I have a mouth, so I guess I must scream

There are a lot of things wrong with American society. Poverty, inequality, racism, sexism, crumbling infrastructure, selfish foreign policy, inadequate healthcare, insane incarceration rates, environmental pollution, gun violence, pitifully underfunded education systems…the list goes on and on. But these things are all very, very hard to fix. Even the simplest of those problems couldn’t be corrected in less than a very hard fought decade. But I want to look like I’m changing the world, without actually, you know, changing the world. So what should I do?

I know! I’ll write long screeds attacking pop culture! Attacking movies and music is so easy. Everyone sees movies , so I don’t have to explain anything complicated like long term economic trends or the greenhouse effect.  I just have to point at something on a screen and say “See? Look! Bad!” That way, I can pat myself on the back for making a difference, while not actually putting out any of the effort required to actually make a difference. Thanks, CNN!

Editor’s note: Lewis Beale writes about culture and film for the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and other publications. He has taught writing about film at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Keep this in mind as we go through this guy’s article. He teaches writing. In real life. To actual students.

In the latest “X-Men” film, Magneto levitates RFK stadium and drops it around the White House; the stadium is destroyed.

In “Godzilla,” the monster fights off what looks like the entire U.S. military while he flattens both Honolulu and San Francisco. And in the new Tom Cruise film, “Edge of Tomorrow,” opening Friday, Paris is left underwater after an alien attack, and a futuristic D-Day-like invasion leaves a French beach strewn with dead bodies and smoldering war materiel.

There’s plenty more mayhem to come as this season’s glut of blow-’em-up flicks rolls out: “Transformers: Age of Extinction” (aliens drop a cruise liner on a city), “Guardians of the Galaxy” (outer space vehicles liquefied by the dozens), “Hercules” (the title character fights off lions, sea monsters and a whole army of bad guys) and “The Expendables 3” (Sly Stallone and gang; train rams into prison).

Entertainment Weekly recently referred to it as “the summer of destruction.”

But let’s call it what it is: destruction porn.

When writing, you want to have some kind of theme linking together the various threads of your prose. Mr. Beale’s parenthetical statements attempting to establish his theme are what I would call “reaching”. “Outer space vehicles liquified by the dozens”? “[T]he title character fights off lions, sea monsters and a whole army of bad guys”? What the fuck? How exactly are these things linked?

What genuinely irks me, though, is that final sentence. He’s treating the term “destruction porn” like it’s an actual phrase in the English language that means something. Like it has a definition, or that anyone anywhere agrees on what counts as “destruction porn”.

“____ porn” has become the new “-gate” suffix of bad writing. It used to be, if you couldn’t come up with anything original to say, you just find some scandal and call it “[blank]-gate”.  Today, if you’re a hack with nothing to say, just find something that you know little about but think is over-indulgent, and call it “[blank] porn”. The Saw movies are “torture porn”. 50 Shades of Grey is “mom porn”. News coverage of weeping relatives of tragedy victims is “grief porn”. Fucking pathetic.

Like real porn, these movies play to our most atavistic instincts.

That’s not what “atavistic” means. A dolphin with hind limbs is atavistic. Our ancient ancestors millions of years ago couldn’t possibly have thrilled at skyscrapers crumbling or spaceships blowing up, because none of those things existed millions of years ago.  Get a fucking dictionary.

And where the fuck did you get the idea that “real porn” (whatever that is) is atavistic? People don’t have sexual urges any more? Jerking off is a thing of the past? Modern life, right now, doesn’t involve sexual indulgence? What planet do you live on?

They all include some sort of buildup, the titillation of expectation that really bad, but cool, things are about to happen. They generally climax — pun intended …

This guy teaches writing.

…with a massive set piece of CGI carnage. And like real porn, afterwards we’re supposed to feel deliriously fulfilled and exhausted.

I don’t think you know how “real porn” works. Maybe you feel “deliriously fulfilled and exhausted” after stroking yourself, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what they were going for. What the hell does “deliriously fulfilled” even mean?

Additionally, the fact that you keep using the term “real porn” is a pretty clear indicator that you damn well know the term “destruction porn” is bullshit.

Fact is, we should hate ourselves for feeling this way, as if we’d just had really bad sex.

Writing professor, folks. Calling Dr. Freud.

But that’s not the reaction destruction porn elicits.

Can’t imagine why it doesn’t elicit your perverted reaction in most people. Maybe delirious fulfillment followed by self hatred just isn’t in vogue.

Even worse, we’re exporting this American blood-lust globally, giving outsiders the impression of a country that has totally gone over to the Dark Side.

Star Wars references kinda undermine what you’re going for here. Or does Alderaan not count as destruction porn?

It’s not as if there hasn’t been massive carnage in the movies before this. Hollywood has produced plenty of war films, ecological disaster flicks and alien invasion epics in the past. But the sheer frequency of destruction porn these days — at least 11 movies of this type in summer 2012 (“The Avengers,” The Dark Knight Rises,” etc.) and 12 during the same season last year (“White House Down,” “World War Z,” etc.)…

11 movies in 2012 and 12 in 2013. Please note that he’s throwing out these numbers without ever defining what counts as a “destruction porn” movie, and without ever specifying which movies fit his non-existent criteria, or how any movie possibly could. There were precisely 11 of such movies in 2012, but he won’t bother to explain where that number came from. These are entirely made up statistics. Well, I can do the same thing. I just created a new category called “Shitfuck journalism from hacks”. CNN published precisely one such article which I’m looking at right now.

…and our delight in seeing things blown up, should make us worry about the mental health of society.

Public schools failing, gun violence, suicide…no, wait, fuck all that shit. We should be worried about The Avengers. That’s the important shit.

Idiot.

Movies have always reflected the anxieties of their age. In the 1950s, we had plenty of nuclear paranoia films,often featuring mutated life forms. (Can you say “Godzilla”?)

Can YOU say Godzilla? You keep bringing up this imaginary entity called “destruction porn” as if it’s something new. Have you seen any classic Godzilla films ever? Do I need to explain to you the whole “Guy in rubber suit smashing cardboard buildings” leitmotif of the entire series?

But the recent spate of films seem to reflect a collective psychic collapse.

