They're Here! They're Queer! The Right Refuse to Get Used To It!

As we know, President Obama this week, made history this week by coming out of the closet in support of gay marriage. The asylum at Blogs for Victory.com didn't take the news too well, as you might expect, but more on that in a minute. Matt Margolis, the resident attack is livid that Dick Cheney, who came out in support for gay marriage, isn't being showered with praise from the media. Yet the article he linked to tells the story as to why Cheney isn't getting, as Margolis feels, the attention he deserves: Cheney came out in support for marriage equality.....in June of 2009, almost six months since he left office, whereas Obama was the first official in office to actually utter his support for this particular issue. Big difference there, Matt.
As I stated earlier, the mental patients in the asylum of a blog, didn't take the news too lightly...

js03May 11, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

America was founded on the Declaration of Independence. Its foundations lie under the respect of the laws of nature, and of natures God. Any medical doctor will tell you what the human reproductive system is for. Sodomy is not sex, it is deviant sexual behavior. It is not reproductive behavior; it is nothing more than selfish lust and is a huge indicator of sex addiction. Homosexuality is an abomination of the human body, and its reproductive system. An abomination is aberrant behavior, deviant sexual activity, and is often a part of a lifestyle that includes alcohol abuse, drug abuse and depression.

There is no protection for an imagined civil right to deviant behavior.
That was just one of the many comments you'll find that show their feelings on the news story which I'm not going to link, monstly because it's the lot of them using the Bible to justify their own prejudice, a pastime which has been well documented on this site for years now. The one question I have about this whole affair is why do they amass so much energy into raling against gays and lesbians getting married? What difference does it make if two men are married or two women?

Feminism...the Radical Notion that Women are People

(title attribution to Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler)

OK, I know it's not an oft-discussed topic here at BAD, but I have to take advantage of the Count's generosity in sharing this soapbox to simply say it very directly, during this silliest of silly seasons in US politics. What about 51% of the population (for you businesspeople, that's a controlling interest) is not understood? From which backward and unholy cesspool has this War On Women bubbled up to the surface of the GOP dialogue?

Mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds - what we used to call non-consensual, forcible penetration; or, more colloquially, "rape" - positively embraced in principle, and backed away from only minutely and at the last minute, in Virginia. The marginalizing of women's health issues in the form of a fresh assault on birth control, coupled with the utter travesty of a panel of men testifying largely to other men on the issue (and the GOP-controlled House is refusing, with blatant hypocrisy and in unprecedented style, to broadcast footage of a Democratic hearing finally giving Sandra Fluke her day at the microphone - I suppose it will be a wonder if they don't cut the electrical power entirely). It's a laughable picture tantamount to a bunch of non-driving pedestrians holding forth on matters of automobile maintenance. Continuing efforts to abrogate women's ability to control their own reproductive destinies in multiple states. The looming danger that contraception apparently represents by its mere existence, in the form that sexual intercourse might - gasp! - be engaged in just because, you know, it's enjoyable. All capped by the bizarre spectacle of an Indiana legislator refusing to commemorate the Girl Scouts' 100th anniversary, for crap's sake, on the grounds that he thinks those adorable cookie-wielding Daisies and Brownies are closeted radicals intent on emasculating American manhood and unleashing the gay agenda. Because he read it on teh Innertubes, and everyone knows how completely authoritative and accurate whatever you encounter on the Internet is. (Consider the sad case of that Nigerian Prince, for instance...)

Are these candidates - Santorum in particular, who seemingly would like to return us to the 17th century and witch hunts for anybody who, you know, might think that preserving the Earth for future generations is a good idea - really going there? To points of view that marginalize the privileges of basic citizenship and human rights for more than half the population? Or, more to the point of their own self-interest, to alienate as much as half of their potential voting base?

Not only does this seem to me to be a stupid strategy overall, but creeping every day so much further and further to the most remote right-wing fringes as to be completely untenable for anybody with half a brain cell to spare.

Go re-read Margaret Atwood's depressingly prescient novel The Handmaid's Tale, everyone. And then tell me it can't happen in the US. The signage is on the roads already being trod.

In the meantime, I thank my lucky stars my daughter and I are here in Canada, where she has the right to protect her health as she sees fit; love and marry whom she wants, if she wants; and where her freedom of conscience guarantees that she need never submit to anyone else's set of beliefs and strictures. Because the way the dialogue is going down there in the lower 48, I wouldn't want her there for an instant.

