America: Teabagged by God

Over at the WingNutDaily, legendary deep thinker Pat Boone has copiously spewed forth once again on gay marriage, and gifted us with yet another nuanced and erudite rumination on sexual politics in America.

LAW OF THE LAND

Still one nation under God, or not?

Exclusive: Pat Boone prays for ‘9 humans who will decide future of America’

When WingNutDaily calls an article “exclusive”, it can mean only one of three things:
  1. It’s not actually exclusive, and a dozen other websites are reporting it.
  2. It’s actually a thinly disguised advertizement for some charlatan “natural” cure or survivalist claptrap.
  3. It’s an op-ed so stupid, crazy, malevolent, incoherent and/or pointless that no one else would dream of publishing it.
This is definitely an instance of case #3.
Would you allow a doctor, no matter his credentials, to infuse you with pig blood?
Wait, I thought this was about gay marriage… Is pig blood code for dick?
My mother, herself a trained registered nurse, received a pig valve in her heart in her ’80s, and it apparently extended her life to almost 91.
So your mom’s gay? What the hell are you babbling about, Pat?
But pig blood? In her veins, mixing her human blood with that of a pig?
You’re fine with tissue, but incredulous about blood. Okay. Where is this going?
Never! And no doctor worthy of his certificate would ever suggest it.
Fine. I won’t infuse you with pig blood, or dick, or whatever it is you’re going on about.
Why? Because human beings are created different from other animal forms. While we can accept blood from other humans, we dare not corrupt or pollute our human blood with that of any other life form.
A few points:
  1. Ever heard of blood types? You can’t take just any human blood and put it in anybody else.
  2. You can’t put walrus blood in a yak, either. And I don’t see sharks being very receptive to a pig blood transfusion. The immune system would reject it. The fact that you can’t put just any blood in our veins doesn’t exactly make us special.
  3. What the fuck exactly is your point?

Our DNA forbids it, and it’s not negotiable. Messing with our created state is deadly.

Then why are the pig valves okay? Did the DNA just get sloppy?

What is America’s DNA?

An overplayed, Ur-Fascist and essentialist metaphor abused by self-righteous nationalists to disenfranchise those who supposedly aren’t American enough?

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Catch that word, their “Creator”? Our founders knew – and publicly proclaimed – that our rights, and life itself, flowed directly from the power and benevolence of our Creator!

Actually, it’s just a bit of rhetorical flourish that you’re reading way too much into.

And that a democratic republic, unprecedented in human history, must be comprised of, and governed by, individuals who would diligently endorse and obey the rules laid out by that Creator for the continuance of that free society.

Again, a few points:

  1. America was not the first democracy or the first republic or the first mixture of the two. There are these things called Greece and Rome you might want to look into.
  2. If you actually read what the founders such as Jefferson and Madison wrote (rather than just regurgitating fake or out-of-context quotes you get from frauds like David Barton), you’d realize that they were keenly aware of the fact that the will of the “creator” differs depending on whom you ask.
  3. Again, is there a point to any of this?

There was no other way to perpetuate our new liberties, including equality for all citizens.

Yes, all the citizens get equally butt-fucked by the patriarchal Christian tyrant in power.

That way was based completely on the Bible, and on the precepts God had revealed unmistakably in His Book. Without the Bible, we would never have had our Constitution.

In fact, the Bible is so important to the Constitution that it is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and the drafters of the Constitution actively resisted attempts to put religious language in the document.

The signers of the Constitution knew that full well. Has anybody ever informed you that virtually all the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution of 1787 were members of Christian denominations?

Has anybody ever informed you that literally all of them were wealthy white males, and many of them owned slaves? If the fact that most were Christian means that Christians should dominate everything, then the fact that they were also wealthy white male slave owners should mean that we should role back rights for women, blacks and the poor, right?

Some revisionists today want you to believe otherwise. When I talked about this with Bill Maher, a cynical unbeliever, he sent me an Los Angeles Times article declaring that all the framers were deists or outright atheists, not Christians.

I responded, drawing his attention to the byline, attributing the distortion of facts to a member of an atheist organization who deliberately lied, ignoring the historically recorded truth.

It’s by an atheist, so it must be false!

The truth is that the Founders were much more diverse than either Maher or Boone realize. There probably were very few outright atheists, but they certainly weren’t uniformly orthodox Christians. Many were Deists or very liberal Unitarians. Many rejected the divinity of Christ and the reality of miracles. Many viewed the Bible as a collection of useful moral tales rather than actual truth. However, it is also true that many really were devout Christians who believe all the stupid dogshit that Christians believe.

The point is that no one can claim that The Founders were a monolithic group that is totally in line with exactly what anyone believes in 2013. No one gets to claim the Founders as their endless allies.

I also sent him a quote from John Jay, appointed by President George Washington as the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, who helped form the Constitution itself:

“Providence (God) has given to our people the choice of their rulers,
And it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our
Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Why? Because it was Christians, guided by the Judeo-Christian Bible, who created the profound document guaranteeing liberty and equality to all, including atheists. They were – and are – the veins through which the blood of freedom flows!

First off, let’s look at some of the context for that quote, from Wikipedia:

Religion

Jay was a member of the Church of England, and later of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America after the American Revolution. Since 1785, Jay had been a warden of Trinity Church, New York. As Congress’s Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he supported the proposal after the Revolution that the Archbishop of Canterbury approve the ordination of bishops for the Episcopal Church in the United States.[27]He argued unsuccessfully in the provincial convention for a prohibition against Catholics holding office.[28]

Jay believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel. In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, “Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”[29]

[Emphasis added]

We can learn a few things from this.