What the hell is a “collective psychic collapse”? Who the fuck watches Maleficent and thinks, “Yup. Collective psychic collapse.”?

Sure, there are reasons for this: fear of terrorism, the insecurity created by all those mass murders, like the recent episode in Santa Barbara. We feel that world has gotten even more chaotic. That there’s too much of everything. That society has gotten way too complicated, with too many people, too much technology, too many opposing ideologies clashing against each other.

Look at me! I’m vaguely aware of modern political issues! And I get paid to express that never-more-than-vague awareness with statements like “all those mass murders”! I teach writing!

I’m the 700 billionth person to point out that modern life has complications that didn’t exist in the past! I have absolutely nothing beyond that regurgitation to contribute to the discussion, but CNN needs to fill up space, so here I am!

It recalls the classic 1959 dystopian novel “A Canticle For Leibowitz,” by Walter Miller Jr., in which the end of industrial civilization is referred to as “the Simplification.” It’s as if we’re preparing for a global meltdown.

In your writing classes, do you ever address hyperbole?

And the summertime, when we’re supposed to be mellowing out,…

Who’s the fucking “we” in this sentence? The next time you eat at a restaurant, tell the over-worked and under-paid waiter that “we” are supposed to “be mellowing out” since it’s summer, and see what kind of reaction you get. My guess is it’ll be something along the lines of, “I’m smiling because if you don’t tip me, I starve.”

…is a perfect time for Hollywood to exploit our growing appetite for this kind of carnage. There are two specific reasons for this: Most filmgoers are in the under-40 demographic, looking for a night out away from the heat and to put their brains on pause — and believe me, there’s nothing more mindless than watching stuff blow up.

I can think of something more mindless.

The second reason is the importance of the foreign market, which now accounts for nearly 70% of total box office gross.

Our global neighbors tend to go for what we do best, which is make big budget films with state-of-the-art special effects, a minimum of dialogue (explosions speak a universal language) and lots of mayhem. Lots. Just to take two recent examples: the just-opened X-Men film has grossed $168 million in the U.S., and twice that much overseas. And the new “Captain America” flick — “Captain America,” no less! — has grossed $255 million domestically and a whopping $454 million overseas.

America: A country where scenes of mass destruction are the norm, and carnage is preferred over peace, love and understanding.

Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious douchebag.

If you actually bothered to watch and think about the movies, rather than pontificate like a self-righteous blowhard, you’d see the themes in both X-Men and Captain America. X-Men is a metaphor for the gay rights movement, while Cap is about the surveillance state and the bullshit notion that we have to sacrifice our freedom and privacy for security. Neither film is subtle in this regard. They wear their metaphors on their sleeve. If you took two fucking seconds to think about it, you’d see it. But that’s asking way too much from you, Dr. Writing Professor.

Oh, and I can’t help but notice the term “global neighbors”. What other fucking neighbors do we have? What’s the difference between “global neighbors” and just plain fucking “neighbors”?

Is this the kind of negative image of America we want to export?

Better explosions than pretentious douchenozzles.

And sure, we all know that “It’s only a movie,” but don’t kid yourself: When we get geeked at the leveling of entire cities, it says something about who we are, and where our society is going.

No. It says something about who you are that this is the kind of thing you judge other people for.

And you’d think after 9/11 and the never-ending mass murders in this country we would be a bit more sensitive to scenes where cities are destroyed and thousands of lives lost, but the opposite seems to have taken place: We wallow in it. We cheer it. Like porn, we can’t take our eyes off it. It’s seductive and incredibly addictive.

Your presumptuousness is much more offensive to me than any explosion in a make-believe movie. “You’d think”. Fuck you. The difference between you and me is that I do actually think. Hey, Dr. Writing Professor and Film Critic, did you ever notice how the original Godzilla came out in 1954, just 9 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki got nuked? Did your tiny little pea brain ever consider the idea that movies are artistic expression, and that they reflect these societal anxieties precisely because that’s what art does? Yes, filmmakers are expressing their feelings about 9/11, and audiences are responding. You can see that in many modern films. This isn’t something new. It’s how art works.

Wish fulfillment? Catharsis? Just good old entertainment? It really doesn’t matter. While we’re in the grips of whatever social psychosis is stoking this ravenous appetite for mayhem, Hollywood will be happy to oblige.

You really are a complete tool, aren’t you?

You managed to write 1,000 words without ever saying a thing. You excel at speculation, allegation, and sensationalism, while stridently avoiding anything that even resembles actual fucking journalism. You pass judgment on others for the specific purpose of generating a headline. You invent terms without ever bothering to define them. You then invent numbers because numbers look like science and reason and that makes dumb people think you’re credible. You use pop psychology to make it look like your verbal diarrhea is actual human thought. And you do all this in the hopes that you’ll stimulate CNN’s audience into irrational fear of an imaginary problem, just so you can do it again next week.

You write news porn.

Intelligent Imbecility

There are lots of ways to promote bigotry and ignorance. The easiest and most obvious is to just run around shouting “Fuck faggots!”, which accounts for 90% of internet traffic. Another is to declare that you heard from an invisible, silent being that exists…somewhere…that faggots are bad and don’t deserve equal rights. Another is to assert that it’s just your belief that faggots are evil, and how dare you insult my beliefs (which are insulting to other people) (oh, and I want my beliefs enshrined in the law)?

The problem with these approaches is that the public is catching on to them. Stupid can’t hide for long, and more and more people are saying “Fuck your beliefs” and giving gays equal rights anyways. “Damn it!” says the bigot. “I have to deny people their rights, but I can’t do it by being an obvious dumbfuck any more! Whatever shall I do?” The answer is provided, luckily for the bigot, in today’s Washington Post. You gotta be a sneaky dumbshit bigot. You gotta take what you think the opposition believes (which is, of course, nothing like what the opposition actually believes–you are a dumbfuck bigot after all!) and turn it around on them! You gotta be, not really clever, but what you imagine to be clever in your tiny little pea brain. You gotta be an intelligent imbecile.

Behold.

Is gay marriage really progressive?