Wingnut "Art"

Found this tonight and had to post it. More commentary later, perchance, but for now browse the gallery and come to your own conclusions...

Edit by Jonathan: Disagree with this man's politics, but he is a hell of a painter.

Another edit by Jonathan: There are a few things i'd like to review in his paintings:

First - in "The Forgotten Man", the are many bills on the floor, one of them being the Social Security Act of 1935, in which the artists says that SS was "a pyramid scheme from the start" taking away money from the younger, working generation to the older generation. OMG! Why are we giving money to seniors who are way past their prime to work? We shouldn't be giving them a dime...we should be telling these lazy, old bastards to keep working, or be prepared to send them off on a block of ice to starve and die! From the same painting, the man talks about Reagan as if he were the 2nd coming of Christ himself. Nevermind the man's economic policies set in motion 30 years of handing out tax breaks to the very rich helped create a widening gap between rich and poor, ignored the AIDS epidemic, and aided "freedom fighters" like the Contras and the mujaheddin that eventually came back to bite us in the ass. Nope, the man was a saint!

Now, onto "One Nation Under God". The symbol is showing the Messiah holding the U.S. Constitution; the symbolism highlighted on the page states the following, "Inspired of God, and created by God-fearing, patriotic Americans." I don't know how many times I have to spell this out, but i'll say it again: These men may have been "God-fearing" patriots, but they also had the sense to realize that their religious beliefs should not be shoved down the throats of others, fearing that they would trade one oppressive state religion for another. It's the reason why the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the 1st Amendment were written.

Oh, and I found this as well: make of this what you will.

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...

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.

Tea Bagger Who Ask The President For Decency Just Needed To Borrow Some For Himself.

Well We've found something Teabaggers hate more than America...Supporting their children.

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.

“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation’s finances in order.

Walsh starts the video by saying, “President Obama, quit lying. Have you no shame, sir? In three short years, you’ve bankrupted this country.”

In court documents, after his ex-wife, Laura Walsh, asked a judge to suspend his driver’s license until he paid his child support, Joe Walsh asks his ex-wife’s lawyer: “Have you no decency?”

Joe Walsh’s attorney, R. Steven Polachek, called the claim of a $117,437 debt “unfounded.”

“I dispute that he owes the child support that she’s claiming or anywhere near that amount,” Polachek said. “Joe Walsh hasn’t been a big-time wage-earner politician until recently — he’s had no more problems with child support than any other average guy.”

While Laura Walsh’s attorneys say they have been awaiting a meeting with Joe Walsh’s attorney to work out a settlement, Polachek said it’s her attorneys who have been stalling.

So in the guy's defense like many other teabaggers it sounds as if he is stranger to employment.

Time To Pray

OK...I received this in my e-mail today. This is not a usual thing for me, as most people who have my e-mail are like-minded enough with me not to share stuff like this, and those who are not thus like-minded tend to know better. This came from a lady I'm doing volunteer grantwriting for to help abandoned cats. So I give her the benefit of the doubt despite the opening line of the forwarded e-mail:

It is time to Pray!

Pray if you want to!

Well...duh. Nobody ever stopped you from praying, as I recall. Knock yourselves out.

CBS and Katie Couric et al must be in a panic and rushing to reassure the White House that this is not network policy -- re: Andy Rooney's commentary on prayer.

As it shouldn't be policy. There's a reason it's called the "establishment" clause....as in a widely-regarded, seemingly-official entity endorsing a religious position. Like, say, a major network weighing in to support one religious view. Or a government.

Folks, this is the year that we RE-TAKE AMERICA & CANADA

OK....who's "we" and what's to re-take? Also, please, leave Canada - where we have freedom of religious association on the legal books, thanks very much - out of it. That's one of the reasons I made the move North...

Keep this going around the globe. Read it and forward every time you receive it. We can't give up on this issue.

And here it comes in its full glory...

Andy Rooney and Prayer

Andy Rooney says:

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution.

Yes. And I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, but I'm not going to raid a 7-year-old's pillow for a Sacajawea dollar coin, and I think Freud is full of it but I'll happily entertain a defense of "penis envy." So, what's your point?

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

I agree that someone's 30-second prayer before a football game doesn't endanger me. But someone spouting it over a loudspeaker, on the assumption of broad crowd assent, leading to an atmosphere that suggests hostility to anybody whose views may differ....well, that's the slippery slope.