  1. The attitude which John Jay was expressing failed to prevail, since the Constitution explicitly prohibits having any religious test for office.
  2. John Jay had a rather naive view of history, seeing as Christian rulers have provoked war over and over and over throughout the entire existence of that noxious religion.
  3. John Jay seemed to have a view of “equality” similar to Boone’s, which boils down to “Christians are better than everyone else, so all non-Christians get to be equally pushed around and disenfranchised by Christians.”
  4. The mere fact that John Jay said something doesn’t make it law.

And the blood of freedom is the Word and will of God.

No. Whenever someone brings up the “word of god”, it is almost always something along the lines of “Believe this, without evidence, or else.” That is not freedom.

So what’s my point? I hope it’s obvious.

That’s some funny shit right there.

Just as your body, and mine, is created to run on one fuel – and only one – so our America was created to operate on only one set of principles. They are our very DNA. And those principles are found only in the Bible. Yes, the Bible.

Yes, the Bible. Where God orders his chosen people to commit genocide, slavery, rape, polygamy, torture, and a host of other things that are part of our principles.

And can we at least start circling around something vaguely resembling a point at some juncture in this article?

“Separation of church and state?” Take the “church,” the institution that promulgates Bible principles, out of the “state” – and you will not have the “state” called America. It will be something else (and some today seem to prefer it), but it will not – could not – be the America that became the greatest nation in history.

Except for the part that that’s exactly what it would be. It wasn’t the Bible that created our vast industrial system, our scientific excellence or our gradual march towards expanding civil rights to more and more Americans.

Our Supreme Court is faced right now with its greatest challenge, ever.

Because whatever topic I’m discussing at the moment is, in my goldfish-like mind, the most important thing that ever happened!

By June, concerning the very definition of marriage, nine human beings will decide whether we remain “one nation under God,” governed by the God who created us and them – or take on a new fuel, the treacherous, fickle, amoral “popular opinion,” a synthetic mixture of poll results, ignorance of unchangeable biblical principle and outright hedonistic rebellion.

Yeah, fuck democracy!

Don’t you right-wingers usually say that the Supreme Court is evil because it (sometimes) overrules the popular opinion? But now it’s evil because it might reach a decision that’s in line with popular opinion?

Why don’t you assholes just admit it? You hate the concept of an independent judiciary. You hate the concept of Americans reaching their own conclusions about other Americans rather than just accepting what your church tells them to think about others. You hate the fact that most people don’t give a flying fuck about your superstitions. You hate the fact that the things that are most important in your lives don’t mean shit to the rest of us. You hate the fact that you’re losing the so-called “culture war”. And you hate the fact that the very constitutional republic you pretend to idolize is your #1 enemy in all of this. You just hate the fact that the American people have a voice, and your voice is a tiny, screechy, obnoxious minority in it.

Already this court has ruled against equality, dictating that innocent babies still in their mothers’ wombs have fewer rights than their mothers. And in so doing, they’ve ruled against life itself – at least for the near 60 million babies aborted since their infamous decision in 1973.

Actual living, breathing, feeling, thinking women should be beholden to undeveloped fetuses that don’t even have higher brain functions yet. You know. “Equality”.

If you have any knowledge at all of our Founding Fathers’ intentions and guiding principles, can you seriously imagine their considering marriage, even for a second, as anything but the union of a man and a woman?

I can seriously imagine them thinking that it’s okay to own another human being. I can also seriously imagine them thinking that a marriage is only between a man and a woman of the same race. Because that’s exactly what they did. Why should I have to align every belief I have with theirs?

Were they stupid or naïve or ignorant about human inclinations?

No, but you are. They were a product of their time. You are a sad, pathetic twat trying desperately to pretend you don’t live in yours.

And as true now as then, our concepts of morality and virtue come directly from God, through His Bible. That’s undeniable.

It’s totally deniable. “Deniable” and “Morals come from the Bible” are so close they might as well be gay fuck-buddies. Every Christian on Earth, including Holy Pat himself, denies it every day. No one has ever actually derived their moral system from the Bible. They instead adopt the moral system of those around them, and then shoehorn Bible verses into it.

His love is universal, for all of us.

God loves you. And he created a place of eternal torment where you’re destined to go if you don’t believe in him. Because that’s how love works.

But His blessings are promised only to those who honor and obey His Word.

Because that’s how you treat people you love!

When a society decides to substitute its collective will for His, it changes its spiritual and moral DNA – like pumping pig’s blood into human veins.

Again, a few things:

  1. The collective will is this thing we call democracy. Get used to it.
  2. “His” will always seems to coincide with the prejudices of whatever old white male happens to be speaking. Can’t help but notice that “He” doesn’t actually pipe up very often.
  3. Putting the blood of another species in your body won’t change your DNA, you fucking dumbshit. Your analogy sucks.

People, we must pray, and pray very earnestly, for the nine human beings who will soon decide the future of America. Only if we remain “one nation under God” will we long survive.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Anyways, let’s take the obligatory look at what the commenters at WingNutDaily have to say on this topic.

nolejoea day ago

Decent NORMAL people don’t get sexually excited over people who are of their same sex. Mentally deranged perverts do.