  • By Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman
  • February 20 at 6:38 am

Ha! Take that, liberals! We put a question mark in our title! That should fill you with doubt about your own beliefs. ‘Cause that’s how intelligent imbecility works. We’re tricky and shit.

Same-sex marriage advocates, and their lawyers, cite Jefferson’s “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to underscore everyone’s right to marry without state interference. Last week, they successfully challenged Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Given current legal trends, there seems little doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree with U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s ruling. Gay rights advocates believe this ruling is a major progressive advance.

I’m a gay rights advocate, and when I heard about that ruling the first thing I thought was, “Major Progressive Advance.” Except for the part where I never thought any such thing. Actually, my first thought was, “The bigots are gonna shit themselves,” and boy oh boy was I right.

We ask: Why is this progressive?

No you don’t. You never asked that. This is just a bullshit rhetorical device for you to try to make yourselves look smart while spouting idiocy. The only people you’re fooling with this shit are people who were already dumb enough to agree with you before you even wrote a word.

Or put another way: Why is giving the government more power over your personal life, as opposed to less, considered progressive?

Why are loaded, deliberately misleading questions the things you beat your wife with?

Oh, I’m sorry, was that out of line? I should have known you would never beat your wife. You just take out your frustrations by raping and murdering a hooker. My bad.

See? I can make up passive aggressive dogshit about other people and spout it without blinking! Publish me, Washington Post!

The government gives legal benefits to people in marriages that the government recognizes. All gay people are asking is that they receive the same benefits. It’s not that fucking hard to understand. This doesn’t involve government controlling their personal lives. But singling out gay people specifically to ban them from certain benefits? That DOES involve government interfering with people’s personal lives. No fucking duh.

Ironically, it may turn out that gay marriage advocates are trying to further cement a dangerous philosophical trend that they would normally see as conservative, retrogressive or even reactionary.

Ironically, there’s no irony here, since you’re just pulling this out of your tightly puckered asshole.

Gay marriage advocates believe the progressive position is to require every marriage to get the same governmental blessing. But this is actually not a progressive or liberating posture at all.

The right approach for those who believe in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” freed from government control is self-evident: no government control over marriage.

This is becoming the new right wing way to promote straight privilege. They ignore all the legal benefits of marriage (hospital visitation, shared tax forms, tax benefits, etc.) and act like marriage is nothing but a word. But I guarantee you–if either of these guys’ wife is in the hospital, they’ll damn sure take advantage of the “government control” that lets them visit her. And when these two fucking nitwits file their taxes, they’ll damn sure let “government control” give them some marriage-based tax credits.

Which is to say, they’ll glad spew empty words about “government control over marriage” in a rag like the WaPo. That’s just words. But the moment it affects their real lives, everything they’re saying goes right down the shitter.

The same-sex marriage position requires first accepting the government’s right to sanction marriage.

It obviously doesn’t. It requires recognizing that straight couples get benefits that gays don’t. It requires recognizing how fucking unfair that is. It also requires knowing a right wing bullshit artist when you see one–and I see two that the WaPo decided deserved to have their verbal fecal matter spread to the entire country.

Moreover, advocates don’t merely agree to give government this power, they accept a state’s right to discriminate. The federal court decision overturning Virginia’s gay marriage ban is premised on the state failing to provide a sufficient reason for discriminating between couples wanting to get hitched. This presupposes the right of the government to sanction marriage. Ironically, this is the position of the supposedly conservative traditional marriage defenders.

Go back and read that paragraph again. The first sentence is supposed to tell us what the latter sentences will demonstrate. Read it. The first sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything that follows. Read it again. I challenge you to explain how the first sentence is even tangentially related to anything that follows.

Keep in mind: The WaPo published this illogical garbage. And the WaPo is purportedly a respectable newspaper. Yeah, fucking right.

But the really important point to keep in mind here is PRIVILEGE. These two fuckheads have probably taken advantage of marriage rights numerous times.  They just take it for granted. Pick up your kids from school? Sure, Mommy and Daddy are married, and legally that’s all that’s required to retrieve your kids from school (even if they aren’t your biological children). They don’t even think about it. The only reason they can flippantly tell gays “Just don’t get legal recognition” is that they’re so used to legal recognition that they can’t even realize they have it any more.

Trust me, no married couple would ever voluntarily give up the legal benefits they enjoy. Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman are no different.

While the Supreme Court has made other important rulings on marriage in the past, no jurist ever suggested disagreement with state laws banning same-sex marriage — until recently.

It’s never been done before, so why do it now?

(Nota bene: This exact same argument could have been made against inter-racial marriage 60 years ago.)

Gay rights lawyers say such decisions were wrong, surely by today’s standards. We ask: What is progressive about conditioning the state’s right to sanction marriage on changeable judicial attitudes?

You don’t ask that. You’re not asking anything. Stop pretending that you’re capable of thought.

Anyone who reads this can see exactly what you’re doing. The bigots have lost the gay marriage debate on one front after another, so now you just wanna take your ball and go home. Just end legal marriage entirely! That oughta go over well! I’m sure the step-fathers out there who no longer have legal guardianship over their step-children won’t mind at all! Right wingers are smart!

The more principled approach, which is consistent across the philosophical spectrum, is leaving marriage to the religious and family institutions from whence it came.

What philosophical spectrum? Is there even such a thing as a philosophical spectrum? I’ve been studying philosophy since 2000, and I’ve never encountered any such thing.

Privilege is again at play here. What Leahy and Goldman are really asking is, “Can’t we just let the church (which already excludes gays) give us all the benefits and tell everyone who’s not like us to fuck off?” No, shithead, you can’t. It doesn’t work that way. Marriage is a civil contract. It has been for a very long time. And I know, you really want all the benefits to yourself, even if sharing them with others won’t cost you a thing. That’s because you’re suffering from a common disorder known in psychiatry as Being An Asshole.

Marriage existed long before there were government bureaucrats looking to raise revenue by collecting license fees.

Yeah, that’s why the government recognizes marriages. The tiny fees they get from licenses.

https://i0.wp.com/affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/brilliant_cigar1.jpg

If a person meets whatever common sense, minimal legal requirements are established for people to wed — such as those related to age, health, mental capacity or banning incest — why should government approval be required?

That’s what the gays are asking. You seem to have missed this part.