But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.

Damn straight.

Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada, countries founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

OK, first of all, there is no "United States of Canada," so wipe that right off your slate before you start. You want to badger the USA, fine. Don't meddle in other people's countries.

And who said that More was necessarily Better or Preferred? McDonald's claims X-billion served. That doesn't make their food wholesome, healthy or in any way "better." Might doesn't equal right, not even in the Yellow Pages.

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.

And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.

The larger question looms, though. Why should you expect to hear a prayer at ALL? At a sporting fixture? Over the loudspeakers? On the assumption of crowd approval? Seriously. Prayer is for religious services. Sporting events are for, well, sports.

When in Rome . . .

When in Rome...better cover up if you plan to go to the Vatican.

But what about the atheists? Is another argument.

Sure it is. They are equally citizens under the law. They have rights.

What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humour us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!

Let's turn the tables. Let's say that the person at the microphone is going to offer a paean to Zeus in ancient Greek. Would Andy and his fellow Christians be happy with Microphone Guy's fans saying "Just humour us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!"

They wouldn't. That is the litmus test for fairness in this issue...and it's what makes Andy so very, very wrong.

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Again, a short prayer doesn't shake the world's foundations. But people can pray all they want to, to whomever, as individuals. It doesn't have to be institutionalized, blazed across the Sony Jumbotron, amplified to the nines to the entire stadium.

What is it about the America-Is-ONLY-A-Christian-Nation crowd that demands the backup of the sound reinforcement stadium crew to get their message across? Keep it to yourself. And if you think that makes your prayers less powerful, then I'm sorry for you, because that diminishes your own convictions.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

Excuse me. I grew up in America, too. I never prayed before meals or bed. I have as much right to assert my beliefs as you have. You have no right to dictate yours to me, and I assume no right to dictate mine to you. Why do you persist in doing so, and insist that you have every right to do so? Why is it not enough for you to attend the church of your choice and observe whatever private religious practices you please, as I do? Why do you demand these broad-brush, public, sweeping assertions of a faith that you know damn well not everybody within earshot supports? Does the microphone make faith bigger? Because, if it does, seems to me it's a piss-poor faith to begin with.

God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.

I won't sue you. But I feel sorry for your point of view.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time that the majority rules! It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honour Him. That is your right, and we will honour your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"

I'm quite sure that Jesus would approve of your kind, welcoming, tolerant posture.

God bless us one and all . . . Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America and Canada, despite all our faults, We are still the greatest nations of all. God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

Oh, here we go. Again it's the exaltation of military service as the only calling that matters, the only cause that protects someone's faith. Are we really back in the time of the Crusades in this shabby way?

Clue for you: Nobody in Canada cares about being the "greatest nation." We're bigger than that. We don't have to be the popular guy swaggering around campus to feel good about ourselves. Don't try and make us that...no matter how much Stephen Harper tries to convince you that's who we are.

Let's make 2011 the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions. And our military forces come home from all the wars.

Silent majority, my ass! You lot have been running the dialogue now for decades, ever since the "I Found It!" bumper stickers and the rise of the so-called Moral Majority. It's time for saner voices than yours to set the terms. Nobody's stopping you from living by your own moral codes - please do! - but you have no right whatsoever to push them on the whole of society, so pack up your Bibles and scoot! Solicitors not welcome.

Though I hope you're right about the war part.

Keep looking up.

If you're waiting for that "Rapture" thing, then you'd better be prepared to wait quite a while and invest in plenty of batteries for your portable radio.

If you agree with this, please pass it on. If not delete it..

Consider it deleted after this post. What a pile of poo.

Dipping A Toe In The Fundie End Of The Pool...

After two weeks uncoupled from the Internet, it was with some trepidation that I once again paid a call at Fundies Say The Darndest Things. I fear I was not disappointed.

First, there was this little gem...

First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce.

And, next, this incredible misconstruction...because, as you know, we Pagans are all about automotive discombobulation...

The assistant director [of the TSA] told [Carole Smith, a Wiccan] he was investigating a threat of workplace violence. He said that her former mentor in on-the-job training, officer Mary Bagnoli, reported that she was afraid of Smith because she was a witch who practiced witchcraft. She accused Smith of following her on the highway one snowy evening after work and casting a spell on the heater of her car, causing it not to work.

And the rest ranged from the silly...

liberalism = no morals

which means liberals are Satanists.

