let's all be tolerant out there going ahead into 2011.

A Sanity Break for our Fundie Observers

I came across an instructive article tonight at The Smirking Chimp, and have to say that I couldn't agree more!

Here's how Ted Rall's piece on taking religion OFF the calendar begins:

We are a secular nation. We enjoy the constitutional right to exercise any religion--or none whatsoever. So why is Christmas a federal holiday?

The U.S. has no national religion. Yet Christians get special consideration. Aside from Christmas, they also get the quasi-Christian holiday of Thanksgiving. Financial markets are closed on both of those, plus Good Friday.

Devotees of other faiths must ask their employers for time off. Jews aren't supposed to work on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, the first and second days of Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, Simchat Torah, Shavu'ot, or the first, second, seventh and eighth days of Passover. They have to take up to 13 days off from work each year, more than most employers offer.

The message to Jews and other non-Christians is plain: you are second-class citizens. Separation of church and state is a fraud. You wanna practice your faith? Do it on your own time.

You might think that the government's official embrace of Christmas is a cultural relic of America's puritan past. But you'd be mistaken. For nearly 100 years, Christmas was not on the calendar of federal holidays. On December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under the new U.S. constitution, Congress was in session. Ulysses Grant made it a federal holiday in 1870.

Could it be clearer? I don't think so.

Yet thanks to these rulings, almost a century into American independence, now everyone trots along in step with a calendar that commemorates Christianity pretty much exclusively. Someday, I really must do some research into the debates and discussions that brought us to that point in 1870, as well as those running up to the later 1950s decision (though our favorite trolls would have it that the Founders meant it to happen All Along) to add "In God We Trust" to US currency. I'm betting that both took lines fairly similar to today's squeals from the fundie right about how oppressed Christians are in society. Oh, yes, how silenced and marginalized you are, with your own dedicated broadcasting networks and such...

Here's what I'd do, if I ran a company that actually employed anyone other than me and my spouse, and required any kind of schedule accountable to the outside world.

I'd shut down from roughly mid-December until after New Year's. Paid. This is only fair to working parents who have to deal with school schedules - now probably so entrenched that even a Federal change in observances wouldn't alter anything - and probably encompasses most families' seasonal celebrations to some degree: most traditions have something happening around Solstice, and even if you don't, the days are short, so the down time is welcome. Besides, in most B-2-B enterprises, activity slows to a crawl at this time, anyway. Better the goodwill engendered by the time off, than the tedium of employees marking time when Nothing Is Happening Anyway. Any business will prosper more with the lights off and nobody home than the overhead for a token staff doing nothing significant.

All other time - sick leave + vacation - I would make completely discretionary, to be scheduled at the individual's option, with his or her supervisor's and department's approval. You want to take Valentine's Day or your Girlfriend's Birthday off instead of Memorial Day? Go for it! There would have to be some kind of formula which governs whether or not it is practical for the business to open or not, on any given day, based on the number of available staff on duty, of course. And a rationale for the employer saying no, we can't do that, but what about this? In the general spirit of compromise. But I fail to see why private, much less public, businesses should be involved in institutionalizing any one faith.

I used to get nudged by salespeople I worked with, for taking May Day off. "Communist," one of them teased me; and, another, "Pagan rites of Spring!" Oh, if only he knew!

Rall's point stands. Institutionalize one thing, for any One Group - majority or minority, doesn't matter: it's still a clear line-crossing of the Establishment Clause - and you de facto diminish the Other.

Sadly, I don't think his vision will materialize anytime soon. But I am deeply pleased that Rall had the courage to articulate the vision so accurately. You can't claim freedom of religion while enacting policies that favor one religion above others. And that is precisely what US policy has been doing for decades.

And now, in the spirit of his post, I'm taking the day off from blog commentary, to memorialize the post-Solstice blogospheric lull.

Merry Yule, y'all.

Bob Tilton Still Bilking Dipshits

Bob Tilton is still on the air and still asking for his followers to send him a $1000. Tonight he assured me that sending him $1000 was God's plan for me and if I didn't send him the $1000 I might suffer pre-mature death. Then of course his assistant brought in a stack of prayer requests and pledges he took the first and said here's Ricky Ricardo from Houston sending in a $1000 vow of faith.