BobCactusFlower William Wilson5 hours ago

You mean those NORMAL people, who, when constantly confronted by a deviant sexual behavior, find anal sex between perverts ABNORMALLY disgusting?

Nope. That’s as normal as (blechh) apple pie. It’s just that the perverts are still PERVERTS and rather than be legalized, they should be caged and retrained like the filthy animals that they are.

No need to thank me!

Equality! Biblical morality! Universal love!

proclaimingGodsTruth12 hours ago

I think judgment has already come to America; only now the judgments are increasing. The fabric of America’s Christian heritage is coming apart at the seams. We are on the verge of a huge financial collapse that will devastate this land.

It’s time to get right with God, it’s time to proclaim Him in the streets, in the churches, among family – everywhere! God means business – He doesn’t joke, kid around or play games.

We’ve got over 3,000 years of people saying this shit. The well’s gotta run dry at some point, right?

Nottolate buzz13195011 hours ago

When the framers of the Constitution spoke of freedom of religion, they were referring to Christianity only. How do we know? First, the majority of them were Christians (some deist mixed in). Second, other religions were not present in the land at the time. Third, what does that have to do with what I wrote? I spoke on the issue of gay marriage and not freedom of religion.

Can’t argue with that non-reasoning!

BobCactusFlower buzz1319505 hours ago

Brilliant assessment of American founding principles notwithstanding, this country remains OURS and when you try to take it from us, you’re going to find out just how much freedom of worship costs to create and keep.

You’re going to find out that it takes a lot more than a couple of filthy communists in the White House to make God’s people accept sexual perversion, murder, and open worship of satan and your other pals….lol

Freedom for all, as long as you recognize that this country is OURS and you can fuck off!

Larry Bohannon Michael Leone11 hours ago

I can tell that you are ignorant public school student. [sic] You don’t even know the difference between “you are” and your. [sic] Why should we even listen to foolish talk. [sic]

There’s this thing you should look out for when correcting the grammar of others…

Chris Farrell Michael Leone5 hours ago

Where did you gather that the Christians only argument against so-called “gay” marriage is that “Jesus doesn’t like it?”

Marriage, to a Christian, is a covenant in which one man and one woman enter into with God.

I couldn’t possibly have gathered it from exactly what you’re saying.

BobCactusFlower Michael Leone5 hours ago

lol…….get MARRIED to a pervert homosexual? (yeah, you call them gay, but I have YET to see one even marginally cheerful)

That’s probably because they’re stuck being around you.

02word6 hours ago

As one judge said, the gay rights/same sex marriage people haven’t even been around (I mean come out) for but a few years. It’s a made up excuse to push their beliefs into society.

Yeah, fuck them! Only an asshole would do that! Now let’s get back to that part where freedom of religion only applies to Christians and America’s laws all have to be based on the particular Biblical exegesis of a small number of self-righteous bigots.

Advertisements

More Rape-ublican Bullshit

Over at Dispatches from the Culture War Ed Brayton is reporting that there is yet another bill mandating a transvaginal ultrasound (otherwise known as the Religious Rape Rod) for women seeking an abortion. The Republicans really just can’t hop off the Rape Train, can they? This time, it’s in Arkansas. Oh, Arkansas! Thank you so much for making the fact that I’m from Oklahoma seem like it’s not so bad. You guys and Texas are the best–and by best I mean worse than us.

So, what exactly does this bill entail?

The new Rapert bill would prohibit an abortion if a heartbeat is detected…

Wait. Wait wait wait. The “Rapert bill”? It’s called the “Rapert bill”? Why in the gallopin’ god-balls is it called the Rapert bill? Are they really just coming out and saying, “We Republicans want to rape women”?

As promised Sen. Jason Rapert and a gang of anti-abortion Republicans i…

The guy’s name is Jason fucking Rapert???

I had to look up “Sen. Jason Rapert” to make sure he was real and this wasn’t some kind of sick joke. Turns out, he’s real. I thought it was only in comic books that villains had such appropriate names. Do they also have state senators named Victor von Doom, Mister Sinister, and Dicky McRapes-A-Lot?

Arkansas State Senator Jason Rapert (visual approximation)

So, how does Senator Rapey Fuck-noggin describe himself?

Jason is the founder and former president of Holy Ghost Ministries, Inc. (HGM), a faith based humanitarian missions organization providing clean water and assistance to the poor and orphans in Ghana West Africa, Uganda and the Philippines.  His vision was to simply help those who cannot help themselves and has based the organization upon the idea of “Serving God by Serving Others”.

Well, God does like rape. We even have footage of him saying so. At least, I think that’s him…

Give me a moment to take a sip of beer before I read another sentence from his self-description.

Today, Jason is a financial advisor and co-owner of Rapert & Pillow Financial.

*SPPUUURRTTT*

Less surprising is his issues page.  As one might expect, he takes the evil/stupid position on pretty much every issue imaginable. I hope this name thing starts a new trend. It’ll be easier to spot the woman-hating, poor-bashing, homophobic, racist, superstitious right wing fuck-nuggets in government if the rest of them all made it this obvious that they’re evil. It might catch at least a few people’s attention if they’re asked to vote for Ralph Baby-Smasher or Jenny No-Health-Care-for-You or Money-bags McFuckThePoor. Sadly, though, I’m pretty sure they’d still get elected. There are a lot of dumb people out there, and dumb people loves them some evil.