What libs propose when they want more government, is a Satanic world government.

To the downright sad, grammatically and in family terms as well...

(a mother's response to her daughter coming out of the closet)

"My daughter Cara Louise,

"In all the years of my life, yesterday was the worst day. Not only have you turned your back on me and Dad, but you've turned your back on God. Clearly He is testing you and you have Failed this test.

"I don't know what I did wrong to raise a lesbien daughter. Maybe God is puneshing me. All I know is I couldn't sleep last night and when I did for only five minutes, all I could think of was your perverted life style.

"I am sorry but your Dad and I cannot except you back into our house as long as you are following the deeds of the Devil. We will still love you but we cannot except you as our daughter as long as you are living your life in sin.

"I've asked Scarlet and she tells me that she knew this entire time. She has told me that she does not believe in God and I know that she can be saved. I hope that you can be saved my dear daughter but until that time I can not say that we are family. I will miss you and my heart is broken

"Your mother."

I honestly don't know how these people manage to function day in and day out in normal society.

He's Baaa-ack!

Just when you figured the well had run dry, our old pal Jeremiah has returned - inspired, perhaps, by the verdict regarding the Phelps clan? But his return comes with a twist. It's apparently quiz time!

Describe in your own words what you think a person who is an atheist is, then ... provide Scripture verses that describe for us what an atheist is.

Hint: One can be found in the book of 1 John.

Who's up for the challenge?

Christian fundie arrested for beating off near children

The story:

The Rev. Grant Storms, the Christian fundamentalist known for his bullhorn protests of the Southern Decadence festival in the French Quarter, was arrested on a charge of masturbating at a Metairie park Friday afternoon.

Storms, 53, of 2304 Green Acres Road in Metairie, was taken into custody at Lafreniere Park after two women reported seeing him masturbating in the driver's seat of his van, which was parked near the carousel and playground, a Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office report said.

The first woman told deputies she was taking her children to the playground and parked next to the van at about noon. As she was walking around her own vehicle, she noticed the van windows were down and the occupant was "looking at the playground area that contained children playing, with his zipper down...," the report said. The woman noted that he was masturbating and quickly ushered her children out of her car.

Here's the kicker: Grant Storms is best-known for his protests of the upcoming Southern Decadence festival a three-day gay festival that's held in the French Quarter every year. Yes, its another one of those self-righteous Christian moralists who feel it necessary to condemn someone's sexual orientation, yet gets his rocks off in other disturbing ways, like the one that was just mentioned.

In his defense, i'm certain sure Lucifer made him jerk his dick off to little Bobby and Suzie playing in the sandbox.

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.

There's Actually Nothing To Add...

...except that I don't think the author of the below post at Fundies Say The Darndest Things is going to the Build-A-Bear Workshop any time soon. Such new heights (or, perhaps, lows) of paranoid idiocy!

- - - - - - - - - -

A couple had a one-eyed stuffed large frog named “Max”. After some period of time they began to talk about him as if he were a family member. Max sat on a bookcase and eventually the couple “noticed his eye” seemed to be looking at them. God revealed the demonic properties of Max, he was trashed and the curses broken that demons had put on the frog.

There are recorded cases where frightened children had terrifying nightmares and upon checking their room it was discovered the child had dolls and stuffed animals in the room. When these items were removed there came a calm and peace to the child and his bedroom.One very demonic item should never be in any child's bedroom or nursery - the "Dream Catcher". Always a deadly curse.

A serious issue with dolls is that many times the child develops a “relationship” with the doll, teddy bear or stuffed animal. The doll or animal becomes a playmate to the child. Some deliverance cases revealed that children actually talking to their dolls and some dolls talking back to the child ( talking back was the demon in the doll ). Look at the word IDOL and you can see the letters spelling dol. Relationships are built between people, not with dolls, puppets or stuffed animals.

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.

The War On Christmas Stockings

Via Right Wing Watch we are linked to a tale from Calgary, of how the local Salvation Army "Captain," one Pam Goodyear, has summarily banned from the donation barrel anything that she thinks smacks of witchcraft or the occult. Twilight, Harry Potter, ouija boards, even something as simple as a rabbit's foot - all kaput!