You see, STRAIGHT marriages don’t require government approval. Wanna get married? Sure, why not. It’s not like there’s an exam. As long as you’re straight, you get married. Simple as that.

All gays are asking is that they be treated the same way.

If gay rights advocates truly believe marriage is a protected, inalienable right, then they should be in court arguing against state-sanctioned marriage per se.

It’s not that gays are destroying traditional marriage, it’s that they SHOULD be destroying traditional marriage. See how subtle and nuanced these bigots are becoming?

What about the traditional marriage position – that defining these unions is up to the states and that states have a vested interest in promoting traditional families? It runs counter to the conservative belief in limited government.

The true conservative position should be to let the church control everything. Christian hegemony for the win!

Same-sex couples are generally no better or worse at parenting than those with different sexual orientations. Limiting marriage on procreation grounds, even if legal, is a slippery slope that would trample the Constitution and personal liberties in a way worthy of China, not America.

That’s the only point in this op-ed where these two say anything even vaguely rational. But then they fuck it up by going, “China! Amiright?”

Most important, a marriage license is derivative, not the basic right at issue. If the right to marry is inalienable, then the government needs to stop seeing it as another revenue raiser or privilege creator.

We should just leave it to religious institutions! They secure privilege much more hatefully than the government ever could!

In practical effect, all same-sex marriage proponents are claiming is their inalienable right to be required to pay a marriage fee like everyone else.

How the fuck did this sentence make it past an editor?

All they’re claiming is a fee? So hospital visitation isn’t part of legal marriage? And neither is guardianship of children? What about inheritance rights? Adoption? Tax credits? Spouse benefits for insurance plans?

No, none of that exists. Well, it all does exist, but Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb are so caught up in their own privilege that they stupidly don’t even realize how much legal benefit they get from marriage. They think they can just erase the entire legal structure of the marriage cake and still get all the frosting. Well, sorry, fucknuts. It doesn’t work that way. If you actually got your way, you’d have no legal basis on which to claim you can visit your wife if she’s dying in the hospital. Think about that–if you ever even think at all.

Look, I’m not saying all conservatives are stupid. I’ve met a few smart ones. But too many of them are complete idiots. And the worst type of conservative idiot is the one who masters the English language just enough to make an argument that might be mistaken for rational human thought if viewed from a thousand miles away through layers of skin-melting fog. In other words, the one who’s able to gussy up his imbecility with just enough false erudition to be published in an overrated rag like the WaPo.

I’m not laughing with you…

I’m not going to sugarcoat it. The Editorial and Letters to the Editor pages at the Daily Oklahoman are just fucking pathetic. It’s just sad that the largest newspaper in my home state publishes such utter dribble. To me, they’re rarely good for anything more than a laugh. So I figured, I might check in and see what kinds of things make them laugh

Ten Commandments critics’ claims laughable

Ha ha! Those silly people who think we should have to follow the Constitution! It’s so laughable! Who needs the Constitution when we have totally non-laughable things like the Bible, which says important things like this:

2 Kings 18:27

But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Serious shit, people.

We’ve raised questions about the wisdom of installing a Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma Capitol — not because we disagree with the commandments’ content, but because limited taxpayer dollars will likely be wasted on an unsuccessful legal defense.

You don’t disagree with the commandments’ content? Not even this one?

Exodus 20:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

So you’re totally cool with slavery and men treating their wives like property? ‘Cause the author of that verse clearly is.

The U.S. Supreme Court has sent mixed signals, upholding some Decalogue monuments but ruling against others. Monuments passing court review have been components of larger, long-standing historical displays. The Oklahoma monument is a stand-alone item, likely undermining state arguments for its constitutionality.

A perfectly sensible paragraph. If only everything you wrote were like this. But the sense and rationality bus comes to a screeching halt and explodes in a ball of fiery pettiness and bad logic from here on out.

Even so, the claims of some critics are laughable. This week, New Jersey-based American Atheists Inc. and Oklahoma residents Aimee Breeze and William Poire filed a lawsuit challenging the monument. Breeze regularly travels to the Capitol during legislative sessions. As a result, the complaint claims that she’s “confronted” by the Ten Commandments display, which she finds “hurtful and exclusive.”

Seriously? The monument is on the north side of the Capitol. The main parking lot is on the south side. The main pedestrian entrances are on the south, east and west sides. To actually see the monument, you’d have to go looking for it. If Breeze is being “confronted” by the display, she’s deliberately going out of her way to experience this allegedly “hurtful” situation.

Where the hell do you get the balls to call other people’s arguments laughable when this is the putrid shit you spew?

“We put the monument on a side of the building where there are fewer people. If there are fewer people, then there are no people, and no one ever has a reason to go to it. Therefore, I get cupcakes!”

That’s the best I can do to parse out the illogical dumbfuckery on display here. Hey, Daily Oklahoman, how the fuck to you know which side of the building she goes to while she’s there?  Were you there? Do you know her? Do you know her routine? Did you ask her? If the answer to these questions is No (and I’m sure it is), then that last sentence came directly from somewhere between Saturn and Neptune. You have abso-fucking-lutely no way of knowing what her reasons for being on the north side of the building are.

Besides, even if she did go out of her way to see it, how the fuck does that undermine her argument? Rosa Parks got on that bus deliberately looking to get kicked off when she refused to go to the back. Does that make her claim that she was discriminated against “laughable”? Whether she was deliberately looking for it or not, she was discriminated against either way. Why she was there is god damn irrelevant.

And do you seriously expect people to buy this obviously fallacious “If it’s on a side of the building where fewer people go, then the complaints must be illegitimate” crap? If ANYBODY can see it then it’s in a public place and such complaints have at least some legitimacy. A ten year old could see the fucking holes in your logic. I fucking dare you to try an argument like that in court. The judge will likely find it, well, fucking laughable.

The lawsuit also claims the monument establishes a “thought crime” against coveting your neighbor’s wife, and restricts free speech rights through prohibitions on worshipping graven images and taking the Lord’s name in vain. Nonsense! There are no actual state laws against those activities.