Dumb people also love their leaders to be as dumb as they are, and vote accordingly. This case is no exception. As you might imagine, Senator Goatfucker doesn’t have a very good grasp on the facts.

“I’m asking you to stand up for life, and I believe when there is a heartbeat, based upon even the standard the Supreme Court has utilized, you cannot have a viable child without a heartbeat,” Sen. Jason Rapert, the bill’s sponsor, told lawmakers before they approved the legislation.

You can’t have a viable child with just a heartbeat either, nimrod. You obviously have no familiarity with the standard the Supreme Court has “utilized” (you can always spot a finance MBA by the fact that they can’t utilize the word “use”). Of course, familiarizing oneself with such matters would require reading, and other elitist bullshit like thinking.

And yes, the legislation passed. The Arkansas state senate voted “yes” on a bill for raping pregnant women proposed by a guy named Rapert who thinks that a heartbeat is all you need to have a child (FSM only knows how he treats his own children). Be afraid, rational people in Arkansas. Be very afraid.

Please, go.

The right wing meltdown in the wake of Obama’s re-election continues, and Joseph Farah of WingNutDaily provides some of the most entertaining conservative pants-wetting there is to be found. Remember last time, when he lamented the “division” that Obama was spreading in this country? Well, now he’s decided it’s best to encourage division to the point of full on secession (or something like it):

BETWEEN THE LINES

Time to consider separation, divorce

Exclusive: Joseph Farah says principled Americans must insulate selves from judgment

Make up your mind, Joe! Is Obama evil because he sows division, or is division exactly what we need (and by “we” I mean god-humpers)?

As with last time, don’t you think for a second that I can’t grok the hint at violence in the notion of “divorcing” the rest of the nation. The last time part of our nation declared “divorce” 600,000 people died. But I guess that’s a small price to pay for all the “principled” (read: closeted homo) Americans to retain the “right” to teach other people’s children that science is a lie.

Divorce is an ugly word.

For devout Christians and Jews, it’s a particularly unthinkable term.

There you go using that word “unthinkable” again. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you just aren’t very good at thinking?

The Bible strictly discourages it, even forbids it, except in the most exceptional circumstances.

The Bible says you should be miserable, and that one bad decision made when you were 19 years old should haunt you forever. Because God is love, as exemplified by his insistence that you persist in a loveless marriage.

But for Americans faithful to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the heritage of sacrifice and liberty that set apart this country from the rest of the world, it’s time to consider separation and divorce from those who have committed adultery.

So we should tell Newt Gingrich to fuck off. I’m down with that.

You wanna know how to spot a wingnut theocrat? Just look for people who think they have exclusive rights to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  If someone uses those documents as synonyms for “agrees with me”, then you know you’re dealing with the particularly black-and-white worldview of a god-humper.

If you think the Constitution and Declaration are 200+ year old legal documents that require careful interpretation based on the situation we currently live in, then congratulations, you’re a thinking human being. If you think Jesus wrote them down in your heart so that fags can’t find them, then you might be interested in some of the advertized “medical” remedies that WingNutDaily generously smears all over every single article it publishes. Not that they believe their target audience is stupid and gullible! What could possibly give you that idea?

The election of 2012 provides more stark evidence that we are not really one country, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We are already two peoples – those of us still loyal and faithful to the God-inspired founding American principles and those who have gone awhoring after the idols of government coercion and doing what’s right in their own eyes.

And we all know that if you spend too much time awhoring you’ll end up with asyphilis.

Simply put, we shouldn’t do what’s right in our own eyes. Rather, we should do what’s right in Joe’s eyes. He (and other fake spokespeople of god) get to tell us what we do with our own bodies in the privacy of our own home. That’s how we get to be free by having no freedom at all. It makes sense in that “unthinkable” way that everything on the religious right makes sense.

In short, as I have written before, America is flirting with profound judgment. If those of us who disapprove of the same-sex marriage, abortion, tyranny, collectivism, the coerced subversion of religious freedom and forced taxpayer support for the spreading of ungodly, unbiblical values and laws want to avoid that coming judgment, it’s time to separate ourselves wholly from participation.

I say this in all seriousness: Separating yourselves wholly from participation would be a brilliant move. It would totally catch us godless heathens off guard. I’d gladly take the coming judgment from your magical boogedy-boo a thousand times if that’s what it takes to get you people to shut the fuck up.

I don’t pretend to know exactly how this works.

No shit?

America is a big country that is thoroughly permeated with this treasonous, immoral, adulterous lifestyle.

Yeah, Joe. Everybody sucks but you. You and your bizarrely melanistic mustache are paragons of virtue and restraint, while every human being whose brain isn’t a thick mush of confused, reality-denying beliefs is awhoring after some Obama balls.

But I am convinced we’ve got to begin forming new communities of the faithful and declare our separation and independence once again, just as our courageous founders did 236 years ago. Like them, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves, our families, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

This is the kind of thing someone says shortly before they begin stockpiling baked beans and gold bullion in a wooden shack somewhere in the wilds of Bumfuckistan, Montana. In their eyes, they have just committed a holy and noble act that will someday be recounted in reverent tones by future hagiographers. In the eyes of pretty much everyone else, they might as well be building a blanket fort in their parents’ bedroom. Except for the fact that that stockpile also likely includes a lot of guns with real ammunition. It’s like a Blanket Fort of Doom.