Now, the scandal is not that the Salvation Army - aka "Sally Ann" - would not like these things included in the thousands of gift bags they prepare each year. That comes as no surprise. (And, in fact, it's only in Calgary that this applies - by no means is it a nationwide policy of the SA.) What is at issue is the fate of the unwanted donation items:

The toys and stuff Goodyear bans is supposedly given to other agencies. However, there are conflicting reports online that a Calgary Sally Ann staff member told a volunteer to toss wizardry, vampire and werewolf themed stuff and that the Calgary Sally Ann didn’t pass them to other agencies to distribute.

Where it gets really interesting is in the comments on the original story. Apart from one or two posts simply stating that the items SA would prefer not to include should be made absolutely clear up front, so that toys that some not-so-holier-than-thou kids might enjoy will find welcome homes rather than being scrapped, it's become a mini Bible-thumping hoedown that would do Bill War-on-Christmas O'Reilly proud!

Here are a few [sic. throughout] examples:

Its not “what they think” its what God has revealed in scripture and that is that the occult powers are real and we have to in no uncertain terms avoid and abstain from sorcery. And it is not wise to promote this abomination to young impressionable children. You want to impress your kind go ahead but who are you to dictate how Christians are to raise their children? Hey! why dont you go tell a high ranking freemason or another occultist like a Satanist that their majick is fictional. Mark down what happens to you every day after this in your journal, if you think it is wise.

It’s a sad day when someone has to defend her efforts to not be party to the corruption of children through the occult and the giving of toys and literature that confuses evil with good. How far we have fallen! It’s also a sad comment on the strength of the Christian witness in our world when people at large don’t even realize why these things are not appropriate to be given to a Christian organization, any more than say pornography would be!

You all did get that “right”? ” Christmas” and not BlackMass or any other occult ‘holi’day or celebration that Witches and Warlocks celebrate. ‘Salvation’ Army not Hells’ Army (witch by the way incorporates atheism). [Ed. Note - I'm sure that spelling of "which" as "witch" is completely coincidental...]

Witchcraft is a whole different matter – its not just about practicing white, or whatever ‘ colour’ witches, its about ‘wrong spirits’ and you don’t mess with wrong spirits END OF STORY.

Got to put this in the same category with the Oklahoma legislator who wouldn't participate in a state "holiday parade" because the terminology was, shall we say, festival-neutral, daring to acknowledge that, no, it's not just Christmas at this time of year. It's also Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Yule/Solstice, and the other more ancient celebrations they themselves co-opted and built on. All Northern Hemisphere cultures and sects have, and have had, some kind of a "hey, the light is returning after all!" event around this time of the year. Reducing it down to any single creed is, from my point of view, just sloganeering. Also, downright Grinchy.

SA doesn't want to hawk Potter or werewolves? Entirely fair. Want nativity pageants at your church or parochial school? Welcome to it - knock yourselves out. Insist that Wiccans celebrate Black Mass and kowtow to Satan? I'll argue with you from a much more informed perspective, but I'm pretty sure it will be pointless and I'll have to leave you to your blessed ignorance in the end.

But let's agree to live side-by-side with other people who might be different from ourselves, and let's agree that it's OK. Peace on Earth, remember? This is a time of gathering and goodwill for people from all walks of life and all flavors of belief, including no belief in a higher power at all.

Proselytize elsewhere and in another season. Give the thumping a "holiday." Or, if you must insist, a "Christmas."

Also, for the record? My reason for not supporting the SA is that the institution as a whole has a history of anti-homosexual bigotry as well as monetary support in that direction. I don't want my pennies supporting that, despite the other good work I am sure they do.

And if you wonder what I think of this post chronicled at FSTDT recently:

Wiccan [sic.] should have their kids taken away. Anyone who isn’t raising their children in a Christian home should have their children taken away, it is mental, emotional and spiritual abuse.

I invite you to try, Thumpers. Bet you run pretty fast in the other direction the moment you get the notion that I'm "looking at you funny."

Christians do a better job than anyone else.

Another round of self-righteous Christians who think they're better than everyone else. This installment comes from John Cook, a member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee who tried to out current Texas Speaker of the House Joe Strauss. Here's the kicker: the Tea Party reactionaries involved didn't want to tear him down because of his political beliefs - the man was one of their own - rather, because he wasn't the correct religion. You see, Strauss is a practicing Jew, and that was a big no-no for Cook and his Tea Party ilk.

“When I got involved in politics, I told people I wanted to put Christian conservatives in leadership positions,” he told me, explaining that he only supports Christian conservative candidates in Republican primary races.