Those are their italics. I didn’t put them there. They really want  to emphasize that last point. So here, let me use some italics of my own to emphasize the only rational conclusion any sane person should reach from this:

The Ten Commandments have precisely fuck-all to do with American law.

They came from a society where thoughts COULD be a crime. They came from a society that practiced slavery and traded women like they were fuckable action figures. They came from a society that had no religious freedom at all, no Bill of Rights, and you were taking your life in your hands if you said anything indicating you don’t believe in the Magical Pervert in the Sky.

They. Are. Not. Our. Laws. So what the fuck are they doing at our capitol? And why the fuck are you so confused when someone points out that putting them there is offensive?

Want to “worship” a statue you made in wood shop? Knock yourself out. Want to lust after married women or men? You can do so, although we wouldn’t recommend it.

Want to go to the capitol without being told that you’re inferior and this capitol isn’t really for you? Well too bad, unless you’re Christian or Jewish.

An individual’s actions can be immoral without being illegal, just as a monument can be a bad idea without validating the overwrought claims of its thin-skinned critics.

I really wish the right wing would get that first part through their glacially thick skulls. That would end every single argument against gay marriage.

But the latter half of that sentence is just fucking dumb. The monument at the capitol isn’t just a bad idea. It’s ILLEGAL. And, more importantly, its actual purpose is very, very clear. Apparently, the editors at the Oklahoman don’t read their own letters column, or else they’d already know what the bigots who read their pathetic rag think this monument is for:

The First Amendment doesn’t mandate the Christian faith for each person; however, it does mandate the freedom to worship as one chooses — or not at all. Ten Commandments monuments on public property are a tribute that recognizes our historic, constitutional commitment to the principles and values that the Ten Commandments provide. Other faiths not based on and committed to honoring the Ten Commandments don’t truthfully represent this Christian nation and its commitment to these civilizing principles and values. Neither can their monuments.

Got that? Only Christianity–with its “civilizing” principles–can represent the USA #1 RAH RAH RAH. So we can only put up the 10 commandments. Not, say, the Five Pillars of Islam, or something from Hinduism, or a fucking awesome Satanist statue. Nope, just Christians. They get special treatment. The rest of you don’t even have civilizing principles, you heathen barbarians!

So, no, their claims are not overwrought. The obvious purpose of the monument is to promote Christianity while denying that promotion to every other religious belief, thereby demeaning everyone who isn’t Christian. It’s not laughable for someone to claim to feel hurt by that.

The monument violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by elevating one religion over others and thereby creating an establishment of religion. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing Christians to put up monuments but not Satanists or Muslims or Humanists. Hell, it might even violate the  No Religious Test Clause in Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, if you consider “Guy who puts the monument up” to be an office or trust. That last one’s quite a stretch, I admit. But it’s still better reasoning than the laughable shit the Oklahoman comes up with.

Don’t let the facts get in your way

As soon as I saw the headline, I knew exactly how the religious right would react.

Utah polygamy ruling criticized

And I bet now that you’ve seen it, you do too. First, let’s look at just what this ruling is…

(CNN) – Some social conservatives are blasting Utah’s ruling striking down part of that state’s law banning polygamy.

The suit was brought by the stars of the television reality series “Sister Wives,” and a federal judge’s ruling Friday throws out the law’s section prohibiting “cohabitation,” saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

Got that? “Cohabitation”. As in living together. The law told consenting adults whom they can and can’t live with. Obviously unconstitutional. It remains illegal in Utah to obtain more than one valid marriage certificate, but the law can’t tell you whom you can live with, regardless of marital status.

Cue the froth.

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum – who a decade ago came under fire for comments indicating polygamy would become legal if courts banned anti-sodomy laws – responded to the ruling over the weekend.

“Sometimes I hate it when what I predict comes true,” the former U.S. senator tweeted Sunday.

Sometimes I hate it when Santorum opens his big fucking mouth. Actually, I hate that all of the time. The man is constitutionally incapable of uttering a single sentence that isn’t demonstrably false and/or idiotic and/or bigoted and/or ignorant and/or frothing.

The ruling didn’t legalize polygamy, idiot. It legalized cohabitation, which is something the government has no business meddling with in the first place. How would you like it if the government told you you couldn’t live with the one you loved?

The Family Research Council, led by prominent social conservative Tony
Perkins, also weighed the Utah statute, warning of “serious consequences
of redefining marriage.”

Tony Perkins is just not a human being. He’s a loosely organized collection of god-humper buzzwords with an automatic hair trigger. Did someone mention marriage in any capacity or context? REDEFINING MARRIAGE!

“Throughout history, marriage has been future-oriented, focused on the
next generation and the best interests of children. The reality is that
society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad,” Perkins said
Monday.

And these kids get a mom and a dad…and a mom and a mom and a mom. Just like in those good old Biblical days you claim to believe in so literally.

“However, redefining marriage to fulfill the desires of same-sex couples
or polygamists only moves society away from this vital public interest
and creates social chaos.”

Five hicks in Utah get to live in the same house. They’re still not legally married. The only thing that’s been redefined here is the meaning of “redefined” whenever Tony Perkins blubbers it out.

In striking down the section of the law Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups used a 2003 Supreme Court landmark gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that anti sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

During that Supreme Court ruling a decade ago, Santorum told the Associated Press that bans on sodomy would open the doors to a “right to polygamy” and other sexual acts.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum said in 2003.

If there were no right to adultery, then half the Republican Party would be in fucking prison.

But Waddoups’ ruling keeps in place the ban on bigamy “in the literal
sense – the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two
purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into
more than one purportedly legal marriage.”

Fuck off, facts! We’ve got a narrative to shill!

Some religious groups also criticized the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of this sentence? Is anyone OTHER than religious nuts criticizing it?

“This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and
sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother
and a father committed to each other for life,” said Russell Moore, of
the Southern Baptist Convention.

See how he weaseled that word “divorce” into his lie? This is the verbal equivalent of putting the Republican base in a jar and shaking it to make them fight. It’s all about stimulation, not information. Anyone with half a monkey brain knows that having children was never a requirement for people getting married. Childless marriages have never been illegal in this country. And even if that were the issue, it’s fucking irrelevant because the current case hasn’t altered the marriage laws in any way.

“Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated,
again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is
elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”

Sometimes it hurts women and children. If girls are forced into plural marriages against their will, that’s obviously harmful.

But that’s not an issue of polygamy. ONE forced marriage is bad. Multiple forced marriages are just more of the same bad.

Once again, the real issue here is the one thing that god-humpers refuse to acknowledge: CONSENT. The idea of a woman consenting of her own free will to pretty much anything is antithetical to the misogynistic beliefs that god-humpers desperately cling to. Women and girls can’t self determine. They can’t act and choose under their own power. They have to be sheltered and controlled. So protecting them from sexual predators becomes a matter of controlling other people’s private behavior, rather than punishing those who do things to them without their consent (which is the way it SHOULD be done).

Todays lesson: Every god-humper is a liar. And not everyone who claims to protect women and girls is a feminist.

Stupid fish in a noisy barrel

Wanna know the best way to get a good laugh while simultaneously losing any and all hope for the future of humanity’s intelligence? Read the WingNutDaily letters to the editors page! Let’s start out with the really good shit:

Potty mouth

Wednesday, November 20th, 2013

Martin Bashir’s latest comments about Sarah Palin have literally instituted “potty mouth” journalism.

Literally! Journalists are now literally putting shit in their mouths.

Joe Biden was accidentally caught using potty mouth language, but Martin Bashir, along with Ed Shultz, has elevated potty mouth crazy-talk to new levels.

Are you seriously sticking with this “potty mouth” motif? Remember, this is one conservative talking to other conservatives. And he talks to them like they’re fucking five year olds.  Quite revealing.

Their obscene language simply reflect the obscene politics of their viewers as well as the perverted laws enacted by the lawmakers that they support.

George Green

You forgot to add “time for nappy” to the end of that. Although the irrelevant reference to gays was a nice touch.

Only God can save us

Tuesday, November 19th, 2013

Mr. Joseph Farah, you said it perfectly! You said it sincerely! And, you spoke the truth! [“America’s last chance”]

Yes, we are on the cusp of total destruction as a nation. The criminal-acting members of Congress are running away from their responsibilities. The MSM are aiding and abetting treasonous, criminal acts each and every day. No one is stopping them!

“Whenever we try to stop the media, they keep talking about this thing called the ‘First Amendment’, but that’s unconstitutional!” [Note: I’m using the Right Wing definition of “unconstitutional”, which is basically “Something I don’t like and haven’t attempted to understand.”]

We all know who and what Obama stands for! Beyond any reasonable doubt, Obama is a criminal, a liar, a traitor and is obviously hell-bent on destroying our nation!

“I’m not at all bothered that I’ve written 9 sentences so far without ever once saying anything of any substance! Innuendo and accusations are all I need!”

These are not just idle words. These words are truthful.

Um, actually they’re the fucking definition of idle words, seeing as everything you’ve said has been empty boilerplate.

Yet, our nation is totally paralyzed to act and to save itself from total destruction.

We’re not “paralyzed” so much as we’re “ignoring your paranoid, uninformed blather like it were the sound of a fart during unfulfilling sex.”

Only God can save our nation now!

Jack Sherratt

We’re fucked, then. Might as well place your hopes in Mighty Mouse.

Obama: The ‘enemy within’

Sunday, November 17th, 2013

Yesterday I met a patriot who has a relative in the Army.

When someone refers to a casual acquaintance as a “patriot” in this manner, he might as well have “Jackass” stamped on his forehead.

My new acquaintance has a couple members of his family who are ministers of the gospel like me. They all have the same perspective about End-Time prophecy as me. Because we both have much in common, he opened up to me about something you need to know about.

Blind ignorance finds a tit. Idiocy is more easily maintained in groups, which is why these kinds of dingleberries tend to gravitate together.

His relative was recently asked if he would take an oath of allegiance to Obama.

Well, he’s in the Army, and the President is Commander in Chief of the Army, so that’s not exactly shocking. All soldiers are supposed to take orders from the President. This isn’t exactly new.

He said he would honor his oath to defend our nation, but not to defend Obama.

Who does he think his orders are coming from? If he goes to war to “defend” our nation, who the fuck does he think is sending him there? Jesus himself? John Wayne? The Stay Puffed Marshmallow Man? Seriously. I really want to know who this guy thinks is in charge of the military, because he sure as fuck doesn’t seem to realize it’s the President.

All the other soldiers at his post were also asked to swear allegiance to Obama, too. They gave the same answer that they would only honor their oath to protect the U.S.

All of them. Every single one. I’m sure he’s not exaggerating at all. An entire post is refusing to take orders from the Commander In Chief, which means the whole shebang will soon be court-martialed for insubordination. Riiiight.

None of them were willing to protect Obama because they consider him an enemy within.

What is it with the right wing mind that it can’t just disagree with someone, or just merely not like someone? Look, I get it if some people don’t like Obama. I didn’t like Bush, so I know the feeling of disliking the President. But I never would have claimed Bush WANTED to destroy the country, or that he was a terrorist, or any other hyperbolic bullshit like that. He sucked as President, but that doesn’t make him The Enemy.

But right wingers seem incapable of merely thinking someone is mistaken, or just merely not liking somebody. If they disagree with somebody, their minds immediately leap all the way to “ENEMY”. It’s like everything between “AGREE” and “KILL THE FUCKER” just doesn’t exist in their world.

This is what Hitler did shortly before he became dictator of Germany.

D.S.

Thanks for that, D.S. I was starting to worry that your letter wasn’t quite eating-one’s-own-soiled-underpants crazy enough. I hope those were some tasty undies, buddy.

How dare you call a spade a spade???

You know what bigots hate? Pointing out that they’re bigots. If bigots flew planes, they would never want to be called pilots. If they played football, they’d never want to be called athletes. If they were the lead singer of Seether, they would never want to be called an absolute no talent hack piece of crap on toast. Bigots want to be bigoted, but they sure as buttfuck don’t want the fact that they’re bigots to be spoken aloud. That would be stating a fact, and, as we all know, the facts are biased.

No bias here! AP equates opposition to gay marriage with homophobia

In other startling news, they equated ursine qualities with bears. GAY bears!