Barring a miracle, I don’t believe reconciliation with those who have gone awhoring is a possibility.

Have you tried talking with those who go awhoring? Or were they too busy awhoring? And why do we keep coming back to the word “awhoring”?

I’m sorry, I just don’t have much in common with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and George Soros and Bruce Springsteen (even though we are both from New Jersey) and George Clooney and these other looneys. [sic]

Let me get this straight. You’re ready to secede from the Union just because the right lost an election, but the people who intend to keep living their normal lives in disagreement with you are the loonies? (And yes, that’s how it’s spelled.)

Barack Obama was right about one thing: Whatever it once was, America is no longer a Christian nation.

It never was to begin with, no matter what you’re fact-free revisionist history might say.

And now it’s clear that more than half the population has turned its back on God and His Commandments.

That’s funny, because just a few days ago you published an op-ed claiming that the election results must have been faked and Obama couldn’t have won.

That gives a little window into how a mind like Farah’s works. One moment he’s declaring we’ve incurred god’s judgment. The next he’s saying the majority couldn’t have elected Obama. Then shortly thereafter he’s back to saying Obama won and godly folk need to just leave the country.

That annoying fact that Obama is still president keeps bouncing around inside his little monkey mind, and he’s desperately trying to fit it into his worldview at any given moment, without paying any attention to whether his current rationalization is in any way consistent with any of his past rationalizations. So long as it fits in this place at this moment, his short memory and inability to consider the future insure that he will be able to comfort himself.  What do you want to bet that in a few years, Farah hasn’t seceded, still hates Obama, still blames the majority of Americans for electing him while insisting that they couldn’t have, and doesn’t remember a damn thing about what he wrote in this current op-ed?

In another time, we would call what I am talking about “secession.” But secession can only work when there is enough common ground among people in geographic regions or states. That does not seem to be the case today. The division we see is a division largely between city dwellers and those who live in suburban and rural areas of the country.

Make no mistake. “City dwellers” is just another term for “black people” and “people who live next to black people and don’t mind it”.

We have little in common except that those who live in the cities believe they have a right to dictate to those of us who do not.

They dictate things like “Don’t dictate to gay people or women”. Stupid city dwellers, always dictating.

They believe they have the right to exploit us, take our property for their own use and tell us how to live.

I believe that that was Mitt Romney’s campaign slogan, if you replace “city dweller” with “wealthy white asshole”.

This is very much like the situation our founders faced – except our oppressors don’t live on another continent, they live amongst us.

It’s nothing like their situation. But don’t let that stop you from implying that your readers should kill liberals and gays and blacks.

I don’t have all the answers.

No shit?

I’m just a journalist and a businessman and a follower of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You suck at the first two, but there’s really no wrong way to do the third, seeing as it’s all make believe. I guess you can console yourself with the knowledge that you’ve succeeded at something a five-year-old can do.

But it’s past time to begin talking about how this separation takes place. It’s past time to begin talking about how this divorce takes place. It’s past time to begin talking about how we deal with the increasing judgment that is taking place right now.

And so Joe closes his poopy-pants rant with more hollow gibberish, having unsurprisingly offered his audience nothing but substance-free innuendo and drooling bromides about Jesus. His 652 words amount to nothing more than, “Fuck people who don’t think like I do. I’m just not gonna talk to them any more. And if any of my readers have guns…wink wink nudge nudge say no more say no more…”

What I hope is that this puerile attitude on the part of many right wing nuts gets directed towards the Republican Party, a party that clearly is getting tired of its dumbfuck base and would rather not babble on about Jesus and gays and abortion any more. WingNutDaily already has stupid articles calling for the formation of a third party, and if that actually happens–with the conservative movement breaking off to form a Shitheads Only Party–that would force the Republicans to the left to claim independents, and the Democrats even further left. That could be a good thing for everyone. The SOP would have little hope in national elections, and maybe the Republicans and Democrats could start focusing on real issues for once.

 

EDIT 11/16/2012: Ed Brayton gets in on the Farah-Bashing fun. I had it first, damn it! Find your own poorly written psycho op-eds to bash! 😉

Freedom for me, but not for thee

I saw Ed Brayton’s brief commentary on this article and had to throw in my two cents. The article is in WorldNutDaily, so you already know it’s gonna be goatballs crazy. But even by WND standards, it’s a whopper. The author, Erik Rush, calls his column “The Other Rush”, which one would think means that he’s happy being second fiddle to America’s most notoriously bloviating gas bag. But it seems rather that he’s trying to one-up Limbaugh in terms of just what a hateful right wing authoritarian he can be.

The title lets you know exactly what you’re in for:

How to disarm the Mainstream Media
Exclusive: Erik Rush wants ‘treasonous’ reporters prosecuted for misuse of free speech

“Misuse” of free speech isn’t very clearly defined in US law, Holmes’ overrated “fire in a crowded theater” standard notwithstanding. Regardless, if the purpose is to “disarm” the “mainstream media”, then it’s pretty clear that whatever this is about, it’s unconstitutional. The First Amendment explicitly protects the press from being disarmed. Kinda like how all those rednecks keep reminding us the Second Amendment does for American gun owners. Except in this case, the media isn’t actually gonna blow anybody’s head off.