“I want to make sure that a person I’m supporting is going to have my values. It’s not anything about Jews and whether I think their religion is right or Muslims and whether I think their religion is right. … I got into politics to put Christian conservatives into office. They’re the people that do the best jobs over all.”

Of course, Mr. Cook wants the reporter to know that he's not, in any way, shape, or form, a shit-kicking, ignorant-thinkin' bigot. Far from the contrary: He has Jewish friends!

“They’re some of my best friends,” he said of Jews, naming two friends of his. “I’m not bigoted at all; I’m not racist.” [...]

“My favorite person that’s ever been on this earth is a Jew,” he said. “How can they possibly think that if Jesus Christ is a Jew, and he’s my favorite person that’s ever been on this earth?”

When people say some bigoted shit, then say that they're not prejudiced because that person claims he/she has minority friends...isn't that a sure giveaway that you're a bigot?

So Much Crazy, So Little Time...

For variety's sake, I thought it was time for a little old-fashioned fundie-debunking tonight! Trouble is, over at Fundies Say the Darndest Things, I couldn't choose just one... So join me, boys and girls, as we tiptoe through the wasteland. It's not unlike strolling the aisles of your local Wal*Mart, just with less cheap plastic crap from China.

- - - - - - -

Let's start with this post, railing on the horror of encouraging the use of condoms:

Just as there is a direct, organic link between artificial birth control and abortion (do the math -- birth control causes abortion), there is a direct link between the use condoms and the spread of AIDS. Since the US funds population control in African nations, it is funding AIDS.

There are such wide gulfs between the things this poster is trying to link together, it's all but impossible to imagine the sick [sic.] degrees of separation he's trying for. Birth control plus math equals abortion? How does anybody with a shred of sanity get there? And I'd be fascinated to hear an explanation of how condoms spread rather than contain AIDS, but I suppose lvb-rocks had something much more urgent to do, like pray for rain...or a winning lottery ticket...

Let's turn now to this gem from Mr. Evilwrench (I'm guessing that's someone completely different from the folks I take my car to for service):

We're hardly worried that we're against "half" the population when it's a "third" at best, and that only because of intense indoctrination at the hands of the teachers' unions and the leftstream media.

The fact is, the hardcore left is trying to implement policies that are inimical to our very existence, never mind just our interests. You can't compromise with cancer, and you can't compromise with communists. We do not seek to compromise with these psychopaths, and we do not welcome their offers of compromise. It's time for the adults to be in charge.

Name calling works both ways. We've been called all sorts of things by people who then show themselves to be contemptible, so we have no compunction calling them names in turn. For me, the terms "leftards" and "rats" are extremely polite compared to what I think of them. I would pound them into a bloody pulp if that wouldn't be improper. I think they deserve it for what they've done, and they're lucky I'm so polite.

OK, we begin as expected, with demonizing public schools and the media as to blame for kids who turn out to be shits. (Mirror, meet parent: parent, meet mirror.) But then just look at the cognitive dissonance that sets in.

"Policies that are inimical to our very existence"...do you suppose he means health care accessibility, or the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act? Because, you know, being able to maintain your good health without artificial bureaucratic obstacles, and being assured you'll be as well paid as any other equally qualified candidate for your efforts...well, if there were ever two policies running completely counter to my existence, those would be them. Not.

But I was laughing out loud when he started talking about pounding those with whom he disagrees into mush, if it "wouldn't be improper." That's like saying you'd take an automatic weapon to the entire City Council if it wouldn't run counter to good manners. How can you remotely begin to square those two? I guess by claiming later on how "polite" you are. Since, you know, saying it makes it true.

I'm going to skip right over the poster who called Glenn Beck a "poor modrate [sic.] liberal" because there aren't enough psychotic breaks on the planet to begin establishing a basis for that one.

Instead, let's move on to HugsFromJesus and her deep concern for her wayward son, via her adventures on that wasteland of sin, Facebook:

I have a Facebook account only to be able to see photos of my grandson that my DIL will post. I have never posted on my FB account at all, as I don't like Facebook, I think it is the Devil's playground. I know it can be used as a witnessing tool, but i think it does more harm than good. Too many people have been hurt, the same with My Space and Twitter. People can post things as fast as they think them without filtering and with the way the world is today, so intolerant and hateful, it is dangerous.

Anyway,I looked at my DIL's Facebook today and she was high fiving Jon Stewart and saying "great job Jon"...blah blah!! Last week she was on the gay bandwagon and about how rotten the small minded people are that don't want gays together and for them to back off the gays and we are all bigots.