Evidently, somewhere along the way, opposition to gay marriage became the same thing as homophobia — at least according to the Associated Press. Here’s a recent AP headline:

AP "anti-gay" headline

The title, is of course, totally accurate, which is why Twitchy (that’s what they call themselves over there…sounds pretty gay…) can’t stand the idea of it being uttered in public.

This past Saturday night, Sen. Rubio spoke at a fundraising dinner for the Florida Family Policy Council, a group that opposes gay marriage. But apparently that story just wasn’t spicy enough for AP writer Brendan Farrington, who felt compelled to suggest that same-sex marriage opponents are “anti-gay.” Because if you aren’t in favor of same-sex marriage, clearly you’re a vicious homophobe.

Bigots always assume that other people’s minds work just like theirs–that is, making the most childishly simplistic inferences then treating them as Gospel Truth. But of course, that’s not the AP’s reasoning at all. One can easily see that Florida Family Policy Council is anti-gay merely by looking at the numerous statements made by their deranged, bigoted fuckhead of a leader (John Stemberger) and the guy this event was honoring (Matt Staver), over the years:

The Florida Family Policy Council announced today that it will host Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) at its 2013 Annual Dinner. The FFPC is led by John Stemberger, the anti-gay activist who most recently helped launch a Boy Scouts splinter group that will ban openly gay youth, and the fundraiser will honor Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver.

….

Stemberger previously chaired Florida for Marriage, which spearheaded the campaign to pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, and founded the anti-gay Boy Scout alternative Trail Life USA. Earlier in his career as a lawyer, he was widely criticized for misconduct in the Rifqa Barry case.

Stemberger has a long record of incendiary anti-gay rhetoric. He:

  • Said that people are gay because they think it is “hip” and “cool.”
  • Alleged that affirming LGBT youth is “tantamount to abuse” and “an abuse to that child.”

We noted Staver’s radicalism and involvement in a kidnapping case in our profile of him for the 2013 Values Voter Summit:

– See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/marco-rubio-headline-anti-gay-fundraiser#sthash.eIcF06oU.dpuf

Wait. What was that last part??? “INVOLVEMENT IN A KIDNAPPING“???

Yes, that is correct. This guy was implicated in an incident when an “ex-gay” woman kidnapped a child rather than let her live in the custody of her evil lesbian ex-partner. He was even named in the RICO suit that alleged a cover up. How much more would he have to do to qualify as anti-gay? Kidnapping lesbians’ children isn’t enough? Can anything short of outright murder of gay people count as anti-gay to the nitwits at Twitchy?

Of course, Twitchy would never acknowledge any of this. AP called them anti-gay because they were “merely” against gay marriage. Because, as we all know, denying a right to gay marriage is the only bad thing the bigots would ever do to gays.

But even if we accept this chowder-headed non-logic from the Twitchy bigots, it’s still bullshit. Yes, dumbfucks, if you oppose gay marriage, that makes you anti-gay by definition. You’re trying to deny gay people equal rights. That is anti-fucking-gay. Just like if you oppose interracial marriage, that’s all it takes to make you a fucking racist. I need know no other fact about you to be able to state such an obvious fact. Any and all people who oppose gay marriage are anti-gay. If you seek to deny some group equal rights, you are against that group. Period.

Sorry if that fucks up your persecution complex and makes you feel all poopy inside. Truth hurts. Fucking deal with it.

How to be a Christian asshole, Part 2

Look at this face.

Ray Comfort: Heartless Assdouche

Ray Comfort: Heartless Assdouche

See him, all smiley and pretend-friendly looking? This is how he presents himself apart from his words. This is the face of the politician who kisses babies when he’s not slashing the Welfare budget that would feed them. This is the face of the used car salesman who isn’t capable of thinking anything other than, “How can I rip this guy off?”

I’ve spoken before about what a loathsome, hideous human being Ray Comfort is. But I want to make sure something is crystal clear. Ray Comfort hates you. He hates your mom. He hates your dog. He absolutely despises humanity and anything that’s good in this world. There is not a fiber of his being that doesn’t want to see you and everyone else burn and die. And until the day comes when we are all immolated and all of human history is dust, his only concern is to find a way to squeeze money out of his gullible Christian followers. He is not capable of thinking or doing anything else. He is composed of cynicism and hatred. He can’t be any other thing. He is the worst thing humanity has to offer. And he probably eats puppies.

He shows it whenever he transitions from plastic smile to using actual words in the English language. Take, for example, his regular column at WingNutDaily, which is called “Atheists Ask”, and which purports to be his answers to questions from “atheists” (which in his vernacular means anyone who doesn’t believe exactly what he believes). His most recent entry, from 2 days ago, shows beyond the shadow of any doubt that he hates each and every one of us.

ATHEISTS ASK

How could a man stone his own son?

Exclusive: Ray Comfort answers biblical questions posed by skeptics

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Any time WingNutDaily claims some story is “exclusive”, that means that it’s so bad that no other news website would ever publish it. This is no exception.

“Deuteronomy 21:18-21: ‘If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.’ – What’s the context of this, Ray?” – Bridgette Patterson

Bridgette is being way, way too nice. Do you really need context to a passage that states that parents should murder their own son? And that the whole town should join in on giving him a painful, tortuous death? There is no context in which that’s okay. None whatsoever. If the Bible commands people to do that (and it does), then the Bible is evil. Full fucking stop.

These kinds of questions are usually answered with mealy-mouthed equivocation and vague excuses by Christians. But not Comfort. Oh, no. He wants you all to know that stoning disobedient children is A-OK with him.

Israeli law was meant to produce fear. And it certainly did because it would seem that no youths mouthed off at or beat and murdered their parents. No doubt they showed respect, because there are no incidents in the entire Bible of any youths being stoned for disobedience to their parents. Again, this was because their criminal law produced a fear of consequences.

You know what society needs? More fucking fear. That sounds great!

I love how he thinks that the Bible not mentioning the victims of this draconian law means that they don’t exist. That’s not how oppression works, Comfort, and you know it. The victims weren’t recorded because they were the dregs of society. They were tortured, murdered, and forgotten, right down the Orwellian memory hole. What are the names of all the people Stalin killed? What are the names of all the people burned as witches in the early modern period? What are the names of all the black people lynched in the United States in the early 20th century? We don’t know. And we never will. The people who killed them didn’t even consider them to be proper humans, and didn’t see fit to record their names any more than they would the names of the cattle or sheep they slaughtered.