Well, it’s Free Speech Week, an annual celebration of Americans’ right to free speech hosted by the Media Institute. Partnering organizations include media organizations across the political spectrum. What’s ironic is the extent to which Americans’ free speech is under assault at present. While this is more evident among the non-liberal, non-secular folks among us, this oppression is just part of a design that will ultimately stifle all of our speech and liberties to varying extents.

I think we need to start a Self Awareness Week. During Self Awareness Week, people will be encouraged to pay attention not only to what they’re doing but also to the context in which it’s done, and to notice things like the fact that you’re publishing this on the internet without any repercussions whatsoever so obviously no one has taken away your free speech you stupid fuck.

Since it is Free Speech Week, I can’t think of a more perfect time to clarify just what free speech is and, more importantly, what it is not.

Translation: I’m gonna make sure free speech only applies to “non-liberal, non-secular folk”.

I’m going to get ahead of myself here and presuppose a Mitt Romney victory in November. This is the only scenario in which America will be able to get her feet back under her, so to speak, and plot a course out of the bog in which President Obama has situated us. An Obama re-election will essentially mean a national bracing for impact, and all bets may be off with regard to preserving our liberties to any meaningful degree.

What liberties, exactly, has Obama taken from you? At least with Bush people could point to specific legislation, the PATRIOT Act, for example, which expressly curtailed certain freedoms. But what has Obama done that affects anyone’s freedom? Usually the “freedom” people accuse Obama of taking away is the “freedom” to take away other freedoms, such as the “right” to deny birth control coverage to an employee. And, as we’ll see, the “freedom” to take away other people’s freedoms is exactly the kind of “freedom” Rush wants to protect.

Yes, many Americans are now cognizant of the fact that progressives have “progressed” America dangerously close to being a Marxist-socialist nation and that we are collectively responsible for not having checked that progress.

Have you ever read the writings of Marx or any other socialist? America is nothing like the society they envisioned. It’s not even close. America is about as Marxist as Honey Boo Boo is talented.

…there are other widespread, organized threats to America’s ongoing concern as a representative republic with guaranteed personal liberties, free speech foremost among them.

Here, I am speaking of the press

Fucking First Amendment! It violates the First Amendment! Or something…

the conglomeration of national broadcast, digital and print media organizations that has been incrementally packed with ideological liberals and socialists, and so has disqualified itself as the impartial government watchdog it once was.

Okay, a few things here. 1.) If you think the media was ever impartial, I’ve got three words for you: William Randolf Hearst. 2.) Being liberal disqualifies you from being a government watchdog? I see what you did there. 3.) The existence of Fox News contradicts all such “liberal mainstream media” demagoguery. 4.) HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS AFFECT YOUR FREE SPEECH? You can’t have free speech so long as liberals have free speech? You do realize that free speech doesn’t mean freedom from being disagreed with.

Oh, wait, we’re operating on the right wing conception of “freedom”, which means “taking freedom from others.”

During my lifetime, I have seen the press become an advance force for social engineering and global socialism.

During my lifetime I’ve seen the press become an ADHD fever dream of sensationalistic headlines and flashy graphics that convey almost no information and perpetuate the “careers” of people like Paris Hilton far beyond their expiration dates. But, yeah, global socialism and all that.

In the matter of this president, the press largely facilitated the ascension of Barack Obama. The instances wherein they have promoted, shielded and aided him are beyond enumeration.

This goes beyond such things as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and his man crush on Obama – I’m talking about treasonous collusion.

You keep using that word “treason”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And how exactly is supporting the President “treason”? When people on Fox gushed about Bush, was that treason too?

One particularly scandalous incident occurred during the second presidential debate, when CNN moderator Candy Crowley made an interjection that appeared to have been as spontaneous as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ murder, and which led to a solid point scored for Obama.

Romney said something which was demonstrably false, and she asserted so. I don’t know if it’s flattering or frightening that you see “true” as meaning “a solid point for Obama”.

Most recently, after Mitt Romney brought up Obama’s 2009 “Apology Tour,” the press did their best to support Obama’s claim that this never happened, despite boundless reams of footage that exist chronicling the event.

Well, the footage proves that there was a tour. But it’s the whole “apology tour” thing that the press is denying. And so they should, as the tour had nothing to do with apologies. But when exactly do you plan to get to the part where any of this is treason?

In perhaps the worst recent transgression, on Oct. 21, Phoenix, Ariz., CBS affiliate KPHO ran a lower-third graphic indicating that President Obama had won the Nov. 6 election over Gov. Mitt Romney. A technician’s cute stunt, or subliminal propaganda? In any case, it was technically a prosecutable offense the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission should be all over.

What’s that? Some low level techie at a local TV affiliate in Arizona made a dumb mistake? Kill him! Kill him!

You think I’m kidding about the kill him part?

It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies. If they had, it is likely that their modus operandi would be similar to that for any faction found guilty of high crimes. Trials for treason and the requisite sentences would apply, and I would have no qualms about seeing such sentences executed, no matter how severe.

Still think I’m kidding? Treason is a capital crime, so Rush is in fact saying that people who support liberalism in the media should be killed. No joke.