My son doesn't even know how to log on to FB, he doesn't do that stuff and he is very conservative. She was always moderate, but now she is going off the deep end. I don't think my son and DIL talk politics among themselves, he always says she doesn't keep up with things so he saves those conversations for our side of the family, his work friends and personal friends so I wonder if he knows how crazy liberal his wife is getting on FB.

I am upset, but all I can do is pray for her. My son is saved but he needs a strong Christian to encourage him, he has fallen away. Why he married a lapsed Catholic, I'll never know!!

She does actually say something I can agree with - that the immediacy of vehicles like Facebook coupled with an environment of intolerance can be dangerous. Though I'm sure she doesn't understand how greatly my reading of that differs...

It's the classic mother-in-law meddling of "does he know how 'crazy liberal' she is getting..." that bothers me. As though he somehow has the right and/or obligation to dictate her politics. That way lies disaster. (I say this as the sibling of a sister whose former in-laws were of a very fundie bent in this respect. Her mother-in-law would always deliberately lose board games when playing with her preacher husband, just to stoke his ego. Unbelievable!)

Keep your nose out, Mom - that's all.

And, in closing - because it's late - we'll take on a post with a refreshing brevity and, in fact, honesty:

You don't get it, do you?

We're not Homo sapiens -- we're real men.

Can't disagree at all, pal. Well, maybe with that last. But it's true enough that you have nothing remotely "sapiens" going on that I can see. Please continue flinging your own poo at one another while actual thinking people take care of business.

Remember to set your clocks back, everybody, and enjoy the extra hour tonight!

Jeremiah's Pal Doesn't Like Spicy Meatballs!

I was so excited for a while - popped over to Jeremiah's place, and there was a new post! Maybe he would now be fretting about an objectionable ad in a local paper in, say, South Dakota, having already "done" billboards. Sadly, no - it was Jer's (perhaps only) online friend, "Objective Scrutator." He seems to have a thing for the Italians much akin to Ralph's anti-Irish tirades. I guess faith-based bigotry isn't enough for them all on its own. Let's listen in.

Previously, I noted that Christine O'Donnell engaged in feminist activities in the past, and refuses to renounce her previous actions. Now, we learn that she picked Christianity as her faith by Italian intricacies:

Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell says she tried "every other kind of religion," including witchcraft and Buddhism but became a Christian because of her love of Italian food.

"I would have become a Hare Krishna, but I didn't want to become a vegetarian," O'Donnell said in an interview with Bill Maher in 1999. "And that is honestly the reason why, because I'm Italian and I love meatballs."

How you get from "meatballs" to "Italian intricacies" is baffling enough. The bit about not renouncing feminism, expected. And I guess he hasn't seen her stunning debut (and spectacularly bad) campaign ad. You know you're starting out from a pretty low point when the first line in the script is "I'm not a witch."

The reason to become a Christian is because it is the One And Only Truth, not because the Bhagavad Gita prevents you from setting a cow on fire and proceeding to devour the charred remains. Professing a love for Italy is also suspicious; after all, the blood relative of Janet Napolitano, that Communist Giorgio Napolitano, currently presides as President of their depraved nation.

You want the Upanishads, OS, not the Gita. But I don't have time to take you through remedial Hinduism 101. As the guy who does the travel ads on MSNBC says, let's move on to Italy.

Suspicious, you say? Because someone you disapprove of has the same last name as someone else you disapprove of? And happens to be Italian? Say on! This is gonna be good.

The depravity of the nation of Italy extends into the very roots of their cheesy and stringy culture, ranging from anti-Christian bigotry from strumpets such as Sabina Guzzanti to harlotry and lasciviousness from their singers such as Anna Tatangelo. Their abandonment of supporting America in the War on Terror is also to be highly condemned. Despite Wikipedia's liberal bias, I must link to this article which shows that Italy was the primary supplier of WMDs for Saddam Hussein. Need I even mention Mussolini and his atheistic doings? (His former supporters, to this day, still claim that Mussolini's concentration camps were great places to be.) Need I even mention that it was an Italian government which executed Jesus Christ?