At this point, most Christians become moral relativists and say, “Well, things were different back then. So killing your kids was okay in ancient Israel, even though it’s not okay now.” This is because of cognitive dissonance between their barbaric belief system and their upraising as decent human beings. They don’t realize it, but they want to put the Bible’s barbarism in the past and live decently in today’s world. But not Comfort.

In recent years American criminal law has become spineless. It has lost its ability to produce fear. Murder someone and you may get six years in prison and be released in four. Richard Ramirez was found guilty of murdering 13 people. One of his victims was mutilated with multiple stab wounds, and her eyes were gouged out and placed in a jewelry box. On May 30, 1985, Ramirez attacked Malvial Keller, 83, beating her to death with a hammer. For his heinous acts he got free board and food for life and was allowed to get married and have conjugal rights.

When the law isn’t feared you have a nation that has had more than 380,000 people murdered since 1990. You have a nation where mass murder is so commonplace it hardly gets time on the news. Welcome to lawless America – who is afraid to take the life of a guilty mass murderer like Ramirez, but will fight tooth and nail for the right to take the lives of babies in the womb.

I want to emphasize that I am not being hyperbolic in any way when I call Comfort a loathsome human being who is filled with hatred. He lacks the basic decency that causes most Christians to want to find excuses for why the most barbaric shit in the Bible doesn’t apply today. Comfort wants it to apply. He wants people to live in fear, and he wants us to kill more people. He also wants us to put the value of fetuses that don’t have developed brains (and therefore lack experience and personality) over the lives of actual humans who really do have life experience.

Ray Comfort longs for the day when parents could viciously murder their sons. That says all that you ever need to know about him, really. But we can go further in analyzing this.

Note how, when asked for context, his only response is, “People should live in fear.” That’s all the context he needs, and he apparently believes that this is an adequate answer. He honestly thinks that he’s given a sufficient answer to this “atheist’s” question. He is fully in the authoritarian mindset. He read Machiavelli without realizing that Machiavelli wrote The Prince under the premise “Authoritarianism is awful, but if you must be an authoritarian, this is how to do it.”

Anyways, on to the next atheist’s question:

“Ray, you are an idiot. Your opinions on creation have no basis in reality. In order to understand what we are and where we come from we must study every detail of our planet and beyond, not close our minds and [say answers that] were spoon-fed to us by sheep herders that loved slavery and murder.” – Big Mike

I like you, Big Mike.

Studying every detail of nature shows design and order – from the atom to the universe, and that speaks of an initial cause that is unspeakably intelligent. I believe that was God. An evolutionist or an atheist doesn’t know what it was and usually closes his mind to even the possibility of it being God.

I loathe you, Ray Comfort.

No, there is not any sign of design in the atom or the universe. And there is no order in the universe. There is regularity, but that is not the same as order. Just go into any natural setting and look at the way plants grow to see what I mean. Plants will grow in any place that they can. Out of crevices, between randomly strewn boulders, off of other plants. Hell, there’s a pipe 7 feet off the ground against a cinder block wall in my apartment complex, but some dirt got wedged between it and the wall, and a plant grew in the dirt. Of course, it died after a few days. But life can’t predict something like that, because it has no purpose and no order.

Life spreads out wherever it can. It’s like a fluid splashed across the surface of the Earth. It is anything but ordered. It’s beautifully controlled chaos, with the only control being the principles of chemistry that determine its molecular make-up and the imposition of natural selection. No one designed it. Only an idiot would make life the way it is, and that’s part of what makes life so fascinating.

Creationism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism because it wishes to impose false order on something which is much more properly chaotic and free. It is no coincidence that the guy who thinks we should all live in fear is also the guy who thinks that an invisible being micro-manages the universe. He’s just taking his view of how laws should be imposed on humans and applying it to the natural world.

“If I were God, I wouldn’t sentence you to eternal torture just for not worshipping [sic] me. What an evil, egomaniacal god you worship.” – Tristan Miller

Ah, the doctrine of Hell, another Christian precept that many Christians find embarrassing. The reason they find it embarrassing is the same as before. No decent person would ever want to torture someone forever for any reason. Torturing someone forever just because of what they believe is even worse. On some level most Christians realize this, so they try to rationalize Hell away.

But, again, not Ray Comfort.

You are minimizing your crimes against God by just speaking of “not worshipping” Him. The truth is that if you die in your sins you will be damned for lust, lying, fornication, stealing, blasphemy, ingratitude, covetousness, idolatry, etc. You don’t realize it but you have a multitude of sins (as we all have).

Did you know that every single time you have lusted after a woman you have committed adultery as far as God is concerned? Did you know that each time you have done that you are “storing up His wrath”? Think of your secret sins that you thought no one knew about. God has seen them. Every one of them. Think of how many times you have done things you knew were morally wrong – because of the voice of your God-given conscience. He has seen each one, and the Bible says that His just wrath “abides” on you (see John 3:36). That’s why you need a Savior. Please, take the time to do the test on

This is the entirety of Comfort’s answer. Yes, even that broken sentence at the end (at least at the time I’m reading it; maybe they’ll fix it later). WingNutDaily needs a better editor. I have no idea what test Comfort might have been referring to, and honestly don’t give a fuck. Whatever he meant to say before the column got cut off, it was almost certainly just more horribleness.

Comfort is basically just affirming Tristan Miller’s charge. God is an evil egomaniac. Why else would he insist that his wrath abides in us, and condemn us to eternal torment just for masturbating while thinking of Angelina Jolie? Like Ray Comfort, he hates everyone. He’s a judgmental, selfish, arrogant prick, and no one in their right mind would ever worship the Christian God that Ray Comfort describes. God is a wannabe dictator, ruling through fear and intimidation, who wants to control every aspect of your personal life and make you feel constantly guilty and afraid over every single move you make and every thought you think. In other words, he’s just a projection of Comfort’s authoritarian fantasies, a simulacrum of a truly horrible man.