And as for the “improbable” situation that Rush alludes to, something of this nature, in which people were saying “un-American” things in the press like “Let’s secede from the Union”, did in fact happen to our founders, culminating in the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. And SOME of them, such as John Adams, did support rounding up dissenters and jailing them. OTHERS, such a Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, opposed the act. The Founders weren’t a homogeneous unit that agreed on everything. They had disagreements just like everybody else. And, in the case of the Alien and Sedition Act, it would surely be ruled unconstitutional today, and it led to numerous problems for the people who supported it. In fact, Jefferson (a Democratic-Republican) pardoned those convicted under the act, and then turned around and used the act against the very Federalists who had originally supported it!

The lesson? As our founders learned, if you support laws to prosecute your enemies for their speech, it won’t be long before that law is turned around and used on you. So don’t support such laws. But learning this lesson requires self awareness and foresight, things which are entirely lacking in today’s right wing.

This is not likely to occur, however. Radio personality and nascent media mogul Glenn Beck…

*Snort* Just a sec. I gotta take a moment to laugh at even the suggestion that Glenn Beck is a “media mogul”. I’m better now, please continue…

…has the intention of putting the establishment press out of business. While I wish him every success, it doesn’t seem likely that he will accomplish this through his organizations alone. In addition to the advent of powerful alternative media sources, I believe it will be necessary to codify – or reaffirm – the nature of crimes against the Constitution and the American people. In this manner, we can thwart the designs not only of the press, but all global socialists operating in America.

Again, what are these crimes, other than the “crimes” of disagreeing with you and (allegedly) supporting a candidate that you don’t support? And who the hell are these global socialists? And what exactly is so threatening about the media?

Let me check up on our Illuminati Lizard People Overlords over at CNN just to see what dastardly plots are unfolding… Oh God. They have a headline on the front page of their website that reads “‘Dancing With The Stars’ Goes Country”. Rush was right! This truly is the end!

Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).

So God gave you the “liberty” of not having other people vocalize opinions that differ from your own? And how much of a fucking pussy are you if you can’t even handle people in the media saying things you disagree with?

The wingnuts, if we took them seriously, would have us believe that America is simultaneously the strongest country on Earth and so fragile that it could be taken down by puffy faced blabberers like Chris Matthews. And that the only way to protect liberty is to take it away. And that we should make government smaller by expanding its ability to control individual expression. And that our unbridled, exploitative capitalist economy is “Marxist” and should be replaced by unbridled, exploitative capitalism. And that Chuck Norris has interesting things to say.

This is a very important concept to consider, because it is based on these presumptions of protected speech and equal protection for all that progressives and socialists have engaged in their predation upon our liberties.

They think they can effect change through free speech! How un-American! Don’t they know that here in America we effect change by shutting down people who suggest we might need to change something?

If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.

The right wing sure is getting bold, isn’t it? My guess is that ten years ago WorldNutDaily would never have published such an unambiguous call for all those who oppose them to be silenced by force. Fascism was indecorous back then. But now, as a lovely infographic over at xkcd illustrates, the far right has pushed itself into the mainstream by taking over a big chunk of Congress (especially the House), and as the mainstream becomes more looney, the looneys see this as an opportunity to push the boundaries of “acceptable” lunacy.

The Overton Window has shifted, and we’re now living in a world where right wing authoritarianism can rear its ugly head unabashed and unafraid. Tell rape victims that God wants them to have that child? Sure. Declare that corporations are people? Why not. Call 47% of Americans freeloaders and unapologetically praise the greed of the wealthiest Americans? Of course! Transvaginal ultrasounds? Disenfranchising black voters? More warmongering with Iran after two failed wars? Second Amendment remedies? Women who use birth control are sluts? Football players should be silenced when they express an opinion? Jail people for being liberal in public on the charge of crimes against the constitution? Hey, the sky’s the limit!

Ed (not Brayton) over at Gin and Tacos gave a rather bleak assessment of our current cultural dialogue. While I’m not as pessimistic as he is, I have to agree that we as liberals have failed at something basic. In our misguided attempts to be “fair and balanced”, we’ve let the meaning of terms shift (including the term “fair and balanced”), and we’ve allowed the looniest of the far right lunatics to control the tenor of the debate and say the most ludicrous things without fear of reprisal or scorn.

Of course, I’m not a lunatic like Rush, and under no circumstances should even lunatics being censored just for disagreeing (I say this even when it comes to “hate speech” laws in Canada and Europe that penalize people for spouting homophobic garbage). But allowing free speech should never mean failing to mock and deride people who says stupid or bigoted things. Just look at Rush’s article for an example of how dangerous it is to play the “respect people’s beliefs” gambit. Rush is so emboldened that he now believes it is a CRIME to disagree with him. He’s grown so accustomed to seeing the media put kid gloves on when dealing with creationists, global warming deniers, market dogmatists, homophobes, and all sorts of goatfucking crazy people that he now perceives the mere presence of liberals to be treasonous.

When somebody says something stupid, there should be a chorus of dissenters pointing out how wrong and stupid the claim is. Of course the stupid person will say that being called stupid is a violation of the First Amendment, but the fact that he or she believes this is part of what makes him or her stupid. The people with truly indefensible ideas can’t withstand scrutiny, so their only recourse is to silence those who would contradict them. Bad ideas need external, non-intellectual support. And as long as we have this mentality of “respecting beliefs” no matter how insane or demonstrably false those beliefs are, we are giving them that support, and opening a window for them to completely alter how our nation discusses important issues.

I say let the wingnuts like Rush have their word. But then I’m gonna have my word. And if the wingnuts don’t like it, they can go fuck themselves.