OK, "cheesy and stringy" culture? I presume he's referring to pizza and to string bikinis, both common features of the Italian landscape. (Never mind that this is also the country that surrounds the Vatican, where you better wear long sleeves or get expelled by the guys in funny pants who follow the orders of the guys in the fancy dresses.) The "strumpets...harlotry and lasciviousness" is also to be expected, a clearly telegraphed signal that not even the lunch-lady type at his local IGA deli counter would put out for OS. The Italian government/Christ thing? Kind of a stretch, frankly, unless you want to adhere to maps that still include Prussia or, more likely, Macedonia.

But I cry absolute foul on the link (not shown here, but you can get to it from Jeremiah's place) that supposedly proves Italy fed Hussein's non-existent WMD program. It documents Italy's support for Iraq... during the IRAN-Iraq war. Even follow-on links on the notoriously-unreliable Wikipedia show that in the same conflict, the U.S. supported Iraq right alongside Italy, while Iran continued to have the benefit of military aid supplied to that country by the U.S. at the height of the Iran-Contra scandal. Facts are not optional, pal.

Clearly, Italy is not a model country, and not a model for "Christ"ine to convert to Christianity. Indeed, her love for the country which killed Jesus and several of His kinsmen is a not-so-subtle pretext for what she intends to do to Christianity [my emphasis] if she is given a chance.

And what, pray tell, would that be? Sit everyone down to a hearty plate of fettuccine marinara in church halls (since he seems to suggest her love of Italian food equates to support for all things Italian, so what better way to indoctrinate the impressionable Sunday schoolers)? Advocate for all sermons to be sign-language-interpreted topless by a buxom Italiana? Demand that Nascar add a Vespa-racing/Bible-quoting marathon to their schedule?

A President Mike Pence should haul this Wiccan idolatress out into the stockades, and encourage the public to pelt her with hard meatballs. The meatballs will only be the first bits of fire and brimstone she will face.

First, hit a dictionary and look up "stockade." Second...still on the Wicca? Better be careful, there, OS. After all, (dons Margaret Hamilton pose) I can cause accidents, too! (And, no, I'm not green. Though, unlike your nemesis Christine, I am a witch.) And...Mike PENCE? He has about as much legitimate shot at the Presidency as...well, as Christine O'Donnell.

The footnote below from OS refers to one of the "strumpets" linked to in his post, and he states:

"While I don't care about the Pope being insulted, I am offended at her insults; they are used in a context which mocks Christian teachings about Hellfire and sodomy, and should be refudiated by all good Christians."

"Refudiated." Way to go, there, brainbox.

FSTDT Outdoes Itself

OK...usually I can't bear not to deconstruct the nonsense at Fundies Say The Darndest Things in excruciating detail. But there were two back-to-back, appearing today, where the lunacy really does speak for itself, rendering my very brief comments almost unnecessary. Behold!

Quote# 76430

[After referencing articles about astronauts becoming slightly taller in low gravity.]

Therefore, it should be of no conflict with science to claim that Adam's size, or man's initial size on earth in general, was in the neighborhood of 90 feet tall, or that the first human-race ever walked on earth was around 90 feet tall, give or take 10 to 20 feet between the creatures' differences in heights as we today have people as tall as 7 feet and as short as 2 feet tall. The reason for this is simply because the planet earth was much smaller than what it is now.

I guess it all depends on your definition of what a "foot" is. Though they are usually also very big on insisting on six 24-hour days' worth of Creation. Heh. I have this hilarious picture in my mind now of a 90-foot-tall guy in a loincloth, running around the equator in, like, a total of a dozen strides, treating the Earth like some kind of celestial treadmill.

Quote# 76415

Homosexuals are unable to breed on their own. The only way to increase their numbers is by stealing other peoples children.
Parents had better start paying attention to whats going on in the schools. Bad company corrupts good character.

The first thing the public school does to the children is teach them to disobey their parents. The school will do an innocent lice check - for the health of the children - but they'll use the same comb on all of them. When the kids complain because their moms told them never to share hair brushes, the kids get sent to the principal for their disobedience. Next comes an art project that requires putting a plastic bag over their heads. All these simple things add up. Eventually, the school "proves" that "parents are wrong".

Oh, the peril of lice-checks, art projects, and that most abhorrent of anti-Old Testament garb - worse even, my friends, than the mixing of wool and cotton in your attire - plastic bags on heads. (And, come to that, wouldn't most elementary schools try to teach the kids that putting a plastic bag on your head is a BAD idea? Like those warnings on dry cleaning bags?) Don't ever tell this poster about the bedbug scare in NYC, everybody. He or she might well explode.