Not helping

I’m a big fan of secularism and separation of church and state. But that doesn’t mean that everything done in the name of those causes is a good idea. Sometimes, it’s downright silly, and the recent kerfuffle over LSU’s strategically airbrushed photo of fans in a promotional email is a good example of pro-secularist silliness. Here’s the original photo:

And here’s what they sent out in their email to students and fans:

At first glance, they may not seem that different. But a closer look reveals that the young men in the picture had crosses painted on the upper left sides of their chests. These crosses were airbrushed out of the email version of the photo. It turns out that these guys are part of a Christian themed LSU Tigers fan club. Now, a Christian Tigers fan club is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of. Why the fuck would the supposed Ruler of the Entire Universe give a fuck about football? And what the fuck does Jesus have to do with what sports team you root for? Did he die on the cross so that South Carolina would lose? Does god hate Steve Spurrier? And what about all the people on the other team praying that LSU would lose? Did god just say “Fuck ’em” and let USC’s quarterback get injured because he admires The Hat?

And the silliness doesn’t end there. One of the god-flogging Tiger fans explained why he felt the need to paint a cross on his chest:

“The cross painting is important to me because it represents who I am as a Christ follower, and it reminds me who I need to act like in Death Valley.”

What would Jesus do? Apparently he’d point at the camera and make a douche-face. And apparently this guy needs to paint meaningless symbols on his chest in order to remember that he should act like a decent human being. It’s kinda like how I paint the batman symbol on my forehead to remind myself not to eat babies. You know, normal human behavior.

But, whatever. Regardless of how inane it is, these guys have every right to display their childish beliefs on their chests all day long if that’s what they want. So why would the school airbrush it out? According to Yahoo! Sports, the university censored the crosses because

“We don’t want to imply we are making any religious or political statements, so we air-brushed it out,”

Well, that’s stupid. Nothing about the picture implies anything about the SCHOOL making any statements at all. It’s a picture of fans. The fans are making the statement, not the school. If the school accompanied the picture with a caption saying, “Geaux Tigers! Oh, and Jesus loves you, as we demonstrate with this photo of silly looking young people with a lack of perspective,” then, yeah, that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause. But as merely a photo of fans with no message of endorsement from the university, how are the crosses a problem?

What if a fan is wearing a cross necklace? Would they airbrush that out too? What if they were wearing a shirt from their local church? What about a yarmulke? A turban? If we follow the university’s reasoning here, then they can’t show fans wearing any kind of religious or political attire whatsoever without “endorsing” it. Fuck, if that’s the case, I’m gonna declare Ed Hardy and Affliction to be religions so I never have to see one of their t-shirts in a broadcast ever again. Call it DoucheBrushing.

Yes, LSU is a public university, and yes, that means they should never endorse any religion. But no, that doesn’t mean they have to censor images of their fans who happen to have donned some kind of religious accoutrements. And apparently, I also have to insist that it’s censorship, because…

The school, in a statement, indicated that it was not trying to censor any views, but rather to avoid the appearance of endorsing one.

Again, that’s stupid. It is in fact censorship, so if they weren’t trying to censor, they failed; and fans independently expressing their views does not imply university endorsement. The only way I could see it implying endorsement would be if the school were deliberately singling out overtly Christ-humping fans for their promotional material in an attempt to imply that real fans are overt Christ-humpers. But since they’re not doing that, I see no need to censor the photo.

This kind of petty bullshit in the name of secularism really annoys me. It doesn’t help the cause, and it just gives the theocrats ammo for their bullshit crusade against anyone who thinks that church and state should be separate entities. It’s easy to confirm this by looking at the comments on the Yahoo! article, which are full of right wingers blathering on and on about all the false stereotypes they have of secularists. Here’s one example:

Jim B  •  12 hours ago Report Abuse

If I have not offended you yet, I am sorry, I will get around to you as soon as I can

You’ll have difficulty offending me, Jim B., because I rarely feel offended or appalled by anything at all. It’s just my nature. Religion doesn’t offend me. I just think its stupid and intrusive and a pointless waste of resources. And the same goes for a lot of the shit I stand for. I don’t oppose racism or sexism or homophobia because they offend me (they rarely do), but because I think they’re stupid, destructive, backwards bullshit.

But whenever someone does something silly and unnecessary in the name of secularism, as LSU has done, it feeds this myth that someone would only oppose theocracy because they’re “offended” by Christianity.

But there’s also another problem, and a single phrase in the article exemplifies it:

…someone somewhere inside LSU decided not to mix football and religion.

Football and religion get mixed all the time! I’ve written about this before. Coaches at public universities force their religion on their players all the time. They have team prayers. They “share the Gospel” (which means take advantage of their position of authority to lecture their players about the Gospel).  Public prayers are held at football games on the field. This kind of shit happens at almost every football game, and unlike the photo of fans, it is a real violation of the Establishment clause. But the schools do nothing about it.

There are plenty of violations of separation of church and state going on in college football. But it’s not the fans doing it. Primarily, it’s the coaches. If LSU really didn’t want to mix religion and football, they’d be telling Les Miles to respect his non-Christian players and not have team prayers, not censoring silly images of idiots in body paint. But really, all they care about is not getting in trouble. So they ignore actual Establishment Clause violations and censor non-violations. And in doing so, they throw chum to the right wing feeding frenzy looking for anything they can hold up to show how oppressive it is to be in the dominant majority.

LSU, you are not helping.